APPENDIX 3 Demonstration Project

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "APPENDIX 3 Demonstration Project"

Frederick Bailey
6 years ago
Views:

1 APPENDIX 3 Demonstration Project On September 20, 2006, Regional Forester Abigail R. Kimbell signed The Livestock Grazing Record of Decision for Dakota Prairie Grasslands Final Environmental Impact Statement and Land and Resource Management Plan (Kimbell 2006). This decision established The Demonstration Project (see Kimbell 2006, pp and Appendix A). The purpose of the Demonstration Project is to: 1) develop and implement integrated Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) collaboratively with grazing association that share in the management of grazing on the National Grasslands; 2) to determine if LRMP Goals and Objectives are achievable or need modification; and 3) monitor progress towards meeting resource objectives (Kimbell 2006, p. 8). A key goal of the Demonstration Project is to maintain or improve current on-the-ground conditions while maintaining, to the maximum extent possible, a grazing program at current AUM levels and providing sufficient habitat for grassland species (ibid p. 9). Kimbell (2006, p. 10) emphasized, however, that all such projects must be consistent with the Dakota Prairie Grasslands Grasslands Plan, as required by the National Forest Management Act. The project discussed in this EA is subject to Demonstration Project provisions. To date, the Pasture 1-5 AMP Revision Demonstration Project has focused on the establishment of a working group, and the development of proposed actions for each grazing allotment. The proposed actions were then carried forward into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) phase as part of the proposed action presented during public scoping. The proposed actions and their alternatives form the basis for this environmental assessment (EA). Future plans for the Pasture 1-5 AMP Revision Demonstration Project includes project-level monitoring, as detailed in Chapter 2 of this EA (see also Kimbell 2006, p. 17, #9). The Demonstration Project contains several provisions (Kimbell p ). Some of these provisions relate to the Record of Decision itself (example: provisions #1 and #2), or the Sheyenne National Grassland (example: provision #6). Several, however, are relevant to the Pasture 1-5 AMP Revision project area (Table 4-1). The purpose of this appendix is to summarize how those provisions were met. Demonstration Project Progress The Demonstration Project for the Pasture 1-5 AMP Revision project area (hereafter project area ) was initiated on October 31, 2006, with a tour of the grazing allotments by Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association (hereafter Association ) members and Dakota Prairie Grasslands staff. As a follow-up to that tour, Acting District Ranger Al Williamson (2006) sent Association President Nathan Skjodal a letter outlining the Pasture 1-5 project s tentative work schedule. Williamson (2006) also pointed out that the Association had several options on how to collaborate in the pre- NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process. Acting Ranger Williamson, as well as Acting Ranger Kurt Hansen, subsequently discussed the Demonstration Project with the Association s

2 Board of Directors, at their regularly scheduled monthly meeting, as well as in writing (Svingen et al. 2007). The Association and Dakota Prairie Grasslands staff met March 20, 2007* at North Dakota State University s (NDSU) Hettinger Research Center. The purpose of this meeting was to: 1) review the demonstration project s function, 2) review the vegetative data collected by Dr. Schauer in summer 2006, and 3) discuss additional data needs and funding options for summer At this meeting the Association Board of Directors decided to adopt the traditional approach for the Pasture 1-5 AMP revision project, wherein the working group would be restricted to Association members and Forest Service staff. NDSU research staff was involved in the working group as technical advisors as they had been jointly funded by the Association and Dakota Prairie Grasslands to collect baseline vegetative data within the project area. The working group then dispersed and concentrated on filling resource data needs in spring, summer, and fall Attendees of the March 20 meeting included: (NDSU): Dr. Chris Schauer. (Grand River Grazing Association): Bob Parker, Nate Skjoldal, Jim Strand, John Johnson, CW Archibald, Rod Evenson, Bob Herman, Sherri Sonn; (Dakota Prairie Grasslands): Dan Svingen, Drew Anderson, Kurt Hansen, Chancey Odell, Dr. Mark Gonzalez, Babette Anderson, Sheila McNee, and Mark Goeden. *Note: at this and subsequent meetings, notes were taken then circulated to attendees for review and editing. Any edits received were incorporated, with the subsequent version labeled Final. The Final meeting notes were used as a key source in the preparation of this appendix. Full copies of these meeting notes are available in the project file. On August 14, 2007, District Ranger Joby Timm sent Association President Skjodal a letter updating the working group on ongoing monitoring efforts. Timm (2007) suggested an October meeting to review that data. A November 15 meeting was agreed to, but was subsequently postponed, at the request of the Association (Timm 2007b). The working group met December 6, 2007 at NDSU Hettinger Research Center. The purpose of this meeting was to review the existing monitoring data that was particularly relevant for updating allotment management plans in the Pasture 1 to 5-project area. Sheila McNee reported that on behalf of the working group, she had successfully negotiated with the U.S. Forest Service s Region One office to provide more time for us to complete our task. Specifically, instead of needing to have a signed NEPA decision by September 2008, a signed NEPA decision is now not due until September 2009 (note: the due dates for signed NEPA decisions are part of the US Forest Service s strategy to comply with federal law, specifically the Recession Act of 1995). Attendees at the December 6 meeting included: (NDSU): Amanda Gearhart, Dr. Chris Schauer. (Grand River Grazing Association): CW Archibald, Bob Parker, Johnny Johnson, Dr. Jerry Sailer, Ted Sailer, Nate Skjoldal, Tim Smith, Sherri Sonn, Jim Strand. (Dakota Prairie Grasslands): Drew Anderson, Paul Drayton, Mark Goeden, Dr. Mark Gonzalez, Sheila McNee, Chancey Odell, Dan Svingen, Joby Timm.

