DECISION NOTICE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Bennett Area Grazing Allotments

Transcription

1 Background DECISION NOTICE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Bennett Area Grazing Allotments USDA Forest Service Canyon Lakes Ranger District, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Larimer County, Colorado October 2007 The Bennett Area, located on National Forest System lands east of the Mummy Range of northcentral Colorado (DN, App. A), has two cattle and horse grazing allotments that have been utilized by local ranchers for many decades. The Bennett Creek Allotment is currently grazed by one permittee and the permit allows for a total of 140 cow/calf pairs during the summer season. The Elk Park Allotment is currently vacant. In 2006 the Forest Service began analyzing the resource conditions of these allotments so that new allotment management plans could be developed under the procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These were chosen as a group for resource analysis following a schedule developed for the Rescission Act of Allotment management plans (AMPs) that guide operations of these allotments were prepared during the 1960s and 1980s, prior to the completion of the Revised Forest Plan in In this document I will specify my management decision that will provide an opportunity for the Forest Service and the permittees to work together to accomplish the purpose and need for action. This action is needed to incorporate management practices into the new AMPs to maintain desirable existing conditions and to improve those riparian resources that are not currently meeting desired conditions (Environmental Assessment, p. 3-4). New AMPs are also necessary to bring the allotments into compliance with the Forest Plan by incorporating grazing management goals, standards, and guidelines. The environmental assessment (EA) documents the analysis of three alternatives that include action to: continue as is, cease grazing, and graze under new AMPs with an adaptive management strategy. One of the grazing alternatives was developed in response to the key issues of riparian conditions and outdated allotment boundaries. Another alternative would continue existing management without any specified changes and another alternative considered no grazing as a viable action to also compare its environmental consequences relative to the two grazing alternatives. Purpose and Need The purpose of this action is to allow for permitted domestic livestock grazing of available forage in a manner that maintains or improves conditions towards achieving Forest Plan objectives and desired conditions. The basis of this action is to prepare new AMPs with the purpose to address relevant resource issues involving the grazing of livestock. Allowing for permitted domestic livestock grazing of available forage is desirable because of the following: 1

2 1) Where consistent with other multiple-use goals and objectives, there is Congressional intent to allow livestock grazing on suitable lands (Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960; Wilderness Act of 1964; Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974; Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976; National Forest Management Act of 1976). 2) The project area contains lands identified as suitable for domestic livestock grazing in the Forest Plan, and continued domestic livestock grazing is consistent with the goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines of the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, Chapters I, II, and III). 3) It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable for livestock grazing consistent with land management plans (36 CFR (c); Forest Service Manual [FSM] ). 4) It is Forest Service policy to continue contributions to the economic and social well-being of people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities that depend on rangeland resources for their livelihood (FSM ). 5) The Forest Plan, which directs the management of lands contained within this Analysis Area, has as one of its goals to: Provide forage for both wildlife and domestic livestock in a manner consistent with other resource objectives and environmental constraints (Forest Plan, Chapter I, p. 25). The purpose focuses on the need to improve the long-term health of riparian areas, a need for allotment boundary changes, repair/reconstruction of water developments, and modifications of grazing operations that improve livestock distribution and forage utilization. Action is needed to incorporate management practices into new AMPs. These new plans would then be implemented to maintain desirable existing resource conditions and to improve those riparian resources that are currently not meeting desired conditions. Decision Framework I have reviewed three potential courses of action (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) in order to address the following considerations: 1) Whether to continue grazing at some level on the allotments, leave as vacant, or close them; 2) Whether to prepare new AMPs, or operate with the old ones; 3) How best to incorporate Forest Plan direction into new AMPs; and 4) How best to respond to the key issues associated with the proposed action. The Environmental Assessment provides a complete description of the alternatives and the basis for which they were developed. I have carefully considered the public comment, issues, and documentation of analysis for the proposed action and alternative courses of action. Appendix A of this Decision Notice summarizes my responses to the public comments on the Environmental Assessment. It is my determination that the issues have been addressed and the assessment is adequate to move forward with a decision. 2

