Holy Cross Grazing Allotments

Transcription

1 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Holy Cross Grazing Allotments USDA Forest Service Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger Districts, White River National Forest Eagle and Summit Counties, Colorado Decision and Reasons for the Decision Background The purpose of this decision is to determine whether to continue to authorize livestock grazing on the allotments within the Holy Cross Grazing Allotment Analysis Area and if so what adaptive management activities should occur to maintain desired conditions, or move existing conditions toward the desired conditions identified in the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 2002 Revision (LRMP). The Analysis Area contains approximately 185,764 acres administered by the Forest Service. The Analysis Area lies primarily within Eagle County, Colorado, with a minor portion within Summit County. Approximately 25,902 acres or 14% fall inside the Eagles Nest Wilderness. The affected allotments include Piney Cattle and Horse (C&H), Slate Mountain Sheep and Goat (S&G), South Fork C&H, South Piney C&H, Cache Creek S&G, Red and White S&G, Spring Creek C&H, Berry Creek C&H and Northside C&H, Meadow-Vail S&G, Turkey Creek S&G, Sugarloaf Peak S&G, portions of the historic Corral S&G, Searle S&G and Tennessee S&G allotments (figure 1.4-1). The Forest Service rangeland allotment process calls for periodic reviews of allotment conditions and management practices, and if necessary a revision to current rangeland management practices. The Forest Service needs to ensure that livestock management is in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Watershed Conservation Practices (WCP) Handbook (FSH , USDA Forest Service 2006) and meets or satisfactorily moves existing resource conditions toward desired resource conditions identified in the LRMP goals and objectives. Frequently changing environmental and social conditions, including, but not limited to, annual weather fluctuations such as drought, permittee requests for reasonable operational flexibility, changes in visitor use patterns and desires, Forest Service management desire to annually minimize resource conflicts, unforeseen changes, and so forth require the Forest Service to regularly adjust management actions to current conditions and demands. Historically rigid stocking and grazing system regimes inadequately address annual management flexibility needs. There is a need to utilize vacant allotments to facilitate the management flexibility just mentioned. Vacant allotments are not lands closed to grazing; rather they are lands not currently being utilized. Where livestock grazing is approved, appropriate methods are to be employed to move toward desired conditions as outlined by the LRMP. 1

2 Figure Holy Cross Allotment EA. The Allotments relative to the White River National Forest and local communities. 2

3 Decision I have reviewed the proposed action as identified in the Holy Cross Grazing Allotment Environmental Assessment (EA). Based upon my review of all alternatives, public input, and the analysis, I have decided to implement Alternative 3 Adaptive Grazing Livestock Management including the design criteria, monitoring plans, and adaptive management options as described here and in the EA. I believe this alternative will best meet the purpose and need for the project and achieve Forest Service goals for the allotment areas. This alternative will meet LRMP objectives for range management by continuing to authorize livestock grazing as an acceptable multiple use on these National Forest System lands. The lands authorized for grazing were found to be suitable for livestock grazing as documented in the LRMP revision process (2002). The alternative meets LRMP standards and guidelines and continues to strive toward desired conditions. Elements of the Decision I am approving use of the following allotments including adjustments to those allotments, type of livestock, season of use, and initial grazing methods. 3

