MARTIN BASIN RANGELAND

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Intermountain Region Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Santa Rosa Ranger District RECORD OF DECISION FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MARTIN BASIN RANGELAND MANAGEMENT PROJECT September 2011

2 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. Record of Decision

3 RECORD OF DECISION MARTIN BASIN RANGELAND PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT U.S. FOREST SERVICE SANTA ROSA RANGER DISTRICT HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST HUMBOLDT COUNTY, NEVADA I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of the supplement to the Martin Basin Rangeland Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (2009 FEIS) is to provide additional analysis and supplemental information in response to the Forest Service Appeal Deciding Officer s (ADO s) finding that the 2009 FEIS did not adequately address the effects of livestock grazing on the wilderness characteristics within the Santa Rosa Paradise Peak Wilderness (SRPPW). 1 The Martin Basin Rangeland project consists of eight cattle and horse grazing allotments on the Santa Rosa Ranger District. Three of the allotments (Buffalo, Granite Peak, and Rebel Creek) include portions of the SRPPW. Based on the finding that the Forest Supervisor should have taken a hard look at the impacts to the SRPPW, the ADO reversed the portion of the Decision for the Martin Basin Rangeland Management Project (2009 ROD) that authorized grazing in allotments within the SRPPW. Accordingly, the decision on Buffalo, Granite Peak, and Rebel Creek allotments was reversed, while the decision on the other five allotments in the project area was affirmed. The supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) documents the additional analysis completed for this project documenting the effects of livestock grazing on the wilderness characteristics of the SRPPW. The SEIS also clarifies the information provided in the 2009 FEIS on irreversible and irretrievable commitments as it relates to all allotments in the project area. II. SUMMARY OF DECISION AND DETERMINATION This Record of Decision (2011 ROD) for the Martin Basin Rangeland Project (project) documents my decision to reauthorize grazing permits on the Buffalo, Granite Peak, and Rebel 1 Appeal Deciding Officer, Jerome E. Perez, Deputy Regional Forester, Appeal No A-215, Decision, February 22, Page 1 of 18

4 Creek allotments analyzed in the 2009 FEIS and the 2011 Final SEIS. As the Responsible Official for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, I have decided to implement Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) [hereinafter Selected Action] from the 2009 FEIS for the Buffalo, Granite Peak, and Rebel Creek allotments, with one modification. In summary, my decision: Reauthorizes grazing on three allotments in the project area (Buffalo, Granite Peak, and Rebel Creek allotments). Authorizes grazing on lands that were recently purchased by the Forest Service from private landowners (the Nevada First and Rebel Creek properties) and are within or bordering the allotments listed above. Provides a system of monitoring to determine the ecological condition of the allotments. Provides proper use criteria (end-of-season utilization) and within season triggers to determine when livestock must be removed (as clarified in the FEIS). Defines a basis for adapting proper use criteria over time in response to changes in the ecological conditions of the allotments. Identifies design features to provide additional protection for sensitive resources. Requires Allotment Management Plans to be updated to included key components of this decision. Modifies Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) by establishing a 10 percent maximum streambank disturbance criterion for all streams inhabited by Lahontan cutthroat trout (as explained on page 14 of the 2009 ROD. This modification is being made to ensure that the alternative is consistent with all the terms and conditions contained in the 2009 Biological Opinion from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Table 4 in Attachment 1 of this Record of Decision (2011 ROD) provides the proper use criteria for the various vegetative habitat groups in the allotments. The derivation of these criteria is described in greater detail in the 2009 FEIS (pp.23-24, , and ). This ROD represents the third decision made on the Martin Basin Rangeland Project. An initial decision was signed in June, 2006, and subsequently appealed. Following appeal review, the Regional Forester remanded the decision to the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest for additional analysis. A new Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and FEIS were prepared in A second decision was signed on October 30, 2009, and subsequently appealed. Following appeal review, the 2009 ROD was affirmed on five of the eight allotments in the project area. The 2009 ROD s decision on the three remaining allotments (Buffalo, Granite Peak, and Rebel Creek) was reversed with instructions to complete additional analysis of the wilderness characteristics within the SRPPW. I have also made a determination regarding the additional information in the SEIS that was designed to provide clarification on the topic of irreversible and irretrievable commitments as it relates to all allotments in the project area. After consideration of the additional information and analysis on irreversible and irretrievable commitments included in the SEIS and the comments received on the SEIS, I have determined that there is no substantial new information which would lead me to change the 2009 decision for the 5 allotments (Bradshaw, Buttermilk, Indian, Page 2 of 18

