DRAFT DECISION NOTICE

Transcription

1 DRAFT DECISION NOTICE Starkey AMP Update Project Environmental Analysis USDA Forest Service Wallowa-Whitman National Forest La Grande Ranger District Union and County, Oregon An Environmental Assessment (EA) that discusses the proposed Starkey Allotment Management Plan (AMP) Update Project within the 30,396-acre Starkey Experimental Forest and Range on the La Grande Ranger District of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is available for review at the La Grande Ranger District Office in La Grande, Oregon. The Decision Based on the analysis described in the EA and associated project record, it is my decision to implement Alternative 2, as the method of treatment and management of these National Forest lands. This decision addresses the purpose and need elements to: Consider permitting grazing within all of the Meadow pastures in order to facilitate research goals, Meet Forest Plan direction for the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range and, Improve livestock management to facilitate meeting allotment goals both inside the Starkey fence (Pastures 1-5) and outside the fence (Burnt Corral, Upper Strip and Briggs pastures). Alternative 2 responds to the following key issues: 1) Promotion and protection of new and on-going research; 2) Protection of fish habitat and water quality; 3) Manage and allow for the use of rangeland resources; 4) Contribute to the local and regional economy; and 5) Protect cultural resources and tribal trust responsibilities. Preferred Alternative Description: Alternative 2 will make the following changes in current management in the Meadow and the Briggs Pastures. General rotation dates are described in tables 1 and 2 for Meadow and tables 3 and 4 for the Briggs pasture. As described under Alternative 1, Pastures 1, 2 and 5, Burnt Corral and Upper Strip already permit livestock grazing. Pastures 3 (621 acres), 4 (1,029 acres), and the Briggs (448 acres) pasture will be authorized as described below. (Refer to map in Appendix A) Meadow : The Meadow pastures are part of a new study being conducted by the Pacific Northwest (PNW) lab, Oregon State University (OSU), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (WWNF) and others. The study will assess the effects of livestock and wildlife herbivory on recovery of riparian ecosystems following riparian restoration projects. A series of pasture fences, exclosures and planting protections have been installed to monitor the different grazing effects along the entire reach of Meadow within the Starkey allotment. OSU cattle will be grazed using the rotations described below in Tables 1 and 2. PNW and ODFW researchers will monitor the effects of livestock and wildlife herbivory on riparian plant and ESA fisheries recovery. This change will add 1,650 acres of authorized grazing to the Meadow study pastures. Briggs: The Briggs pasture was historically part of the outside pasture rotation but has not been used. The existing permittee expressed an interest in utilizing this pasture again to improve distribution and flexibility of 1

2 livestock use within the outside pastures (Tables 3 and 4). This change will add 488 acres of authorized grazing to the outside rotation. MEADOW CREEK STUDY AREA A. Meadow Study Area- 122 days. 5,481 acres. 635 AUMS A two year deferred rotation system will be used for the Meadow Riparian study pastures. The rotation will be reversed each year. The general distribution of days per pasture is outlined below. Slight adjustments will occur to accommodate yearly hunts which require limitations on access prior to and during the hunt period (Tables 1 and 2). Table 1. Meadow Study Area, Year 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022 Pasture Number 5 Number of Head AUMS Acres Acres per AUM Entry Exit Days in Unit /16 8/16 62 Key Area Meadow Cr. Cougar Cr. Cougar Cr /1 10/15 15 Meadow Cr /16 9/30 15 Meadow Cr /1 9/15 15 Meadow Cr /17 8/31 15 Meadow Cr. Maximum Percent Utilization bunchgrass Minimum Stubble Height 2-4 by species Table 2. Meadow Study Area, Year 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023 Pasture Number Number AUMS Acres Acres per AUM Entry Exit Days in Unit Key Area /16 6/30 15 Meadow Cr /1 7/15 15 Meadow Cr /16 7/30 15 Meadow Cr /31 8/14 15 Meadow Cr /15 10/15 62 Meadow Cr. Cougar Cr. Cougar Cr. Maximum Percent Utilization bunchgrass Minimum Stubble Height 2-4 by species 2