4 Allotment Kind of Livestock Number of Head Red and White Sheep Number of head may vary based on forage Cache Creek Sheep Number of head may vary based on forage Berry Creek Sheep No additional stocking will be allocated based on this addition Northside Sheep No additional stocking will be allocated based on this addition Spring Creek Sheep No additional stocking will be allocated based on this addition Piney Sheep Number of head may vary based on forage South Fork Sheep Number of head may vary based on forage Allotment Modification Eastern boundary is modified to remove east of the ridge line dividing Spraddle Creek and Middle Creek from Booth Creek and east of the ridge dividing Red Sandstone and upper Piney River. This allotment is being incorporated into the Red and White allotment as a pasture. This allotment is being incorporated into the Red and White allotment as a pasture. This allotment is being incorporated into the Red and White allotment as a pasture. This allotment is being incorporated into the Red and White allotment as a pasture. This allotment is being incorporated into Slate Mountain allotment as a pasture Being incorporated into Slate Mountain allotment as a pasture. South Piney Cattle Number of head may vary based on forage Slate Mountain Sheep Number of head may vary based on forage Meadow-Vail Sheep Number of head may vary based on forage Turkey Creek Sheep Number of head may vary based on forage North side of Vail Mountain will be eliminated from allotment. Sugarloaf Sheep Number of head may vary based on forage Searle Sheep No additional stocking will be allocated based on this addition Corral Sheep No additional stocking will be allocated based on this addition This allotment is being incorporated into Turkey Creek allotment as a pasture. Being incorporated into Turkey Creek allotment as a pasture. Tennessee Pass Close Closed Close with a minor boundary adjustment For all allotments, season of use is determined by range readiness, evaluated on a landscape basis, for the earliest date livestock can enter the allotment and allowable use design criteria will be used to determine livestock off dates. Actual on and off dates may vary within those limits based on weather and resource conditions. For all sheep allotments the grazing method employed will be a deferred, once over lightly grazing system. A deferred once over lightly, grazing system allows for a) deferment delays or discontinues livestock grazing of an area for an adequate period to provide for plant reproduction, establishment of new plants or the restoration of the vigor of existing plants; b) once over lightly means that no area is grazed more than once within a given grazing season. Sheep are grazed in a new location every day and they are required to use a new bed ground every night. This allows for short periods of grazing followed by or preceded by extended periods of rest for herbage recovery during the same season. Rotation grazing implies that livestock are rotated through the allotment. Every other year the rotation is changed so plants will not being grazed at the same time every year. For the one cattle allotment, a 5 pasture deferred rotational grazing system is to be employed. 4

5 The alternative is designed to help achieve desired future conditions as specified in the LRMP. In addition, the following table displays desired future conditions for the allotment areas by habitat type. Table Desired Future Conditions for Habitat Types within the project area Community Desired Future Condition Type Aspen Native Grassland Habitats Sagebrush Forblands Streams & Riparian areas Aspen communities across project area have diverse age structures including old growth communities, areas of regeneration, openings, standing snags and down woody debris; vigorous and diverse native grass, shrub and forb understory present. Use of aspen regeneration as browse is limited to light use (up to 40%) as defined by the Range Analysis and Management Training Guide ((RAMTG) USDA Forest Service 1996). In post fire and post harvest created openings will be managed to assure successful regeneration is sufficient to perpetuate the long-term viability of the clones. Mixed native bunch grasses community, primarily dominated by, native grasses and forb communities provide a mosaic of plants with species diversity, a variety of vegetative structures and sufficient amounts of litter; principle grass species may include Thurber Fescue, Idaho Fescue, Slender Wheatgrass, Mountain Brome, and Needle Grass. Bare ground less than 30% (RAMTG). Grasses communities show vigor. For detailed species composition for native grassland communities refer to Grassland, Shrubland and Forestland habitat Types of the White River- Arapaho National Forests. Vigorous growth and regeneration of mid to late seral shrub species interspersed with a variety of native grasses and forbs. Desired sage cover ranges from 20-40%. Diverse mix of upland forbs and graminoids. Bare ground less than 30%. Graminoid communities show vigor. Suitable habitat exists along a minimum of 80% of the length of the riparian zone. Stable, defined channels with appropriate width/depth ratios for stream type; less than 25% of stream bank disturbance can be attributed to this year s livestock trampling, or that percentage which allows the stream to meet stream health goals, as measured by appropriate measures such as % fine sediment, % bank instability, etc. Plant species may include sedges, rushes, tufted hairgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, shrubby cinquefoil, willow, alder, birch or spruce of mixed age class. In woody systems, riparian shrub cover of at least 35% to include a variety of species. Stream health is in a sustaining or an improving trend toward robust as appropriate. Stream health goals (Objective 1a and others) are being met, and stream conditions are consistent with the Colorado State Sediment Guidance (CDPHE 2005) for streams supporting beneficial uses, as stream health meets or moves toward robust condition. Robust stream health is defined as comparable to the best situations, unaltered by humans; habitat supports all regionally-expected species for the water body, including the most intolerant forms; trophic structure is balanced; and numbers and biomass of organisms, or productivity, are at least 74% of long-term natural (reference) conditions (FSM zero code). Reference conditions are established based on stream surveys on other streams with similar watershed characteristics (e.g., gradient, geology, etc.). Design criteria as specified in Tables thru will be applied. In addition all regulations, specifications, and guidance found in the LRMP, Watershed Conservation Handbook (FSH ), and all other laws, acts, and policies will be applied. I approve utilizing the adaptive management approach for these grazing allotments. This will allow for quicker changes to management and on-the-ground improvements toward meeting desired conditions (Table 1.6-1). I believe the EA adequately analyzed the effects of using the adaptive management technique. Should approved actions fall outside of the specifications analyzed in the EA a new NEPA process should be initiated. The approved adaptive management tools are listed in Table Grazing Management Toolbox. 5