5 Martin Basin, and West Side Flat Creek) affirmed through the appeal process, and thus this decision is focused solely on the Buffalo, Granite Peak, and Rebel Creek allotments. III. PROJECT AREA The Martin Basin Rangeland Project area is located on the Santa Rosa Ranger District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. The project area comprises about 190,000 acres of the District, which is located about 40 miles north of Winnemucca, Nevada, and stretches northward to the Idaho border. The project area includes eight cattle and horse grazing allotments (Bradshaw, Buffalo, Buttermilk, Granite Peak, Indian, Martin Basin, Rebel Creek, and West Side Flat Creek). IV. BACKGROUND / PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION As presented in the 2009 FEIS, the Forest Service proposed to reauthorize grazing on eight allotments in the Martin Basin Rangeland project area, and to modify the terms and conditions of the permits under which the grazing is authorized. This Decision addresses the three allotments in the project area that include portions of the SRPPW (Buffalo, Granite Peak, and Rebel Creek). The Forest Service is proposing to authorize the consumption of forage on NFS land as part of local ranchers overall livestock operations under modified terms and conditions that reflect a better understanding of the conditions in the project area, and the latest science on grazing management relative to conditions in the project area. The Purpose and Need for the proposed federal actions is to contribute value to grazing permittees in a way that sustains the health of the land and protects essential ecosystem functions and values. For additional detail on the proposed action, the purpose and need for action, the range of alternatives, and the environmental consequences for the Martin Basin Rangeland Management Project, the reader is advised to review the 2009 FEIS (pp , 2-3, 15-32, and , respectively). Copies of the 2009 FEIS are available at the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Supervisor s Office in Sparks, NV. The 2009 FEIS and other relevant documentation can also be found on the Forest website at: V. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public participation helps the Forest Service identify concerns with the possible effects of its proposals. It is also a means of disclosing the nature and consequences of actions proposed for NFS lands. Over the long course of the Martin Basin Rangeland Management Project, the public has been involved on numerous occasions through a variety of methods. A history of public involvement is detailed in chapter 1 of the 2009 FEIS (pp. 7-9). In addition, a notice of intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement was published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2010 (Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 45, March 9, 2010, pp ). Page 3 of 18

6 The Martin Basin Draft SEIS was published for review and comment on February 11, At that time, copies of the Draft SEIS or notices of availability were sent to individuals, groups, and agencies that received the 2009 FEIS. The Draft SEIS was also made available on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest website. The notice of availability was published in the Federal Register on March 11, A legal notice on the 45 day comment period was published in the Elko Daily Free Press on March 16, The Forest Service received four timely comments. The comments and the Forest Service responses to those comments are attached to the 2011 Final SEIS. VI. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES DRIVING ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT The interdisciplinary team (ID Team) reviewed comments received during public and internal scoping for the 2009 FEIS preparation, as well as the previous EIS. They identified five significant issues specific to soil quality; water quality; vegetation composition, structure, and health; fisheries and wildlife; and socio-economic values. These issues are described in the 2009 FEIS. No new issues were identified in the comments on the 2011 Draft SEIS. VII. ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL Based on public comments, agency policy, the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), and Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA, the ID Team developed three alternatives (including the Proposed Action) for detailed analysis. The alternatives are described in detail in the 2009 FEIS. Summaries of the alternatives follow. A more detailed description of the alternatives can be found in chapter 2 of the 2009 FEIS (pp ). Alternative 1-Current Management would continue currently authorized grazing allotment management, as guided by Forest Plan standards, including the default use criteria provided by Forest Plan Amendment 2. This alternative responds most robustly to the issue of socioeconomic return to ranchers and the local community from grazing opportunities on NFS lands. Alternative 3-No Grazing/No Action would require an immediate cessation of grazing. It serves as the baseline for comparing environmental impacts and exploring the conditions necessary to provide a sustainable grazing program that protects critical resources and provides functioning ecosystems. Alternative 2-Proposed Action (Selected Action) was presented in the 2009 FEIS as the preferred alternative. It would continue grazing on all allotments under a modified set of conditions and criteria that vary from the default maximum utilization standards of Forest Plan Amendment 2, but that are consistent with Amendment 2, which specifically accommodates changes from the default standards. As directed in the Amendment, the ID Team conducting this project-specific analysis examined the applicability of the default standards, considering the full spectrum of resource needs and values. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) bases proper-use (utilization) criteria on ecological condition. The better the ecological condition of the allotment, the greater the amount of forage livestock Page 4 of 18