3 Decision Based upon my review of the alternatives, I have decided to select Alternative 3 (EA, p ). Alternative 3 continues grazing in the Bennett Creek Allotment based on a new AMP, incorporating adaptive management that shall provide the permittee flexibility in changing either stock numbers or seasonal timing (or in combination) if necessary within the permit limits to meet the Forest Service objectives for improving riparian conditions and modifying allotment boundaries. Alternative 3 will maintain the Elk Park Allotment as vacant. Alternative 3 incorporates adaptive management and other actions (EA, p ) for the Bennett Creek Allotment, including boundary changes as identified (EA, p. 13, 16, 18). Measures associated with implementing Alternative 3 include monitoring as described in Appendix A of the EA. In this decision I am authorizing the following items: Alternative 3, also referred to as the proposed action, is based on adaptive management, a process that uses monitoring information to determine if management changes are needed. It is a process that allows the Forest Service to manage within times of uncertainty and changing conditions over time. It gives the authorized officer the flexibility to adapt to change. This Alternative strives to resolve the disparity between Forest Plan desired conditions and the existing conditions in the Analysis Area (within the scope of the analysis, i.e., the analysis is limited to evaluating the appropriate level of livestock grazing, given considerations of rangeland condition and other multiple-use goals and objectives). Permit Actions A new term grazing permit will be issued to the current permittee on the Bennett Creek Allotment. This permit will provide for the season of grazing and stocking levels as follows: Allotment # Livestock Class Season Bennett Creek 150 cow w/calf June 16 - September 30 Elk Park Vacant Action for Bennett Creek Allotment Management of livestock and the allotment would include the following actions: Livestock would graze a pasture only once in any given year, unless otherwise authorized. Proper utilization on uplands is within Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Livestock would be intensively managed in order to meet site-specific stubble height requirements (as per the Forest Plan) noted below: o In selected functional-at-risk stream reaches, there would be at least six inches of stubble height on tall sedges at the end of each grazing season, or at the end of the growing season, whichever is later. Selected areas will be identified in the AMP. 3

4 o In selected riparian areas that are properly functioning, there would be at least four inches of stubble height on tall sedges at the end of each grazing season, or at the end of the growing season, whichever is later. Selected areas will be identified in the AMP. When stubble height criteria are met, livestock would be moved or rotated into other units/pastures of the allotment. Riding/herding cattle would be required weekly or more as needed and weekly logs will be relayed to the Forest Officer. Salt or other supplement would not be placed within ¼ mile of riparian areas, live water, developed water resources, or in recent timber harvest units. Salt or other supplement would be used to encourage livestock to use secondary range and transitory range as available. Implementation monitoring would be conducted on a yearly basis to determine compliance/adherence to permit terms and conditions. Effectiveness monitoring will be based on observations made during implementation monitoring. Permittees have the responsibility to maintain fences and water developments. The former School Section (Section 36, T 8N, R73W) would be utilized as a riparian/holding pasture in the Bennett Creek Allotment. This pasture will be available for use five days within the season of use for no more than 150 cattle (pairs). Stocking would be increased to 150 cow with calf pairs during the season from June 16 September 30. Proposed stocking of an additional 10 pairs for the same season is within the natural capacity of the primary range and with adequate forage reserves available in the secondary and transitory range. Grazing would be managed such that livestock are able to utilize the four areas of the allotment, to include the areas of Lower Bennett, Jack s Gulch, Salt Cabin, and Mineral Springs. The Dadd Gulch Trail would be used to move cattle onto the allotment. Stock would temporarily be held in Indian Meadows until herding is started. The allotment boundaries involving the Bennett Creek, Elk Park, and Poverty Allotments would be reconfigured. These three allotments converge in the Fish Creek locale and involve the former School Section in actual use. Fence construction/repair will be addressed as needed due to the boundary changes. 4

5 Bennett Creek Allotment Improvement Actions A portable corral for stock holding and transport would be located along FS Road 139 in Section 13, T8N, R73W. A corral site would allow the permittee to improve the efficiency of holding livestock for separation and transport by semi-truck. The Forest Service agrees that the proposed site for a portable corral set-up would be appropriate for such use. A new spring would be constructed in Section 15 (T8N, R73W) near Salt Cabin Park. This spring would allow livestock to disperse their use in and around the park area and alleviate use of the nearby Bennett Creek riparian area, which provides the current source of water. Quaker Spring s (Section 11, T8N, R73W) overflow area would be fenced to prevent damage (trampling) to the site s moist soils. Mineral Springs will be reconstructed in a manner that water flow would be piped from a natural spring source, rather than stream flow (not a reliable source of water season-long). Bedsprings Spring will be repaired to proper working order, allowing for an adequate water supply in this area. Repairs to the pipe which transports water from the cistern to the tank are needed. West Gooseberry Spring will be repaired/reconstructed. The water flow pipe is cracked at this development. Long Draw Spring is not currently functional, reconstruction of this spring will occur when funding is available. Long Draw Spring is needed to allow for proper stock utilization and distribution east of the Pingree Park Road (east of Jack s Gulch). Range exclosures (2) would be maintained cooperatively with Colorado State University to allow for academic study. Evaluation and Monitoring (DN, App. B) If evaluation indicates that progress is not being made toward meeting desired conditions within the implementation timeframe, management will be reevaluated and a decision made either to stay the course or to follow a different course of action. If the livestock operators are unable to implement management practices to meet or further desired conditions, the stocking rate and season of use will be reduced to the level dictated by monitoring results. Additional reductions in the stocking rate and season of use will continue until demonstrated progress is made, as evidenced by monitoring and inventory data collected using methods in the R2 5