3 The next working group meeting was held January 17, 2008 at NDSU Hettinger Research Center. The purpose of this meeting was to give an overview of adaptive management and NRCS stocking guideline calculations, establish sideboards, and to draft proposed actions for the Gunn, Erlandson, and Herm grazing allotments. For each allotment under discussion, the permittee first briefed the working group on the allotment and any management issues that they had identified there. Dakota Prairie Grasslands specialists then briefed the working group on existing resource condition data (grazing monitoring, potential and existing vegetation, wildlife, soils, hydrology, etc.), as well as the allotment s contribution towards meeting Grasslands Plan goals and objectives. The working group then discussed the minimum changes in livestock management necessary to plausibly meet goals and objectives within the next years. Attendees included: (NDSU): Amanda Gearhart. (Grand River Grazing Association): CW Archibald, Bob Parker, Dr. Jerry Sailer, Nate Skjoldal, Jim Strand, Jill Merkel, Josh Merkel, Vince Gunn, Rod Evenson. (Dakota Prairie Grasslands): Drew Anderson, Paul Drayton, Dr. Mark Gonzalez, Chancey Odell, Dan Svingen, Joby Timm. The working group met February 21, 2008 at NDSU Hettinger Research Center to address how preference numbers would be affected by this process and to draft proposed actions for the Hermann, Dyson, and Krisle grazing allotments. Meeting structure (i.e. permittee briefings, followed by Forest Service staff briefings, followed by group discussions), was the same as described for the January 17, 2008 meeting. At the request of the Association, the working group agreed to skip March and April meetings to avoid some conflicts with calving. Attendees of the February 21 meeting included: (NDSU): Amanda Gearhart, Dr. Dan Nudell, Dr. Chris Schauer. (Grand River Grazing Association): CW Archibald, Josh Randell, Linda Evridge, Gale Evridge, Jim Strand, Bob Herman, Bob Parker. (Dakota Prairie Grasslands): Sheila McNee, Dan Svingen, Joby Timm, Dr. Mark Gonzalez, Paul Drayton, Chancey Odell. On May 21 and 22, 2008, the working group gathered at NDSU Hettinger Research Center to draft proposed actions for the 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C-H, 2C-D, 4A, and 4B grazing allotments. The core of the meeting was structured like the January 17, 2008 meeting. Attendees included: (NDSU): Amanda Gearhart. (Grand River Grazing Association): 21 st Donny Archibald, Josh Merkel, Jill Merkel, Josh Randall, Ellen Evenson, Rod Evenson, Darrel Henderson, Vince Gunn, Sherri Sonn, Tanner Sonn, Bob Hermann; 22 nd Bob Parker, Josh Randall, Ted Sailer, Dr. Gerry Sailer, Terry Henderson. (Dakota Prairie Grasslands): Dan Svingen, Joby Timm, Dr. Mark Gonzalez, Paul Drayton. June 25 and 26, 2008 again saw the working group assembled at NDSU Hettinger Research Center. The purpose of this meeting was to draft proposed actions for the 5A, Evridge, 5C, 5B-North, 5B- South, 3A, Smith, and 3B grazing allotments. For each allotment, the meeting format again followed the pattern of input from permittees, input from Forest Service specialists, then a group discussion on proposed actions, before moving onto the next allotment. This concluded our drafting of proposed actions. At the request of the Association, NDSU Hettinger Research Center s Agricultural Economist Dan Nudell agreed to lead a sub-committee to evaluate the likely economic