3 B. Outside main study area- 122 days. 5,030 acres. 747 AUMS. A two year deferred rotation system will be used for the pastures outside the main study area. The rotation will be reversed each year. The general distribution of days per pasture is outlined below. Briggs pasture will be utilized following completion of boundary fencing and off-site water development to facilitate stock water outside Burnt Corral and Battle (Tables 3 and 4). The Briggs pasture may also be utilized as a gathering pasture at the end of the season. Implementation: Grazing management changes would begin in May Table 3. Briggs Pasture addition to Burnt Corral Rotation, Year 1 Pasture Number AUMS Acres Burnt Corral Acres per AUM Entry Exit Days in Unit /16 8/28 74 Key Area Uplands Maximium Percent Utilization Minimum Stubble Height greenline Upper Strip 75 Strip 8/29 10/ Briggs 8/29 9/19 21 Briggs /20 10/15 25 Uplands Battle greenline 4 greenline Table 4. Briggs Pasture addition to Burnt Corral Rotation, Year 2 Pasture Number AUMS Acres Upper Strip 75 Strip Acres per AUM 216 1, Entry Exit Days in Unit 6/16 8/ Briggs 7/11 8/2 21 Key Area Uplands Maximium Percent Utilization Minimum Stubble Height 2-4 Briggs /16 7/10 25 Burnt Corral , /3 10/15 74 Battle Uplands 2-4 Mitigations and Monitoring: Mitigation measures incorporated as part of this decision include specific treatment design features as well as a variety of specific resource measures described in the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of the EA on pages Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines that apply to Management Areas 1, 3, and 14 were also incorporated into project design. Monitoring of project activities incorporated into this decision is discussed on pages 13 through 15 of the EA. 3

4 Alternatives NEPA requires that the agency study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommend courses of action in any proposal involving unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. Because no unresolved conflicts exist, the EA only analyzed the proposed action and proceeded without consideration of additional topics (36 CFR 220.7(b)(2)(i)). The alternatives described below were considered in detail based on the purpose and need of the project, the key issues and public feedback on the Proposed Action as described in the Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation section (EA pages 4-5) of the EA. Forest Service management objectives are incorporated into the alternative by following standards and guidelines of the Wallowa- Whitman National Forest Plan as amended. Alternative 1 - No Action This alternative constitutes the "No Action" required by NEPA. Grazing would continue as authorized under the 2007 AMP within the Starkey Allotment and no grazing would occur in the currently vacant Meadow (Pastures 3 and 4) and Briggs pastures. This alternative forms the baseline for comparison of the action alternatives. The existing management for the Starkey Allotment authorizes three permittees to graze up to 701 cow/calf pairs utilizing three separate grazing systems, two inside the big-game enclosure/main study area and one outside. Grazing is currently authorized for livestock grazing between the dates of June 16 to October 15 using a multi-pasture deferred rotation system in which fences separate each of the pastures. Inside the main study area, two permittees, private and OSU, are authorized to graze a total of 519 cowcalf pairs between the dates of June 16 and October 15. These cattle are managed using a five pasture deferred rotation system. A full-time rider is provided by the permittees to facilitate livestock management during pasture moves and to manage cattle distribution out of riparian areas on a daily basis. Oregon State University (OSU) researchers also manage a herd of up to 60 pair of livestock within two of the Meadow pastures where livestock grazing is already authorized. Pastures 1, 2 and 5 are currently authorized for livestock grazing. Grazing is not currently authorized in pastures 3 and 4. Outside the main study area, one permittee is authorized to graze a total of 141 cow/calf pairs between the dates of June 16 and October 15. These cattle are managed using a two pasture deferred rotation system using the Burnt Corral and Upper Strip pastures. Briggs pasture is currently not authorized for grazing. The current management of the allotment also includes design features, such as Best Management Practices and PACFISH requirements, which have been successful in meeting and/or moving the allotment toward the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) goals and objectives. All Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation biological assessments or biological opinions will be incorporated into the annual grazing plans and required monitoring. 4