6 Rangeland Analysis and Management Guide. Changes will be reflected in the Annual Operating Provisions, and/or Term Grazing Permit, as needed. Monitoring (refer to Appendix B) Implementation monitoring will include standard permit administration such as livestock counts, on and off date schedule adherence, checking that cattle are in correct pastures at appropriate times, and inspecting salting practices for compliance with the AOP. Effectiveness monitoring will be conducted to evaluate (in key areas) rangeland condition and trend following R2 Rangeland Analysis and Management Guide. Selected sites will at a minimum include riparian areas along Bennett Creek, Salt Cabin Park, and the open meadows near Bedsprings Spring. Effectiveness monitoring would include assessment of riparian conditions prior to the beginning of the next Environmental Assessment process in approximately 10 years. Action for Elk Park Allotment The Elk Park Allotment will remain vacant with implementation of Alternative 3. Previous management of the allotment resulted in over utilization on the former School Section (Section 36), which is not contained within the Elk Park Allotment boundary. The lack of perimeter and drift fencing, access onto the allotment, and a new intense management plan would prove very costly to both the Forest Service and potential permittee. Due to the high cost of improving and managing the allotment by the Forest Service and permittee, the value of issuing a new grazing permit for 20 cow with calf pairs, season-long, would not prove to be economically beneficial to either party. Noxious Weeds Mapping of infestations and treatment of weeds through herbicide application would continue under the District s current weed management strategy (Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland Noxious Weed Management Plan, April 2003). Decision Rationale In considering the three alternatives, I looked at the opportunity to continue grazing on both allotments while responding to the key issues. Grazing on the allotments has been a historical and traditional use of the rangelands and I believe that conservation of the resources will be continued with proper management. In addition, I considered the need to bring the management of these allotments into conformity with the Forest Plan. Alternative 3 will best meet the need for action to continue successful management practices on the Bennett Creek Allotment and to progress towards desirable conditions for those sites where action is needed. The alternative focuses on key areas within the allotment in need of recovery in a manner that allows both the Forest Service and permittee to work cooperatively to implement practical solutions. The adaptive management strategy enhances my ability to modify management practices as needed without having to formally modify the AMP for each individual change. 6

7 Alternative 3 utilizes current rangeland analysis and monitoring methods that will serve as a basis for making adjustments as the action is implemented over time. This provides great utility in measuring progress towards desirable conditions and helps to focus and guide management efforts in the right places. Appendix A of the EA displays some of the methods that are included as a basis for designing the AMP. Rangeland conservation measures have been built into the design of Alternative 3 (EA p ) and specific measures conducted in the future will depend upon the progress of meeting desired resource conditions. Alternative 3 is expected to achieve the following objectives: 1) Continue grazing at sustainable levels while contributing towards maintenance and improvement of rangeland conditions. Rangeland conditions are largely in good condition with stable to increasing trends. This alternative would maintain those conditions and trends. 2) Reserve sufficient forage for the needs of wildlife. The proper use level of 45% would continue to be the standard, but may be adjusted from year to year depending upon projected conditions. 3) Improve riparian areas by promoting more effective distribution of livestock on the allotment including the use of stubble height criteria, proper salting, and herding. Fencing would also be used to control livestock access to areas where recovery and protection is identified through monitoring. 4) Issuance of a grazing permit with term status (10 years) to provide stability for livestock operations dependent on National Forest System lands and other livestock operations in the vicinity. 5) Continue control of noxious weeds in order to protect the range plant communities and prevent spread onto other lands. Control measures are being implemented in and around the project area through the Arapaho and Roosevelt Forests Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan. Other Alternatives Considered Alternative 1 Alternative 1 provides for the same numbers of livestock and grazing season without any updates or revisions of existing AMPs. Current grazing practices would not be formally modified, but may be adjusted through annual operating provisions issued to the permittees. New AMPs would not include management direction to address the purpose and need for action. I therefore did not select Alternative 1 because it did not respond to the purpose and need, there is no guidance from updated AMPs, and would not include management direction from the Forest Plan. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 discontinues permitted livestock grazing in both allotments. A two-year period would be required to cancel existing livestock permits, allowing livestock to graze during this period. Once permits are canceled the allotments would be placed in a closed status; therefore, no new permits would be issued for livestock grazing. This alternative is included in the analysis for consideration of environmental consequences without livestock grazing. I did not select Alternative 2 because Alternative 3 provides for continued grazing on the Bennett Creek Allotment and incorporates 7