4 impacts of these proposed actions. Funding for this effort would be cost-shared by the Association and Dakota Prairie Grasslands. Attendees included: (NDSU): Amanda Gearhart, Dr. Dan Nudell. (Grand River Grazing Association): 25 th Roberta Mitchell, Bob Hermann, Lynn Frey; 26 th Jim Strand, Bob Parker, Nate Skjodahl, Carter Archibald, Mark Archibald, CW Archibald, Tim Smith, Kyle Smith, Lynn Frey, Calvin Frey, Ryan Hermann, Bob Hermann. (Dakota Prairie Grasslands): Dan Svingen, Joby Timm, Dr. Mark Gonzalez, Paul Drayton, Drew Anderson. (Guests invited by permittee Tim Smith from hours on June 26): Mike Schweitzer, Scott Vance, Ryan Maher, Betty Olson, Magnus Meier, John Scherbenske. The economic assessment subcommittee met August 5, 2008 in Lemmon, South Dakota to discuss analysis procedures. Attendees included: (NDSU): Dr. Chris Schauer, Dan Nudell. (Grand River Grazing Association): Jane Peterson, Nate Skjodahl. (Dakota Prairie Grasslands): Paul Drayton, Brenda Quale, Drew Anderson, Joby Timm, Mark Goeden, Dan Svingen (the latter two by conference call from Bismarck, ND). Subsequent meetings of the economic assessment subcommittee were held September 11, September 23, and October 16, The purpose of these meetings was to refine the economic analysis procedures. Attendance varied slightly by meeting. For example, on October 16, 2008, attendees included: (NDSU): Dan Nudell. (Grand River Grazing Association): Nate Skjodahl. (Dakota Prairie Grasslands): Susan Winter (US Forest Service economist, via conference call from Washington D.C.), Keith Stockman (US Forest Service economist, via conference call from Missoula, MT), Paul Drayton, Brenda Quale, Sheila McNee, Joby Timm, and Mark Goeden. The last meeting of the working group before initiation of the NEPA-phase occurred at NDSU Hettinger Research Center on November 5, 2008 (note: time on November 6 had also been set aside for one-on-one discussions with Association directors and permittees, but no requests for such meetings were received). The November 5 agenda consisted of a review of proposed actions, report out on summer 2008 vegetative data, and update on the economic analysis. Attendees included: (NDSU): Amanda Gearhart, Dr. Chris Schauer. (Grand River Grazing Association): Duane Mink, Bob Parker, Nate Skjodahl, Rod Evenson, Donny Archibald, Tim Smith, Rich Hedstrom, Tanner Strom, Jeff Merkel, CW Archibald, Carter Archibald. Lynn Frey, Jim Strand. (Dakota Prairie Grasslands): Dan Svingen, Joby Timm, Dr. Mark Gonzalez, Paul Drayton, Sheila McNee (via conference call).