6 Table Grazing Management Toolbox. Use of any tool below must consider rangeland condition and other relevant LRMP goals and objectives for the Analysis Area under study. These tools do not preempt the Project Design Criteria in section 2.7 or the constraints designed into the alternative. Change season of use -- use landscape scale range readiness to determine livestock turn on date and allowable use design criteria to determine livestock off date. Do not extend season beyond the estimated Animal Unit Month (AUM) capacity. Change livestock numbers -- do not exceed the estimated AUM capacity; use allowable use design criteria to determine proper rangeland use and time to move livestock (including off date). Change livestock class do not exceed estimated AUM capacity. Adjust livestock grazing intensity and/or duration. Adjust livestock herding to manage specific areas of concern (including key areas). Rest specified areas from livestock grazing. Restrict livestock grazing in specified areas (does not apply to recreation and outfitter/guide livestock under this analysis). Adjust livestock trailing time spent on stock driveways. Install barriers on trails to prevent livestock from cutting switchbacks on the trails. Use or exclusion of a pasture. Modify allotment infrastructure (may require additional project level NEPA analysis and decision). Adjust allotment boundaries. Construct range improvements (fencing and water developments) to improve livestock distribution (will require additional project level NEPA analysis and decision). The adaptive management plan will be used to move toward achieving both short and long term goals. Monitoring for these goals will be done through implementation monitoring which focuses on the short term goals, and effectiveness monitoring which focuses on the long term goals (Table and 2.8-2). I am adopting the monitoring protocols as specified in the EA. These monitoring protocols will help to inform managers as to which techniques may need to be employed from the adaptive management plan to meet desired conditions including LRMP goals and guidance from the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH ). 6