8 grazing conservation measures that meet or move the allotment towards desired rangeland conditions. Public Involvement As described in the Background section, the need for this action arose in 1995 under the Rescission Act. The Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests established a 15-year schedule of allotment analysis in accordance with the Rescission Act. A proposal to update these particular AMPs was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions in April The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for initial comment during scoping, February 13 March 14, In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the agency informed the general public of the proposal by publishing a legal notice describing the proposal. This was published on February 13, 2006, in the Fort Collins Coloradoan newspaper. Using the comments from the public, other agencies, and American Indian tribes, the interdisciplinary team identified four key issues regarding the effects of the proposed action (EA, p 7-8). To address these issues, the Forest Service created the alternatives described above. On November 22, 2006, the EA was sent to individuals who: 1) expressed interest, 2) previously commented, or 3) are involved as permittees. The legal ad for public notice requesting comments on the EA was published in the Coloradoan on November 22, A 30-day comment period concluded on December 21, 2006, during which four written comment letters were received. Finding of No Significant Impact After considering the environmental effects described in the EA and the effectiveness of the project design measures in this decision, I have determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR ). Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. I base my finding on the following points. 1) Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. The expected effects of the project to rangeland health, wildlife habitat, soil, watershed, fisheries, and other resources were disclosed in the EA. These effects, both adverse and beneficial, are not considered to be significant (EA, Chapter III). In addition, the implementation of project design measures described in Chapter II and Appendix A of the EA will keep project impacts below the level of significance. 2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. The grazing of livestock in the Bennett project area has occurred for decades and remains a common use of the lands. During the known history of grazing within the area there have been no issues that are related to the safety and welfare of the public; therefore, I conclude that the action alternatives will not pose a threat to public health or safety. 8

9 3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. None of the action alternatives would affect the unique characteristics of park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. This project is in proximity to historic or cultural resources and has the potential to impact these resources. In compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Canyon Lakes Ranger District would not proceed with the proposed action until a report on these activities and their potential to affect historic properties is submitted to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and SHPO concurs with the determinations of no historic properties affected. Based upon the identification of unique or special areas in the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and the application of appropriate mitigation measures and on-site inventories, I conclude that there will be no significant effects on unique or special resource characteristics. 4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. While livestock grazing on public lands may be opposed in general by certain members of the public, I do not consider the effects of the action, in this case to continue grazing, to be highly controversial. Livestock grazing on the allotments has been a traditional use of the lands. 5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. This action is common with past actions of allowing livestock grazing on National Forest lands and presents generally similar effects to the human environment. The Interdisciplinary Team conducting the analysis used scientifically acceptable methods to measure the effects of the proposed action and found that there were no substantial risks due to uncertain, unique, or unknown consequences on the human environment. I concur with these findings. 6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. The action adheres to agency regulations and policy for authorizing and administering livestock grazing on National Forest System lands. My decision falls within the framework of this regulatory process and would, therefore, not establish any new precedents or principles for decisions involving significant effects. 7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. The EA included analysis of cumulative effects or impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in Chapter III. It was concluded that the action would 9

10 not result in significant adverse impacts to the environment. I find that the analyses were accurate and based on reasonable consideration of cumulative impacts. 8) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. The proposed action will have no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. On-site inventories for significant historic and cultural resources were completed in the project area. Results of these inventories will be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office. In compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Canyon Lakes Ranger District would not proceed with the proposed action until a report on these activities and their potential to affect historic properties is submitted to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and SHPO concurs with the determinations of no historic properties affected. 9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of The project included full consideration of federally listed threatened and endangered species through a biological assessment. It was determined by the Forest Service that the Preble s meadow jumping mouse may be affected, but is not likely to be adversely affected and will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. For the bald eagle, a no effect determination is concluded. For the Canada Lynx it was determined that the proposed action would fulfill the current Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) management standards for those five habitat components, resulting in a may affect, but not likely to adversely affect determination. The proposed action was reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as required through provisions of the Endangered Species Act of The FWS provided written concurrence on determinations made by the Forest Service on September 25, Overall, there will be no significant effect on threatened and endangered species. 10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment. The activities of this project would not violate federal, state, or local laws enacted for the protection of the environment. The decision to implement Alternative 3 is consistent with the goals and objectives as stated in the 1997 Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland (Forest Plan). The project was designed in conformance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines and follows specific direction listed in the Geographic Area descriptions. In addition, Alternative 3, meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act (1990), the Clean Water Act (1972), the Endangered Species Act (1973, as amended), the National Forest Management Act (1976), the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act (1960), the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), and the National Historic Preservation Act (1966, as amended). 10