7 would be permitted to use. Conversely, on allotments that are functioning-at-risk or nonfunctioning, livestock would be allowed less use of forage to encourage recovery of ecological function. Tables 5 and 6 (Attachment 2) outline the numerical relationship between proper-use criteria and ecological condition. These tables set the maximum use allowable for each vegetation habitat group by condition. They provide the basis for the use criteria presented in Table 4 (Attachment 1) for the eight allotments. The development of these criteria is discussed in greater detail in the 2009 FEIS (pp.23-24, , and ). Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) requires monitoring to assess the ecological condition of the allotments on a periodic basis. Depending on the ecological condition, proper-use criteria could change for an individual allotment in accord with the relationships outlined in tables 5 and 6 (Attachment 2). Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) also includes several design criteria to provide additional protection for resources such as sensitive plants and wildlife (such as sage grouse). These design criteria are included in Attachment 3. VIII. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL The 2009 EIS considered three additional alternatives, but did not analyze them in detail. A description of the Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed In Detail can be found in Chapter 2 of the 2009 FEIS (pp.31-32). IX. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR require the ROD to identify the alternative(s) that could be considered environmentally preferable. The environmentally preferred alternative is defined by CEQ as: (1) the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment, and (2) the alternative that best protects, preserves, and enhances historical, cultural, and natural resources. Based on a comparison of the environmental consequences of all alternatives considered in detail in Chapter 3 of the 2009 FEIS and the 2011 SEIS, Alternative 3 (No Grazing/No Action) would result in the least environmental disturbance on National Forest System lands and would be the environmentally preferred alternative. X. ISSUES RAISED DURING PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DEIS The 2008 DEIS for the Martin Basin Project was issued on January 2, The required 45- day comment period was extended for an additional 45 days. Numerous and extensive comments were received on the 2008 DEIS. Comments ranged from concern about the consideration that economics was given in the environmental analysis to whether the alternatives were consistent with the direction in Amendment 2 of the Forest Plan. Some commenters expressed concern over the quality and quantity of data used in the preparation of the Page 5 of 18

8 environmental analysis. One commenter was particularly critical of our analysis and use of rangeland capability determinations. We received several comments on the monitoring program included in Alternative 2 (Proposed Action). In the process of preparing the 2009 FEIS, all comments were reviewed and responses were provided in a separate document that is included with the 2009 FEIS for public review. The 2011 Draft SEIS was published for review and comment on February 11, The issues raised during the public comment period were similar to those received on the 2008 DEIS. In the process of preparing the 2011 Final SEIS, all comments were reviewed and responses were provided in a separate document that is included in the 2011 Final SEIS for public review. XI. DECISION As the Responsible Official for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, I have decided to implement Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) (pages in the 2009 FEIS), with one modification. My single modification ensures that my decision is consistent with the terms and conditions contained in the 2009 Biological Opinion received from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation). Clarifications in the 2009 FEIS also ensure that Selected Action is implemented consistent with the framework of Forest Plan Amendment 2. The Selected Action does the following: Reauthorizes grazing on three allotments in the project area (Buffalo, Granite Peak, and Rebel Creek allotments). These allotments would be reauthorized with the initial proper-use criteria outlined in Table 4 (Attachment 1). Authorizes grazing on lands that were recently purchased by the Forest Service from private landowners (the Nevada First and Rebel Creek properties) and are within or adjacent to the allotments listed above. The proper use criteria for the grazing of these lands would be the same as the allotments in which they are embedded or border. Provides a system of monitoring to determine the ecological condition of the allotments that uses quantifiable multiply indicators (pp of the 2009 FEIS). Provides proper use criteria (end-of-season utilization) and within season triggers to determine when livestock must be removed (as clarified in the FEIS). The general relationship between proper use criteria and ecological condition is provided in Tables 5 and 6 (Attachment 2). Defines a basis for adapting proper-use criteria over time, in response to changes in the ecological conditions of the allotments. The allotments would be subject to periodic reevaluation. If the ecological condition of the allotment changes, the proper-use criteria would be adapted in accord with the relationships outlined in the previous element of this decision (p. 29 of the 2009 FEIS). Identifies design features to provide additional protection for sensitive resources. Selected design features are those identified in FEIS Chapter 2 (Attachment 3) Establishes a 10 percent maximum streambank disturbance criteria for all streams inhabited by Lahontan cutthroat trout (a modification of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), as explained on page 14 of the 2009 ROD). Page 6 of 18