7 Table Implementation Monitoring Schedule, Frequency, and Responsible Party. Monitoring Item Frequency By whom Compliance checks (meeting requirements in AOI/AMP/Term Grazing Permit e.g., herding and bedding practices see the requirements in section 2.7) Annual 1 Forest Service Upland forage utilization (LRMP, Range p. II-10-11) Variable 2 Forest Service Riparian forage utilization (LRMP, Range p. II-11) Variable 2 Forest Service Riparian streambank stability/alteration (LRMP, Range p. II-11) Variable 2 Forest Service 1 Permittees are responsible for compliance with all relevant terms and conditions associated with the grazing authorization. The Forest Service would make periodic compliance checks and report the results to the responsible official for action, if necessary. 2 The Forest Service may vary the frequency of inspections on a case-by-case basis for this monitoring item depending on such factors as annual weather fluctuations, past permittee compliance history, and changes in current resource and/or social issues. Non-compliance would dictate annual monitoring until satisfactory compliance is attained. Vegetation monitoring would follow the techniques and protocols from the Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide (USDA Forest Service 1996). Riparian streambank stability/alteration protocols would follow the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH ). Table Effectiveness Monitoring Schedule, Frequency, and Responsible Party. Monitoring Item Frequency By whom Vegetation trend (must be static or improving) on benchmark sites Riparian steambank stability/alteration trend (must be static or improving) on benchmark sites Trend in herder/livestock interactions with public visitors (must be static or declining) 5-10 years years years 2 Forest Service Forest Service Forest Service 1 The rate of change is governed by site specific factors including but not limited to the extent of the deviation from desired conditions environment factors such moisture conditions site productivity and other uses. The acceptable rate of change will determined based on these site specific variables by the responsible official unless expressly directed otherwise in the LRMP. 2 The trends in herder/livestock interactions with public visitors would be evaluated by the responsible official to decide if the number and duration of interactions are acceptable. Vegetation monitoring would follow the techniques and protocols from the Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide (USDA Forest Service 1996). Riparian streambank stability/alteration protocol would follow the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. 7

8 Alternatives Considered Alternative 3 was developed by comparing existing conditions on the allotments (Alternative 2) with desired conditions and management direction provided in the LRMP. In addition, an Alternative was developed that analyzed conditions if no grazing was authorized (Alternative 1). When looking at the purpose and need, current actions, the LRMP, and the Forest Service mission I conclude the best alternative is the adaptive management alternative (Alternative 3). My decision will authorize continued livestock grazing in a manner that balances permitted use with LRMP objectives and desired conditions for rangeland vegetation, soil, watershed, and wildlife habitat. This alternative will allow grazing to continue which is compliant with the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, while providing for methods to ensure desired conditions can be obtained. Besides these alternatives, an alternative to convert all grazing to cattle grazing was considered but dropped from consideration for reasons explained in section 2.5 of the EA. Public Involvement The White River National Forest invited public comment and participation regarding this project through an April 7, 2007 and May 17, 2007 publication of a public notice in the Vail Daily the newspaper of record, a scoping letter, and posting on the White River National Forest website. The Forest provided quarterly status updates for this project through the release of the Forest s SOPA. Scoping letters were mailed April 6, 2007 and May 25, 2007 to 65 potentially concerned public, tribal governments, and State and other Federal agencies. The Forest received 13 response letters to the scoping. See project file for responses. Of the 13 comment letters received, 7 were supportive, 2 wanted to be kept informed of the project and 4 contained issues that they felt needed to be addressed by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT). Issues are listed and addressed in the EA and specialists reports supporting the EA. The Draft EA was sent to interested parties and a legal notice published on September 16, 2008 in the Vail Daily, the newspaper of record, requesting comments. One comment letter was received. The IDT addressed concerns that were raised in the comment letter and incorporated changes that were warranted from draft to final. The project record contains responses to comments. Finding of No Significant Impact After considering the environmental effects described in the EA and review of the NEPA criteria for significant effects, 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 ). Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. This determination is based on the following factors: (a) Context The physical and biological effects of the proposed action and alternatives described are site-specific actions limited to this analysis area. (b) Intensity The severity of the environmental effects of the selected alternative and other alternatives were considered in evaluating intensity (40 CFR ) 8