5 Table 5. Current Grazing Management within the Starkey Allotment Unit Acres Permitted Numbers Main Study Area Average Days in Unit Animal Unit Months (AUMs) Head Months Smith-Bally 5, Half Moon 1, Bear 8, ,020 Campbell Strip Campbell Flat 1, Meadow Study Area Phase III/IV 1, Phase I/II 1, Northeast Study Area NE-East 2, NE-West 1, Feed Grounds Outside Main Study Burnt Corral 3, Strip 1, The grazing season may be adjusted due to resource conditions or unpredictable events such as, but not limited to, fire, drought, or saturated soil conditions, to meet Forest Plan goals and objectives. The number of days cattle spend on each pasture may be modified annually to meet goals and objectives. The allotment includes 89 previously constructed water sources (ponds and developed springs) that were built to encourage livestock use away from riparian areas. Riparian fencing has been constructed in some pastures to allow better control of livestock along stream corridors. Alternative 2 [Refer to map and data tables in Appendix A of the EA] This is the preferred alternative as described in the EA and under The Decision above. Scoping Process The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies during the development of this EA: The Starkey AMP Update project was published in the Wallowa-Whitman Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), a quarterly publication, in April 2015 and has appeared in each quarterly SOPA since then. This mailing is distributed to a mailing list of individuals, organizations, and agencies and is published on the forest web page. Scoping and consultation for the project was initiated and is ongoing with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) and ODFW. A detailed description of the proposed action was mailed on August 21, 2015 to approximately 95 forest users and concerned publics soliciting comments and concerns related to this project. One letter was received supporting the actions described in the proposed action. 5

6 This project has been reviewed and approved by the State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO). Consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service for threatened and endangered species will be completed for this project. An analysis file for this project is available for public review at the La Grande Ranger District. The analysis file includes specialist s reports, data specific to the project, public notifications and their responses, meeting notes, and miscellaneous documentation. Reasons for Decision I have chosen to implement Alternative 2 because it provides a balanced response to the major issues and concerns while best achieving stated purpose and need objectives aimed at meeting research needs and improving livestock management on the allotment. This decision reflects thoughtful consideration of public input. The key issues and specific reasons for this decision follow: Key Issue: Promote and Protect New & On-going Research Alternative 2 supports the opportunity to perform research on the effectiveness of recent instream restoration activities such as placement of large and small woody debris, boulders, and planting/fencing of native riparian species to protect riparian areas and vegetation from ungulate (livestock and elk/deer) grazing impacts. Alternative 1 would not offer this opportunity to study these impacts and offer recommendations for improvements to design features in future restoration projects or changes in grazing practices to increase enhancement and protection of riparian resources. Changes in management utilized to meet research and LRMP standards and objectives would be determined based on monitoring of the pastures and the permittees ability to meet resource objectives. If the permittee is not able to adequately manage the authorized livestock to meet the utilization standards identified to allow achievement of resource objectives, more aggressive management in the form of herd management or reductions in authorized use would occur. Therefore, Alternative 2 would limit grazing impacts to meet Forest Plan standards and resource objectives. Key Issues: Protect Fish and Water Quality Alternative 2 would add a total of approximately 13 miles of stream to grazed pastures within the Starkey allotment. Of the 13 miles, 12.4 miles are accessible to cattle. An exclusion fence along Battle keeps cattle away from the stream and riparian area for 0.6 miles of fish bearing habitat in the Briggs pasture. Seven miles of Meadow and 6 miles of Battle received major restoration efforts in 2012 and Restoration work included channel treatment with large wood and boulder complexes, removal of culverts, construction of exclosure fencing, and shrub planting and grass/forb seeding in riparian areas. Stream habitat surveys indicate that the majority of stream and riparian areas are in fair to good condition with a high percentage of stable streambanks and sufficient large wood post 2012 and 2013 restoration projects. The three additional pastures to be grazed under Alternative 2 in the Starkey allotment would incorporate a variety of management techniques to uniformly distribute cattle across all pastures and minimize or prevent use in riparian areas and in all streams. Utilization standards, off-site water sources, placement of salt, low stress herding, exclusion fences and riparian protection drift fences, would restrict the time cattle spend in stream and riparian areas. This would prevent the removal of key hydric stabilizers necessary for streambank stabilization to prevent channel widening, prevent 6