5 Table 4-1. Summary of compliance with Demonstration Project provisions (Kimbell 2006, pp ), relevant 1 to this project. PROVISION 3) selected AMPs will be developed and implemented, working through the processes described in this document. Goals, objectives, standards and guidelines related to livestock grazing in the Grasslands Plan will be assessed. If adjustments are needed, Grassland Plan amendments will be proposed. 4) standards relative to livestock grazing will become guidelines, except those based on law and regulation (i.e., Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, etc.). Goals and objectives may also be modified or changed to meet on-the-ground conditions and/or capabilities. One goal will be to maintain or improve current on-the-ground conditions to maintain, to the maximum extent possible, a grazing program at current levels and provide sufficient habitat for grassland species. Sitespecific amendments to the DPG Plan to incorporate these changes will be done, as needed. The terms of the Demonstration Project supercede any inconsistent terms in the ROD or the DPG LRMP. 5) As recommended by the SRT, the Forest Service will only apply vegetative structural objectives to biologically capable lands in the development of the AMPs. 7) The working groups or Forest Service and the grazing associations and their members proposals would be carried forward in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process as the Forest Service s proposed action for the AMP and any related LRMP amendments, provided they are consistent with existing law. 8) The range of alternatives might include, but are not limited to: 1) The proposed action, which would be the approach agreed to by the grazing associations and the Forest Service; 2) A permitted and/or preference livestock alternative, 3) An alternative that maximizes other resource values based on Plan goals, objectives and guidelines; 4) The no action alternative which will be the no grazing alternative; and 5) An alternative considering current management as it is being implemented on the allotment, if it meets the purpose and need for the project and LRMP goals and objectives. 9) The DPG will prioritize funding for monitoring. Project-level livestock grazing monitoring will be used to measure progress COMPLIANCE EFFORTS This project will develop AMPs for selected grazing allotments, using the Demonstration Project process. As part of that effort we have assessed on-the-ground conditions and compared them to Grasslands Plan s goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. No Grasslands Plan amendment needs were identified, nor are any such amendments proposed. A listing of the standards changed to guidelines is available in Kimbell 2006, pp Additional information is also available in Kimbell 2006, Appendix B, pp A goal to maintain or improve current on-the-ground conditions was incorporated into this EA (see Table 1, p. 11). No Grasslands Plan amendment needs were identified, nor are any such amendments proposed. Under all alternatives, vegetative structural objectives would apply only to biologically capable lands. See EA. The working group s proposed actions were carried forward into the NEPA process as the proposed action detailed during public scoping. The proposed action was subject to modification during the NEPA process based on public input and analysis of environmental consequences. This project s range of alternatives include: the proposed action (Alternative B), no grazing (Alternative D), and current management (Alternative A). An additional alternative (Alternative C) increases the emphasis on other resource values, although it does not necessarily maximize all those other resource values. See EA Chapter 3 for issue by issue discussion. Note that in many, but not all cases, current management (Alternative A) is at permitted and/or preference levels. This EA proposes monitoring as detailed on pp Monitoring data will be available for public review.

6 towards meeting the resource goals and objectives as stated in the LRMP, using the LRMP Monitoring and Evaluation direction (Chapter 4) and the Memorandum of Understanding between the Public Lands Council (PLC) and the Forest Service. In accordance with the MOU, the records for monitoring results will be retained and available for public review.there will be no cuts in permitted AUMs without monitoring showing that livestock are principally responsible for not meeting the desired condition, and that the cuts are the only ecologically practicable and economically feasible means available for meeting the desired condition. In these circumstances, the Forest Service will work with the grazing associations to minimize livestock grazing reductions. 11) The AMP process, including monitoring, will be used to implement the Grasslands Plan and will be the basis for any adjustments to livestock numbers 12) The Forest Service will comply with all applicable federal laws and executive orders. This includes the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act. Where past monitoring data indicated that resource conditions were not being met due to livestock, the proposed action proposed AUM adjustments (see Appendix 3 for details, example Allotment 5C). Where past monitoring data indicated that resource conditions were being met, the proposed action proposed no AUM adjustments (ibid, example: Gunn Allotment). Allotment Management Plan (AMP) revision is the subject of this EA. It contains proposed alternatives to meet this project need (i.e. implementing the Grasslands Plan). See EA p. 6. The decision that will be based on this EA will comply with applicable federal laws and executive orders, including the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act. See also EA section Consistency with Other Policy and Direction (pp ). 1 Note: additional Demonstration Project provisions or portions of provisions pertain to the writing of Kimbell 2006, the Sheyenne National Grassland, future DPG LRMPs, and grazing agreements. Those provisions are outside the scope of the Pasture 1 to 5 AMP revision project, and are so excluded from Table 4-1.

3.8 Key Issue: Grazing Economics

3.8 Key Issue: Grazing Economics Several scoping respondents and EA commenters identified the economic impacts of the proposed actions as an issue. Many of the actions proposed in this document would have