9 Requires Allotment Management Plans to be updated on the Buffalo, Granite Peak, and Rebel Creek allotments to include key components of this decision (page 30 of the 2009 FEIS). My decision is based on review of the supplemental analysis documented in the 2011 Final SEIS, comments on the Draft SEIS, and information in the project record. In reaching my decision, I have carefully considered public comments received on the Draft SEIS and the analysis in the 2011 Final SEIS. The effects of livestock grazing on wilderness qualities and attributes were evaluated in response to the Appeal Deciding Officer s finding that the 2009 FEIS did not adequately address impacts to wilderness. I believe the additional analysis and supplemental information is responsive to the Appeal Deciding Officer s findings. XII. RATIONALE FOR DECISION In reaching my decision to authorize grazing on the Buffalo, Granite Peak, and Rebel Creek allotments, I reviewed many documents in the project record. I considered the supplemental information provided in the SEIS. The SEIS provides detailed information on the following wilderness qualities or attributes: untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, outstanding opportunities for solitude, outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation, and special features. The SEIS describes how the activities contemplated under the alternatives in this project would affect these wilderness qualities and attributes. My review of the SEIS leads me to the conclusion that we have taken a hard look at the impacts of grazing on the SRPPW. I also considered the relevant laws and management direction regarding wilderness. I take notice that Section 6 of the Nevada Wilderness Protection Act of 1988 (which designated the SRPPW) notes that livestock grazing that was established in this area prior to its designation as Wilderness would be administered in accordance with Section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act of I recognize that Section 4(d)(4)(2) of the act states that where livestock grazing was established prior to the designation of a wilderness, it shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture. Finally, I am aware that the Congressional Grazing Guidelines (Forest Service Manual ) clarified the language in the Wilderness Act by stating that there shall be no curtailment of grazing permits or privileges in an area simply because it is designated as wilderness. I reviewed the analysis on the Buffalo, Granite Peak, and Rebel Creek allotments in the 2009 FEIS. I considered the anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the issues and resources that could be caused by the alternatives that were analyzed in the 2009 FEIS. These issues and resources include soil quality, water quality, vegetation, fisheries and wildlife, socioeconomics, cultural resources, and recreation and trails. As I reviewed this information, I considered how well the alternatives met the dual elements of the purpose and need for action as noted above in Section IV. I also reviewed the comments and response to the 2008 DEIS and the 2011 Draft SEIS, as well as the 2009 ROD. Based on my review of these documents, I have concluded that, while grazing may have impacts on wilderness qualities and attributes, authorizing grazing in the Buffalo, Granite Peak, and Rebel Creek allotments and the SRPPW under the Selected Alternative is consistent with the Page 7 of 18

10 applicable laws and agency direction on the management of wilderness. I have concluded that the Selected Alternative provides the best balance of management activities to respond to the purpose and need, issues, and public comments, while complying with all applicable laws and regulations. My decision seeks to balance interests of the public at large and the permittees while providing processes to maintain or improve ecological conditions. These interests include managing rangeland vegetation to provide long-term sustainable conditions, while providing livestock grazing opportunities on National Forest System lands in accordance with the Multiple- Use Sustained Yield Act, the National Forest Management Act, and our Forest Plan. While meeting these interests, the decision provides methods for managing to achieve diverse and healthy ecosystems, meeting threatened and sensitive plant and animal habitat needs, and improving water quality effects to streams, riparian areas, and wetlands. My criteria for making a decision on this project were based on: Achievement of the project s Purpose and Need; Relationship to environmental and social issues and public comments received. Meeting the Purpose and Need I believe the Selected Action best meets the dual elements of the Purpose and Need for action. As discussed below, the Selected Action better meets the resource sustainability objectives provided in the Purpose and Need statement than does Alternative 1 (Current Management). The environmental issues associated with this project are discussed in greater detail in the following section and the three alternatives are compared on these issues. Alternative 3 (No Grazing/No Action), does not meet one of the elements of the Purpose and Need statement: it does not provide economic value to the permittees. Opponents of Forest Service grazing programs may object to this rationale for rejecting Alternative 3 (No Grazing/No Action) as a type of circular reasoning. We may be accused of developing selection criteria that includes a provision that only grazing alternatives can meet, and then rejecting the No Grazing Alternative on this basis. This process, however, reflects a fundamental reality of our decision process. The basic decision of whether livestock grazing is a permitted activity has already been addressed in general by legislative action and on this National Forest by the Humboldt National Forest Plan. As we note in the in the Proposed Action section of Chapter 1 of the 2009 FEIS, we must address two fundamental questions: Is the activity allowed by Congress in the laws that govern the National Forest System? What condition must we impose to govern this activity? In reference to the first question, Congress has allowed livestock grazing as an appropriate use of NFS lands (when in balance with other multiple uses). We have reviewed the permissive direction in the 2009 FEIS. Our proposal is consistent with Congressional intent for the use of National Forest System (NFS) lands, as outlined in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act. Congress also involves itself on a regular basis in our grazing program as, for example, in our annual agency budget appropriation legislation and occasional committee instructions accompanying such legislation. That Congress is aware of the economic ramifications of livestock grazing is evidenced in its active involvement in establishing grazing fees. Congress also provides specific protection for livestock grazing in some legislative actions. For example, Page 8 of 18