9 1. My finding of no significant environmenal effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action. Both beneficial and adverse impacts and their significance were discussed for the alternatives considered in detail. Effects were lessened or elminated through alternative design (EA 2.4-3, Chapter 3). None of the adverse effects were determined to be signifcant, singularly or in combination (EA Chapter 3). 2. There will be no adverse effects on public health and safety, because grazing activities do not consitute a threat to public health or safety. The project activities will comply with all State and Federal regulations for water quality. 3. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area, because there are no effects to farmlands, park lands, or wild and scenic rivers. No significant adverse effects were found for cultural and historical resources (EA 3.7), wetlands (EA 3.5.2) or Congressionally designated wilderness areas (EA pp. 5-6). 4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. Because this decision provides for maintaining and improving vegetation, soil, and water resource conditions in the Allotments, the activities associated with this decision will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. While some aspects of livestock grazing can be socially controversial, the effects of the selected alternative on the human environment are not new, unusual, unexpected, or uncertain. 5. We have considerable experience with the types of activities to be implemented. Livestock grazing is an historic activity on White River National Forest since the late 1800 s. The effects have been monitored over time. No unusual, unknown tecniques are being introduced. Therefore there are no uncertain risks associated with this action. 6. The action does not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, because the environmental assessement is site-specific and its actions incorporate those practices envisioned in the LRMP and are within LRMP standards and guidelines. Similar projects conducted in the future will have to be evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act. 7. The cumulative impacts, consideration of effects from past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions implemented or planned in the area, that overlap in time and space with the action, are not significant (EA 3.8). 8. The 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, because any known eligible properties will be protected and are not affected by livestock grazing (EA 3.7). The action will also not cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources (EA 3.7.1). 9. The action will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species act of 1973 (ESA). The potential effects to threatened and endangered species and their habitat that 9

10 10. The action will not violate Federal, State, and local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA (EA Chapter 1 and Chapter 3). The action is consistent with the White River Land and Resource Management Plan (EA all sections). Based on the EA, the LRMP, and all laws and regulations, I find the selected alternative is not a major action and will not constitute a significant effect to the environment. Forest Service Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities Opportunities under 36 CFR 215 This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR 215. Individuals or organizations who submitted comments or otherwise expressed interest during the comment period specified at may appeal this decision. The notice of appeal must meet the appeal content requirements at 36 CFR The appeal must be filed (regular mail, fax, , hand-delivery, or express delivery) with the Appeal Deciding Officer at: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 740 Simms, Golden, CO 80401; FAX: (303) The office business hours for submitting hand-delivered appeals are: Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding holidays. Electronic appeals must be submitted in a format such as an message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc) to appealsrocky-mountain-regional-office@fs.fed.us. The appeal must have an identifiable name attached or verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature may serve as verification on electronic appeals. Appeals, including attachments, must be filed (postmarked) within 45 days from the publication date of this notice in the Vail Daily, the newspaper of record. Attachments received after the 45 day appeal period will not be considered. The publication date in the Vail Daily 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. Opportunities under 36 CFR 251 Decisions related to the issuance, denial, or administration of written instruments to occupy and use National Forest System lands may be appealed by permit holders under 36 CFR 251. A Notice of Appeal must be consistent with 36 CFR and filed simultaneously with the Appeal Reviewing Officer and the Deciding Officer within 45 days of the date on the notice of 10

11 the written decision being appealed. 36 CFR 251 appeals should be sent to the Appeal Deciding Officer as described above under the 36 CFR 215 process and filed simultaneously (regular mail, fax, , hand-delivery, or express delivery) with the Deciding Official, District Ranger, Brian Lloyd, Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District, 125 West 5 th Street, P.O. Box 720, Eagle, CO, , FAX: (970) A permit holder may appeal the decision under 36 CFR 215 or , but not both. Appeals may be filed electronically as described under the 36 CFR 215 process. The deciding officer is willing to meet with permit applicants or holders to hear and discuss any concerns or issues related to this decision. This decision may be implemented during an appeal unless the Reviewing Officer grants a stay under Implementation Date If no appeals are filed within the 45-day time period, implementation of the decision may occur on, but not before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing period. When appeals are filed, implementation of the decision may occur on, but not before, the 15th business day following the date of the last appeal disposition. Contact For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, contact Linn Pettijohn, Blanco Ranger District, Meeker, CO, (970) _/s/ Brian Lloyd BRIAN LLOYD District Ranger Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District March 13, 2009 Date 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, D.C , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 11