11 Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations I have concluded that my decision is in compliance with current laws, regulations, and policies. I have reviewed the Bennett Area Grazing Allotments EA Project File and find that documentation and procedures required for continued authorization of livestock grazing satisfy the requirements of applicable environmental laws. This decision meets the intent of the 1995 Recission Act (Public Law , Section 504.b) which directed the Forest Service to develop and adhere to a 15-year schedule for completing NEPA analysis and decisions relating to livestock grazing on allotments as identified. My decision to implement this decision is consistent with the intent of the Forest Plan's long- term goals and objectives (Forest Plan, Chapter One, p ). I have reviewed the Forest Plan and determined that this decision is consistent with the Forest Plan goals and objectives (Forest Plan, Chapter One) and incorporates guidelines for livestock grazing (Forest Plan, Chapter One, p ). The action in this project complies fully with the Forest Plan Chapter One, Management Direction for Management Areas 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 3.5, 4.3, 4.4, and 5.5 and the Forest-wide Operational Goals, Standards, and Guidelines. I have also reviewed Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Forest Plan, and conclude that the environmental effects associated with this project are consistent with those described in the FEIS. Irreversible Resource Commitments and Irretrievable Losses (General): The physical and biological effects are limited to the project area and/or immediate adjacent areas. There are no known irreversible resource commitments or any irretrievable losses of vegetation resources, wildlife habitats, soil productivity, water quality, or other renewable resources. Environmental Justice: In accordance with Executive Order 12898, I have determined this project will not have a disproportionately adverse health or environmental effect on low income or minority populations. Effects on Floodplains and Wetlands: There are floodplains and wetlands within the project area. These areas will not experience any significant adverse effects from management activities. The floodplains within the project area will not receive measurable impact by upstream influences. Management activities designed to protect these resources conform to the federal regulations for floodplains (Executive Order 11988) and wetlands (Executive Order 11990). Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives: The energy required to implement this decision in terms of petroleum products will be insignificant when viewed in light of the production costs and effects of the national and worldwide petroleum reserves. Invasive Species Executive Order of February 3, 1999: The project will incorporate integrated weed management measures under the Forest s 2003 Noxious Weed Management Plan and the Forest s 3-year Action Plan. The analysis conducted in the EA for the Noxious Weed Management Plan determined noxious weed control actions are consistent with laws, regulations, and agreements applicable to the Forest Service. The selected alternative will progress towards desired resource conditions in which impacts from noxious weeds are minor. 11

12 Management Indicator and Sensitive Species: A requirement of the National Forest Management Act (as described in the implementing regulations at 36 CFR ) is that fish and wildlife habitats on National Forest System lands be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. These species, called Management Indicator Species, are listed in Amendment 6 (signed, July 8, 2005) to the 1997 Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland (pp ). For this project evaluation of Management Indicator Species and their habitats are not variably affected by the grazing alternatives to any measurable degree and project effects are not predicted to change their population trends or viability at the Forest-wide scale. Effects of Alternatives on Prime Rangeland, Forest Land, and Farm Lands: The alternatives presented are in compliance with Federal Regulations for prime lands. There are no designated prime forest lands or range lands within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests. In all alternatives, Federal lands would be managed with the appropriate consideration to the effects on adjacent lands. Effects of Alternatives on Social Groups: There would be no overall differences between alternatives in effects on minorities, Native American Indians, women, or the civil liberties of any American citizen. Implementation Date Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215, if no appeal is filed within the 45 day time period, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, five business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15 th business day following the date of the last appeal disposition. Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 251 Subpart C, if no appeal is filed, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, five business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may occur during the appeal process, unless the Reviewing Officer grants a stay ( ). Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 215. This decision is also subject to administrative review under 36 CFR Part 251 Subpart C by term grazing permit holders or applicants ( ). However, term grazing permit holders or applicants must choose to appeal under either 36 CFR 251 or 215, but not both ( ). Notices of Appeal that do not meet the content requirements of 36 CFR or 36 C.F.R as appropriate will be dismissed. 12