11 the legislation designating the Santa Rosa Paradise Peak Wilderness (the Nevada Wilderness Protection Act of 1989) contains specific language authorizing continued livestock grazing. I also find significant evidence that Congress expects us to ensure that these programs protect important resources such as clean water, endangered species, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources. Congress may not view livestock grazing as a means to these ends, but grazing must be managed with these outcomes in mind. Because of the complexity of these multiple objectives, Congress has given the Forest Service considerable discretion to implement its direction. The Humboldt National Forest Plan (Forest Plan) is a second source of decisions on livestock grazing. The Forest Plan was developed under the provisions of the National Forest Management Act. The Forest Plan clearly envisions livestock grazing and provides goals for this program. The Forest Plan also assigns significant responsibilities to project ID Teams to design the proper use criteria under which grazing will occur for concurrence by the Forest Supervisor. The ID Team has done so, and displayed the effects of grazing managed under these conditions. In designing these proper use criteria, a key consideration is the second element of the Purpose and Need: to sustain the health of the lands and protect essential ecosystem functions. Our process for implementing this proposal is consistent with direction in the National Forest Management Act for developing program guidance and complies with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for displaying the environmental impacts of proposed federal actions. Another element of the Purpose and Need is to contribute economic value to the permittees (which also accrues to the Federal Government based on assessment of grazing fees and other collections/actions that further benefit public lands). I believe the Selected Action best balances the economic needs of the permittees and the need to sustain the resource in the long run for the purposes of providing forage benefits for future generations. Comments raised during public review of the environmental analysis for this project indicate concerns over Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and the potential economic impact on permittees based on anticipated reduced utilization levels. I believe the information provided over inflates the true economic impact a reduction in utilization may have based on an over estimation of actual utilization based on current grazing practices. Although there may be an economic impact I do not believe it is as great as suggested in public comments. I am willing to monitor the actual impacts over time to better understand the relationship between the proper use criteria and the actual effects of operations and thus economic impacts, however I believe it is critical that the proper use criteria as applied for the long term sustained health of the land and thus the economic contributions of those who use the land. Comparison of Alternatives on Issues The ID Team reviewed comments received from public scoping efforts during the EIS preparation. They identified significant issues relative to grazing in the Martin Basin Project area. These issues are described in the 2009 FEIS. This section summarizes my key considerations relative to these resource issues and my decision to select a course of action based on Alternative 2 (Proposed Action). Page 9 of 18

12 Soil Quality Our monitoring indicates that soils have been impacted by grazing over the past 125 years. It is likely that historical grazing in the late 19 th and early 20 th century significantly altered the soils of the Santa Rosa Mountains and they have yet to recover fully. Monitoring indicates that microbiotic crusts are likely greatly reduced from levels that existed before livestock were introduced. In samples of wet meadows and dry to moist meadows, virtually every site had at least one soil parameter that was impaired. Of the issues discussed in this section, I believe soil conditions indicate the strongest need for a change in current management. Maintaining soil function is critical to the long term sustainability of these ecosystems. Some amount of soil compaction and plant trampling is an inevitable outcome of grazing by large animals. The more concentrated the use, the greater the compaction, with subsequent impacts to plant rooting depth and the health of the vegetative community. Soils also have recovery mechanisms, including expansion and contraction during freezing and thawing, wetting and drying, and colonization by microbiotic organisms. Based on the 2009 FEIS, I believe the Selected Action will provide a better balance between disturbance and recovery of soils and faster recovery than Alternative 1 (Current Management). Alternative 3 (No Grazing/No Action) would likely provide at least initially faster recovery of soils than either of the two action alternatives. Whether lands managed under a no grazing prescription would be subject to greater expansion of cheatgrass or other invasive species with subsequent impacts to soils is subject to continued investigation. Water Quality With respect to State water quality standards, the project area has relatively good water quality. Despite the fact that water sampling generally focused on areas of presumed problems, most measurements in the project area were in compliance with standards set by the State of Nevada. Limited sampling showed some presence of fecal coliform, but within state limits. Existing fecal coliform levels would likely continue under Alternative 1 (Current Management). Presumably these levels would be reduced somewhat under Selected Action and Alternative 3 (No Grazing/No Action), although wildlife would still continue as a source of this contaminant. Sampling of twenty sites also showed turbidity readings in two samples that were slightly above an EPA reference level. Turbidity, an indicator of sediment levels in water, can be increased by livestock use near streams. The Selected Action provides greater controls over cattle use in riparian zones than does Alternative 1 (Current Management), and thus would reduce stream bank disturbance and associated stream sediment. The Selected Action modifies Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) by adding a criterion that limits stream bank disturbance to 10 percent in stream reaches that contain Lahontan cutthroat trout. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has provided this term and condition in its Biological Opinion to protect stream integrity and water quality necessary for the threatened species. By eliminating livestock grazing, Alternative 3 (No Grazing/No Action) would further reduce, although not entirely eliminate, stream bank disturbance. Natural events would continue to create some disturbance. Page 10 of 18