7 the removal of shrubs that provide streamshade, prevent sedimentation to the stream channel, promote streambank building, maintain or restore riparian areas, and minimize or prevent the amount of feces and urine that could impact water quality. The additional monitoring by researchers will also help to ensure protection of riparian and fish habitat within these three pastures by suggesting livestock management changes in the short-term. There will also be opportunities to develop and recommend long-term restoration design features to improve habitat enhancement and protection in restoration projects in the future under Alternative 2. This opportunity is foregone under Alternative 1. (EA pages 26-55) Key Issue: Management of Rangeland Resources Active livestock grazing management on the Starkey allotment would increase residual vegetation where needed, reduce litter accumulations in some areas, lessen amounts of bare ground, and increase the overall vigor of plants through better distribution of livestock across the allotment. Adequate litter (not excessive) insulates plant crowns and over wintering buds, protects and covers soil, holds moisture in the ground and allows the plants to continue photosynthesis for carbohydrate production and storage. Greater carbohydrate storage results in more roots being produced by each plant. This increases the erosion defensibility and moisture-holding capability of soils. It also provides a buffer to plants in times of stress (such as drought). While most pastures will be used after forage plants have reached maturity, some areas may see use earlier due to elevation differences within the unit. Grazing during the earlier growth period before seed set may encourage vegetative reproduction through tillering and increased vigor for bunchgrasses and rhizomatous grasses (Briske and Richards, 1995). (Valentine, et al 1990) found that grazing which removed biomass prior to the boot stage allowed for increased development of tillers and increased leaf growth and plant expansion. This earlier (vegetative development) grazing will not occur on a widespread basis but may occur in some locations. Alternative 2 responds to periodic disturbances, such as drought or wildfire, in that it provides for preplanned management options to such events (such as the deferral of affected pastures, and the ability to alter the planned use of pastures scheduled for periodic rest). Representative key areas or designated monitoring areas (DMAs) have been chosen to show the current level of utilization or disturbance attributable to livestock grazing and its management during each grazing season. Monitoring key areas/dmas and establishing standards by which to manage provides insurance to all other areas of the pasture where specific monitoring may not regularly occur. Allowing grazing in the three additional pastures will encourage responsible management as it allows for continuation of the existing levels of grazing where permittees are responsive and preemptive in management of the resources on the allotments as well as increased flexibility in meeting the terms and conditions of their permits. Promoting appropriate livestock distribution will allow previously ungrazed plants to have a greater chance of being grazed (stimulating growth), and that individually, frequently grazed plants would be grazed fewer times. Under Alternative 2, the permittee and range manager can adapt livestock management to meet the seasonal climatic variations and future forest vegetation changes resulting from natural disturbances and in-growth, fuels reduction thinning or burning expected over the lifetime of the Starkey AMP. Future management options (within the scope of research needs and LRMP standards and 7

8 objectives) that may be needed to accelerate or adjust management decisions to meet desired conditions and/or project standards and objectives, will be determined through monitoring. The direct effects of livestock grazing on forage, soils and riparian areas would be minimized through monitoring of forage utilization (herbaceous and woody) or streambank alteration. If through future monitoring, areas are not meeting Forest Plan standards and objectives, the allowable use of forage would be reduced to enable attainment of the Forest Plan standards and objectives. Effectiveness monitoring will determine if the objectives identified are adequately moving toward meeting the desired condition. Monitoring of key areas/dmas would provide feedback to allow for adjusting management of livestock to meet the objectives and desired condition. The effectiveness of the allotment s management would be measured by including additional permanent vegetative monitoring plots within the riparian pastures associated with the Meadow study (pastures 3 and 4). These plots would be installed to establish baseline vegetative condition and used to determine trend on representative locations. Canopy cover, species frequency, and species composition by canopy cover would be measured. Data from these plots would be used to determine when changes in management are required. (EA pages 16-26) Key Issues: Economics There will be no change in the number of livestock authorized for grazing in the Starkey allotment under Alternative 2. Since this project only authorizes the use of additional pasture by the existing permittees, no gain or loss of revenue to the permittees or federal government through additional grazing fees would occur. There is no proposed increase or decrease in livestock numbers within the Starkey allotment as part of either of the alternatives. Because there is no proposed increase or decrease in the number or season of livestock authorization there would be no effect to ranching economic conditions and trends. This alternative would authorize livestock grazing necessary for the proposed Meadow study to continue as planned. This study will provide important information related to the effects of ungulate grazing on recovery of riparian ecosystems following restoration activities. Loss of investment in the study would not occur under Alternative 2 while it would be foregone under Alternative 1. The proposed authorization of livestock use within the Briggs pasture would directly affect the ability of the outside permittee to utilize the pasture as part of the outside grazing rotation. Authorizing use of this pasture will allow reduced livestock use within the other outside pastures, increasing the flexibility of the permittee to maintain full authorized numbers and season of use. There will be no effect on grazing related jobs and income based on this decision as the exiting level of livestock grazing would continue with no increase or decrease from the existing condition. (EA pages 68-71) Key Issue: Protection of Cultural Resources and Maintenance of Tribal Trust Responsibilities Avoidance criteria built into the design of Alternative 2 provides protection of all known heritage resources within the project area. Mitigation measures are in place and should any new cultural sites be discovered during project activities the project Archaeologist will be consulted and adequate protection measures incorporated. 8