13 Appeals filed under 36 CFR Part 215 Appeals filed under 36 CFR, Part 215, must be filed (regular mail, fax, , hand-delivery, or express delivery) with the Appeal Deciding Officer at the address shown below. The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered appeals are: 8 a.m. 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic appeals must be submitted in a format such as an message, rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc) to the address shown below. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an electronic message, a verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature is one way to provide verification. Appeals, including attachments, must be filed within 45 days from the publication date of this notice in the Fort Collins Coloradoan, the newspaper of record. Attachments received after the 45 day appeal period will not be considered. The publication date in the Fort Collins Coloradoan, is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Those wishing to appeal this decision should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. An appeal may be filed by any person, non-federal organization, or entity that has provided comments or otherwise expressed interest in this Proposed Action by the close of the comment period. Appeals filed under 36 CFR Part 251 Subpart C Appeals filed under 36 CFR Part 251 Subpart C (including attachments) must be in writing and filed with the Reviewing Officer within 45 days following the date on the notice of the written decision ( ). Attachments received after the 45 day appeal period will not be considered. It is an appellant s responsibility to provide sufficient activity-specific evidence and rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why the Deciding Officer s decision should be reversed ( ). The Deciding Officer is willing to meet with applicants and holders to hear and discuss any concerns or issues related to the decision ( ). Appeals filed under 36 CFR 251 Subpart C must have a copy of the appeal simultaneously sent to the Deciding Officer ( ). An appellant may also include in the notice of appeal a request for oral presentation ( ) or a request for stay of implementation of the decision pending decision on the appeal ( ). 13

14 Where to File a 36 CFR 215 Appeal Mail: USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Attn: Appeal Deciding Officer 740 Simms Street Golden, CO Fax: (303) Delivery: USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Attn: Appeal Deciding Officer 740 Simms Street Golden, CO Hours: Monday-Friday 7:30 am 4:30 pm appeals-rocky-mountain-regionaloffice@fs.fed.us Where to File a 36 CFR 251 Appeal Mail or Delivery only: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests & Pawnee National Grassland Supervisor s Office Attn: Appeal Reviewing Officer 2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. E Fort Collins, CO Fax: (970) Hours: Monday-Friday 8:00 am 5:00 pm Simultaneously send a copy of the appeal to: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Canyon Lakes Ranger District Attn: Ellen Hodges, District Ranger 2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. E Fort Collins, CO Fax: (970) When an appeal is electronically mailed, the appellant should receive an automated electronic acknowledgement of agency receipt. If the appellant does not receive electronic confirmation of receipt, it is the appellant s responsibility to ensure timely receipt of the appeal by other means [CFR (c) (3)]. It is the appellant s responsibility to provide sufficient project or activity specific evidence and rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why the Responsible Official s decision should be reversed [CFR (a)]. At a minimum, the appeal must include the following: 1. Appellant s name and address. Please include telephone number if available. 2. Signature or other verification of authorship upon request. 3. When multiple names are listed on the appeal, identification of the lead appellant and verification of the identity of the lead appellant upon request. 4. The name of the project for which this decision is made, the name and title of the Responsible Official, and the date of this decision. 5. The regulation under which the appeal is being filed. 6. Any specific change(s) in this decision that the appellant seeks and rationale for those changes. 7. Any portion(s) of this decision with which the appellant disagrees, and explanation for the disagreement. 8. Why the appellant believes the Responsible Official s decision failed to consider the substantive comments. 9. How the appellant believes this decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy 14

15 Contact For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, contact: Amanda Cameron Canyon Lakes Ranger District 2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. E Fort Collins, C ph. # (970) acameron@fs.fed.us Responsible Official Ellen L. Hodges ELLEN L. HODGES DATE District Ranger, Canyon Lakes Ranger District "The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 15