13 Vegetation Condition The impacts of grazing on the vegetative resources of the project area are discussed extensively in the 2009 FEIS, both in the form of a general scientific review, and in a review of the condition of vegetation on each allotment. A key issue is the level of forage use that desirable plants can tolerate while maintaining health and integrity. It is clear from our review that permitted use (measured at the end of the growing season) must be set at moderate levels for the Martin Basin project area in order to maintain desired conditions and improve undesired conditions over the long term. Some commenters have complained that the proposed utilization levels of Selected Action are a reduction from current utilization. Furthermore, these commenters assert that no adjustment in utilization levels is warranted given the improved conditions documented in the 2009 FEIS (photographic evidence and other sources). The commenters presume that the improvements have resulted from implementation at permitted current management use-levels, and would presumably continue under Alternative 1 (Current Management). I do acknowledge that critical ecosystem components have improved. However, data connecting actual-use and management with trends in vegetative condition is, unfortunately, extremely limited. In many cases, particularly in the uplands (where cattle tend not to linger or concentrate), it is possible and even likely, that long-term use has been less than that permitted, and actually more similar to the uselevels envisioned under the Selected Action. Managing grazing to protect rangeland vegetation will continue to be a challenge. It will require close cooperation between the permittee and the Forest Service. My biggest concerns are the seep and springs (meadows) areas that we have identified as functioning-at-risk. Generally, these areas are exhibiting less that desirable vegetative condition. The District staff will be developing livestock grazing strategies with the permittees for these areas which will be included in the updated AMPs. The Selected Action reduces, but does not eliminate grazing in these areas. The Selected Action also provides design criteria to protect riparian areas from management actions that would concentrate livestock. I also recognize the condition of many of the riparian areas was significantly affected by flood events in the 1980s and 1990s. It is obvious that the flood events themselves were not caused by livestock grazing. However, the degree to which past livestock grazing may have affected runoff concentration is not known. Riparian conditions in these areas have recovered significantly under current management. I also acknowledge that other riparian areas and streamside zones need additional recovery. The Selected Action offers the opportunity for a stronger and more rapid recovery than Alternative 1 (Current Management). Managing grazing to protect riparian and wet meadow vegetation will be the single biggest challenge. It will require close cooperation between the permittee and the Forest Service. Some will argue that it would be easier to improve conditions by excluding grazing. I understand that vegetation conditions would experience the fastest improvement by completely removing domestic livestock from the project area; however, I believe that Alternative 3 (No Action/No Grazing) is unwarranted. Grazing and management of rangeland vegetation can be successfully integrated. I believe the Selected Action provides this foundation. Future vegetation management may also be challenged by the impacts of climate change and Page 11 of 18

14 expansion of non-native species such as cheatgrass. The Selected Action provides a monitoring system to discern desirable and undesirable changes in our systems. It is absolutely critical that we maintain healthy populations of native plants. I believe this further supports the decision to implement the proper use criteria of the Selected Action. As discussed in the 2009 FEIS, some research indicates that light to moderate grazing may in fact build resistance to some invasive species. We will need continued monitoring to track these changes in our systems. Wildlife and Fisheries The health of our wildlife and fish populations is closely tied to the availability of healthy and diverse ecosystems. By prescribing grazing to ensure healthy viable plant populations, the Selected Action provides the basis for healthy ecosystems that can be shared with wildlife and aquatic species. The perspectives provided in the Vegetation subsection above roll into this discussion because wildlife and fish habitat is so intimately connected to vegetative condition. In addition to designing the Selected Action to better accommodate our vegetative ecosystems, the Selected Action also incorporates design features and monitoring criteria specifically directed at wildlife and fish species. Restricting all grazing prior to May 15 in areas that could impact sage grouse lekking and nesting activities provides further protection for this species during the peak of these critical activities. Avoiding activities (such as salting, placement of water sources or temporary handling facilities) that concentrate livestock in the vicinity of sage grouse nests or leks, pygmy rabbit burrows, flammulated owl nests, bat roosts, and riparian and aspen vegetation communities offers additional protection. The Selected Action provides a strategy for managing and restoring, where needed, the vegetative systems on these allotments. These adjustments to our grazing management represent a restoration approach that improves conditions for a wide variety of species, including sage grouse and pygmy rabbit. While adjustments that correspond with the actions required under the Selected Action can be made under Alternative 1 (Current Management), the Selected Action provides more certainty that grazing activities will be managed in a manner beneficial to wildlife. The design features and proper use criteria included in the Selected Action also ensure that wildlife habitat will be improved at the same or faster rate than Alternative 1 (Current Management). By eliminating livestock grazing, Alternative 3 (No Grazing/No Action) would eliminate livestock impacts on wildlife habitat. This would allow habitat in undesired condition to improve at a faster rate than either of the other alternatives, however I believe there is adequate forage and habitat features to support wildlife, fish and livestock utilization. The Selected Action modifies Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) to limiting streambank disturbance to 10 percent in stream zones occupied by Lahontan Cutthroat trout (in addition to compliance with the proper use criteria). This additional measure, not itemized for either Alternative 1 (Current Management) or Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), offers additional protection to the threatened species, and satisfies the terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion. Page 12 of 18