9 Treaties provide that Native Americans will continue to have the right to erect suitable buildings for fish curing, privileges of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing stock on unclaimed lands. Indian treaty rights and privileges were considered throughout this analysis and maintained through appropriate design and layout features, especially related to First Food resources such as fish, wildlife, and riparian areas. Both alternatives are equal in their treatment of treaty rights and are expected to maintain treaty rights and opportunities into the future. In summary, my decision to select Alternative 2 is based on thoughtful consideration of public input and concerns, ecological conditions of the landscape, predicted environmental effects, achieving research needs, and socio-economic needs of our local communities. Alternative 2 addresses important ecologic, research, and socio-economic concerns in a more proactive fashion than Alternative 1 and offers an opportunity to advance our learning and incorporate findings from research to improve livestock management and achievement of aquatic restoration objectives elsewhere across the forest and Blue Mountains area. Findings The Starkey AMP Update Project Assessment was developed in accordance with the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, as amended by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and its implementation regulations codified at Title 36, Part 219 of the Code of Federal Regulations. It also was developed in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part ). These implementation regulations require specific findings to support decisions subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These findings include (1) Finding of No Significant Impact and (2) Finding of Consistency with Management Direction for the Forest Plan. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) The selected alternative, with the specified management requirements, constraints, monitoring and mitigation measures, provides the best combination of physical, biological, social, and economic benefits. Based on the site-specific environmental analysis documented in the Environmental Analysis and FONSI on pages of the EA, I have found that this is not a major Federal action, individually or cumulatively, and will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not needed. Finding of Consistency with Forest Plan Management Direction From the results of site-specific analysis documented in the EA, I conclude that this action is consistent with the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (EA, Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives section, pages 15-77). Pre-decisional Administrative Project Review As provided by the Pre-decisional Administrative Review process under 36 CFR 218 Subpart A for Forest Service proposed actions implementing land and resource management plan activities documented with a Record of Decision or Decision Notice, legal notice of the objection process was published in the Observer newspaper on March 7, The 45-day objection period ended on XXXXX X, XXXX # of objections were received. As allowed under 36 CFR (a), the objections were resolved during a meeting with the objectors and subsequently withdrawn by the objectors. 9

10 OR OR As required by 36 CFR (b)(1), the objections were considered and responded to by the Reviewing Officer on XXXXXXX XX, No further review from any other Forest Service or USDA official and the reviewing officers written response to an objection is available (36 CFR (b)(2). As allowed under 36 CFR (c)(2) when no objection is filed within the objection filing period, the Responsible Official may sign this decision notice on the fifth business day following the end of the objection filing period. Implementation This project may be implemented immediately upon signature of this decision notice. For further information, contact Cindy Christensen, Project Analyst, at the La Grande District, 3502 Highway 30, La Grande, Oregon 97850, or telephone (541) Bill Gamble District Ranger La Grande Ranger District In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C ; (2) fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. 10