16

17 Appendix A 1

18

19 Appendix B Monitoring Framework Rangeland management monitoring is categorized into three types: 1. Implementation Monitoring determines compliance with Forest Plan standards, guidelines, and management practices when implemented through an AMP. Implementation monitoring primarily includes allotment inspections and grazing utilization estimates. 2. Effectiveness Monitoring determines whether management practices are effective in moving the allotment towards desired conditions, especially vegetation conditions, as described in the Forest Plan and AMP. 3. Validation Monitoring determines whether the information upon which grazing management standards and guidelines are based is valid and correct. At the individual allotment scale, monitoring can be used to assess the effectiveness of achieving the project s purpose and need. Range management monitoring at the allotment scale is used for the following: Determination of permittee compliance with the AMP, grazing permit, and AOP. Providing additional information to develop future operating provisions. Verifying results of prescribed management practices and making adjustments accordingly. Increasing the accuracy of grazing capacity estimates. Revising or implementing new allotment management actions for rangeland conservation. Providing estimates of rangeland trend relative to desired conditions. Determining impacts from livestock use on natural resources. Under the proposed action, specific monitoring methods to be conducted on the allotments would be integrated into each AMP. Refer to the AMP for a detailed monitoring framework, which will provide timelines, locations, and methods to be followed. Implementation Monitoring Refer to App. B, page 3 for a table illustrating the below mentioned monitoring guidelines and requirements. Permit Administration to Standard: Forest Service personnel would monitor permittee compliance with grazing permits and annual operating provisions by conducting inspections for: Condition and maintenance of fences and water developments; Salt block locations; Total animal numbers on the allotment; On/Off dates (entry and exit dates of livestock); Pasture rotation, where applicable; and 1

20 Appendix B Stray livestock or unauthorized stock at large. Rangeland Use: Two riparian key areas would be located by the Forest Service on the Bennett Creek Allotment, located along Bennett Creek near Salt Cabin Park and Section 36. Upland key areas will also be developed on the allotment; locations will be determined by the Forest Service and illustrated in the Allotment Management Plan. Key areas will be used as reference sites for utilization, seasonal conditions, and other general observations. Implementation monitoring would consist of stubble height measurements in accordance with the Wyoming Rangeland Monitoring Guide (June 2001). This would be the basis for livestock herding and rotation. When stubble height standards and guidelines (see Table 1 and 2 in Appendix D) are reached, livestock would be moved or rotated to other areas of the allotment. Stubble heights would be measured during the grazing season by the Forest Service, with spot checks in other areas. Implementation monitoring would also be conducted to determine when Forest Plan utilization and willow browsing standards and guidelines are being approached or have been met. Livestock would be moved or rotated to other areas of the allotment when thresholds for bank stability and utilization of woody and herbaceous species have been reached. Utilization, bank stability, and willow browse would be measured using the following methods: Herbaceous vegetation utilization would be measured initially by ocular estimates with follow up transects when stubble height approaches the specified limits: (refer to protocols in Wyoming Rangeland Monitoring Guide: Landscape Appearance (herbaceous upland and riparian), or Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide: Ocular Estimates R OEH; and Stubble Ht, R SH, 1996). Woody vegetation utilization would be measured using protocols described in Wyoming Rangeland Monitoring Guide: Landscape Appearance (browse), or Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide: Ocular Estimates R OEH Ocular estimates (R OEB) supplemented with transects if necessary. Effectiveness Monitoring Long-term monitoring would be conducted on permanent transect sites as necessary based on resource conditions. Intervals will be determined based on resource concerns or conditions and degree of disturbance within the allotment in order to evaluate if vegetative health is being maintained or improved. Validation Monitoring No validation monitoring is designed at this project scale. 2

21 Appendix B Monitoring Activities Resource Type Technique Where When/Durati on Why Who Expected Results & Use Range Permit Administration to Standard Inspection & Documentation Allotment-wide; all allotments Annually Agency policy for permit compliance Forest Service Adherence to permit terms and conditions; execution of grazing permit authority Range Residual stubble height of grasses and sedges Stubble Height R SH Key/concern riparian areas and upland key/concern areas within Bennett Creek Allotment Weekly throughout the grazing season LRMP guideline Permittee (weekly) and the Forest Service (as resources determine necessary) Timely movement of livestock between pastures or areas of the allotments as applicable Range Utilization of forage (herbaceous); grazing Ocular Est. Method R OEH & range cages Riparian and upland areas within Bennett Creek Allotment Annually LRMP guideline Permittee Comparison of grazed vs. ungrazed use, calibrate riparian grazing use; determine effectiveness Range Woody species regeneration (shrubs); browsing Woody Species Regeneration (Winward 2000) Riparian areas within Bennett Creek Allotment 3-year-cycle or longer interval depending on use level of shrubs LRMP guideline Forest Service Recovery of streamside woody plants, especially willow species 3