15 Avoidance and/or Mitigation of Environmental Harm Livestock grazing under the Selected Alternative will undoubtedly have impacts on environmental conditions in the project area. However, I believe that the proper use criteria (end-of-season utilization and streambank alteration) will operate to avoid and/or minimize environmental harm associated with the authorized activities. Through application of and adjustments to the proper use criteria levels and implementation of the design features, areas that are in functioning condition will be maintained in that condition and areas in less than functioning condition will be improved. Alternative 1 (Current Management) could be implemented in a manner that avoids and/or minimizes environmental harm associated with the authorized activities. Unlike the Selected Alternative, it lacks the express proper use criteria and many of the design features. This makes it less certain that environmental harm will be avoided or minimized as compared to the Selected Alternative. Alternative 3 (No Action/No Grazing) would result in less environmental harm than the other alternatives because it is not authorizing any activities that could cause environmental harm. I believe that the Selected Alternative will adequately avoid and/or minimize environmental harm associated with the authorized activities and better meet the purpose and need for this project. Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity Under the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act and the National Forest Management Act, all renewable resources are to be managed in such a way that they are available for future generations. Short-term uses, and their effects, are those that occur annually or within the first few years of project implementation. Long-term productivity refers to the capability of the land and resources to continue producing goods and services long after the project has been implemented. Domestic livestock grazing can be considered a short-term use of a renewable resource. As a renewable resource, forage on rangelands can be sustained if the long-term productivity of the land is maintained. The Selected Alternative maintains long-term productivity through the application of the proper use criteria (end-of-season utilization). These moderate use levels have been shown to maintain or improve conditions on the rangelands (pp of the 2009 FEIS). Alternative 1 (Current Management) does not have established proper use criteria. It relies on the within season triggers identified in the Forest Plan and adjustments to livestock management activities to maintain or improve rangeland conditions. Accordingly, it lacks the greater certainty and predictability that is offered by the Selected Alternative. By completely eliminating livestock from the project area, Alternative 3 (No Grazing/No Action) provides the greatest benefit to long-term productivity as compared to the other alternatives. However, Alternative 3 (No Grazing/No Action) offers no opportunity for short-term use of the renewable resources in the project. I believe that the Selected Alternative adequately maintains the long-term productivity of the renewable resources in the project area while authorizing short-term use of those resources. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments Irreversible commitments describe the loss of future options. Irreversible applies primarily to the effects of use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, or to those factors, such as soil productivity that are renewable only over long periods of time (FSH Page 13 of 18