22 Appendix C Comments Four written responses were received as comments on the EA. These comments were organized and responded to under the following categories: Economics 1. Comment: After studying the proposals in the Environmental Assessment (EA), we urge adoption of Alternative 2 in which grazing allotments in the Bennett Creek area are vacated. This alternative offers several advantages compared to the Forest Service recommended Alternative 3: substantially reduced Forest Service/taxpayer costs, a better economic alternative for the permittee, and improved environmental consequences. The EA has recognized a number of problems with the proposed allotment and has defined substantial obligations for the permittee and the Forest Service for mitigation and control. These conditions will be costly for both parties under any circumstances. Monitoring and enforcement impose a taxpayer burden that seems most inappropriate in view of the cost benefit analysis presented in the EA. 1. Response: The proposed action is to continue and improve grazing management (EA, p.5). The Purpose and Need (EA, p.3-4) states that it is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable for livestock grazing consistent with land management plans. Monetary costs associated with allotment management actions, such as fencing and water developments, are easily identifiable; however, as stated in the EA, values associated with resource protection are more subjective and difficult to establish. A majority of the actions in Alternative 3 create resource benefits that are difficult to value in terms of dollars. Benefits such as noxious weed control, riparian protection, improved water quality, or increased forage for wildlife are not included in the economic analysis, but are important to consider as benefits in a qualitative sense (EA, p. 77, Cost Efficiency). Resource goals established by the Forest Plan and relevant to the project are identified in Appendix D (p.1-4). 2. Comment: The mitigation measures proposed under the adaptive management in Alternative 3 are costly, and the monitoring and enforcement required to make the measures effective will require significant resources and manpower from the Forest Service. Alternative 3 will also require a significant length of new fencing along the proposed boundary, as well as the rehabilitation and reconstruction of all other fences in Elk Park (assuming all of the recommended management practices are followed). 2. Response: Please see response to comment #1 above. As the EA stated, boundary fencing will be determined through the adaptive management strategy outlined in Alternative 3. Monitoring information will help determine where effective fencing will be constructed if necessary (EA, p.11-16). Much of the allotment boundary reflects natural barriers, helping to reduce cattle drift from the allotment. Fences within the Elk Park Allotment will not be affected with implementation of Alternative 3, the southern boundary change will be monitored each year and a new fence will be constructed if cattle drift beyond this new boundary. Reconstruction of fencing within Section 36 is an identified action; however, these fences do not fall within the Elk Park Allotment boundary, at 1

23 Appendix C most the fences may be a shared allotment boundary. 3. Comment: The economic analysis clearly shows that the proposed action is the most costly of the three alternatives, resulting in net costs for both the permittee and the Forest Service that far exceed the net benefits over the period analyzed. 3. Response: Refer to responses 1 and 2 above. 4. Comment: While the EA recommendations will affect many people indirectly, the financial consequences will affect our family ranching operation directly. Many factors will have to be considered in determining if we or anyone else could continue to use the Bennett Creek Grazing Permit profitably with Alternative Response: As described in responses 1 and 2 above, resource benefits are difficult to assign a monetary value; therefore, the values associated with implementing Alternative 3 only consider the costs which allow for an identifiable monetary value (i.e. materials and labor) to improve management of the allotment. The EA also describes a sensitivity analysis, specifically designed to establish a profitable margin for the permittee (EA, p.80). This analysis resulted in less time required by the permittee to manage the allotment. The time required by the permittee to manage the allotment will be established through monitoring to ensure resource concerns are being addressed adequately. The adaptive management strategy is designed to allow for changes in management based on monitoring information (EA, p.11). These changes may require more or less resources be allocated in order to meet and maintain desired conditions as outlined in the Forest Plan. Resource Concerns 5. Comment: We are writing to express our support for Alternative 2 in the EA, proposing to cease grazing completely in both the Bennett Creek and the Elk Park areas and allow for complete rehabilitation and stabilization of grazed areas. 5. Response: The proposed action is to continue and improve grazing management (EA, p.5). The Purpose and Need (EA, p.3-4) states that it is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable for livestock grazing consistent with land management plans. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the agency to consider no grazing as an alternative course of action. Even though no grazing may achieve some improvement for undesirable conditions at an expected faster rate relative to the grazing action alternatives, in some cases, the cumulative effects from past and on-going (i.e. recreation, timber harvest) activities cannot be completely ameliorated. 6. Comment: The EA notes that the higher reaches of Fish Creek are in very good condition, and further explains that since the permit on the Elk Park grazing section has lapsed, previously grazed areas are experiencing rapid recovery and stabilization. We would prefer to see similarly impacted habitat in the Bennett Creek area also stabilize and rehabilitate in the absence of cattle grazing as would be made possible under Alternative 3 [Alternative 2]. 2