16 , Zero Code, 05 Definitions). Once these resources are gone, they cannot be replaced. The analysis in the 2011Final SEIS indicates that none of the alternatives would result in irreversible commitments of nonrenewable resources. Irretrievable commitments describe the loss of production, harvest, or use of natural resources. For example, some or all of the timber production from an area is lost irretrievably while an area is serving as a winter sports site. The production lost is irretrievable; the action is not irreversible. If the use changes, it is possible to resume timber production (FSH , Zero Code, 05 Definitions). The 2011 Final SEIS acknowledges that both of the action alternatives have irretrievable commitments to soil resources in the project area. These impacts are associated with concentrated livestock use near range developments (watering sites, fences, etc.). Around 2,400 acres (1 percent) of the project area is affected in this manner. As both of the action alternatives would continue using these developments, these effects would continue under both the Selected Action and Alternative 1 (Current Management). Under Alternative 3 (No Grazing/No Action), domestic livestock would be removed from the project area and no longer concentrate their use around these developments. Removal of the livestock would allow the soils in these small areas to slowly recover over time. In summary I find that my decision provides the best balance of use of the resources while also sustaining the health of the land for future use and enjoyment. XIII. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS My decision is consistent with relevant law, regulations, and agency policy. My conclusion is based on a review of the record that shows a thorough consideration of the proposal using the best available science. I have determined that this action is consistent with the following legal requirements: National Forest Management Act: This decision is consistent with the standards, guidelines, and management direction included in the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. As documented on pages 6-7 of the 2009 FEIS, project-level and forest-level rangeland capability and suitability analyses were conducted in 2006 and 2008, respectively, and validated the rangeland capability and suitability calculations made when the Forest Plan was developed. Endangered Species Act: The Forest Service consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Forest Service submitted a Biological Assessment dated September 8, 2009, requesting formal consultation regarding these actions. The USFWS responded in a Biological Opinion dated October 30, 2009, that concluded formal consultation for these actions. With the actions to be undertaken, including conditions and mitigation measures as described herein, I find that the legal requirements of the ESA have been satisfied. Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898): As documented in Chapter 3-Other Required Disclosures in the 2009 FEIS, my decision will have no disproportionate effects on minority populations or low-income populations. Page 14 of 18

17 National Historic Preservation Act: The Forest Service has complied with the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office regarding the effects of livestock management on historical properties. Continued adherence to this MOU satisfies the agency requires under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Clean Water Act: Based on discussions in chapter 3 of the 2009 FEIS and the project record concerning hydrology, this decision is consistent with the Clean Water Act and amendments. No permits are required for implementation of the decision. Clean Air Act: This decision is in compliance with the Clean Air Act, which defines the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for various sources of pollutants that must be met to protect human health and welfare, including visibility. Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order: This decision is in compliance with the act, subsequent Executive Order 13186, and memorandum of understanding between the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA Forest Service, which provides for the protection of migratory birds. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: Within the project area, the East Fork of the Quinn River has been found to be eligible for further consideration under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Additional studies must be conducted before the river might be recommended to Congress for actual designation. Until these studies are completed the Outstandingly Remarkable Values must be protected. This decision will not affect the potential eligibility, classification, listing, or Outstandingly Remarkable Values under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Executive Order of May 1977 (Wetlands): This order requires the Forest Service to take action to minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. In compliance with this order, Forest Service direction requires that an analysis be completed to determine whether adverse impacts would result. The 2009 FEIS and the project record confirm that the decision complies with EO by maintaining and restoring riparian conditions. Executive Order of May 1977 (Floodplains): This order requires the Forest Service to provide leadership and to take action to (1) minimize adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of floodplains and reduce risks of flood loss; (2) minimize impacts of floods on human safety, health, and welfare; and (3) restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains. The 2009 FEIS and project record confirm that the decision complies with EO by maintaining floodplain integrity. XIV. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (APPEAL) OPPORTUNITIES This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 215 and 36 CFR 251. Term grazing permit holders and applicants for term grazing permits that submitted comments or otherwise expressed interest in the project during the comment period may appeal under either the 215 or the 251 appeal regulations, but not under both. 36 CFR (d). Under 36 CFR 215, appeals must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR Only Page 15 of 18

18 individuals or organizations who submitted comments or otherwise expressed interest in the project during the comment period may appeal. Appeals must be postmarked or received by the Appeal Deciding Officer within 45 days of the publication of this notice in Elko Daily Free Press, Elko, Nevada. This date is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Timeframe information from other sources should not be relied on. The Appeal Deciding Officer is the Regional Forester. Appeals must be sent to: Appeal Deciding Officer, Intermountain Region, USFS, th Street, Ogden, Utah, Appeal can be hand-delivered to this address during regular business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Fax: , or ed appeals must be submitted in rich text (rtf) or Word (doc) and must include the project name in the subject line. An automated response will confirm your electronic appeal has been received. The appeal must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR It is the appellant's responsibility to provide sufficient project- or activity-specific evidence and rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why my decision should be reversed. At a minimum, an appeal must include the following: Appellant s name and address, with a telephone number, if available; Signature, or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail may be filed with the appeal); When multiple names are listed on an appeal, identification of the lead appellant and verification of the identity of the lead appellant upon request; The name of the project or activity for which the decision was made, the name and title of the Responsible Official, and the date of the decision; The regulation under which the appeal is being filed, when there is an option to appeal under either 36 CFR 215 or 36 CFR 251, subpart C; Any specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks and rationale for those changes; Any portion(s) of the decision with which the appellant disagrees, and explanation for the disagreement; Why the appellant believes the Responsible Official s decision failed to consider the comments; and How the appellant believes the decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy. Page 16 of 18