DECISION NOTICE HENRY CREEK AND SWAMP CREEK RANGE ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLANS REVISION U.S. FOREST SERVICE PLAINS/THOMPSON FALLS RANGER DISTRICT LOLO NATIONAL FOREST SANDERS COUNTY, MONTANA DECISION Based upon my review of the Henry Creek and Swamp Creek Range Allotment Management Plans Revision Environmental Assessment (EA), I have decided to implement the Proposed Action. My decision allows continuation of grazing on both the Henry Creek and Swamp Creek allotments (see Figure 1) through the issuance of a 10-year term grazing permit as summarized in the following table. Existing permit requirements for each allotment Allotment Henry Creek Swamp Creek Permitted AUMs 22 cow/calf pairs, 1 bull 45 cow/calf pairs On/Off periods Improvements Grazing System July 1-September 15 June 1-September 1 3 fence segments, 1 water development, 2 cattle guards 2 fence segments 1. On/off means the cattle move between State and Forest Service lands freely throughout the season One pasture on/off with adjacent State lands 1 One pasture on/off with adjacent State lands My decision includes the following resource protection measures to address site-specific resource needs for each allotment: Henry Creek Allotment Fell small diameter trees along Henry Creek where multiple livestock trails exist to reduce trailing immediately adjacent to Henry Creek (Sections 23 and 26, T20N, R25W) and reduce stream crossings to one armored crossing (see Figure 2, Site A and between Sites A and B). Fell trees to prevent further trampling within seep area adjacent to Henry Creek (Section 23, SW of SE ¼; northwest of Site A, T20N, R25W). Page 1 of 9
Remove fence around the old Mill site, including where fence is in Henry Creek (Section 26, T20N, R25W). Fell small diameter trees to discourage access to creek in this area and prevent trampling (see Figure 2, Site A). Include old Mill site (Section 26, T20N, R25W) in weed spraying program to reduce weed infestations (see Figure 2, Site A). Swamp Creek Allotment Fence riparian area (see Figure 3, Site D) to eliminate grazing/trampling within riparian area, and construct a water tank to provide water away from the riparian area (SE of SW1/4, Section 14, T20N, R27W). Include Site D (see Figure 3) in weed spraying program to reduce weed infestations. Use woody materials to control cattle trailing in Sites A and C (see Figure 3). No changes to existing permit requirements will occur for either permit. These permit requirements are the result of past modifications in annual operating permits and are incorporated into this decision. All other conditions of the permits will remain the same. The Forest Service will ensure that utilization standards will be met through permit administration. DECISION RATIONALE The purpose of revising these two allotment management plans is to formally incorporate changes to grazing practices that were identified in past annual operating plans and permit reissuance procedures, and to incorporate standards and guidelines to ensure compliance with the Forest Plan. These changes were made to address resource concerns related to environmental impacts from the length of grazing season and number of animals permitted. The resource protection measures included in this decision are to respond to site-specific impacts that have the potential to affect soil and water quality, and weed spread. The Henry Creek and Swamp Creek Range Allotment Management Plans Revision EA documents the environmental analysis and conclusions upon which I am basing my decision. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The proposed action was originally listed on the Lolo National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) and updated periodically during the analysis. The public was also invited to review and comment on the proposal through direct mailings to interested parties on the Forest mailing list. The EA lists agencies and people consulted on page 23. The EA was posted on the Forest website and a legal notice announcing the availability of the EA for review and comment was published in the Missoulian, Sanders County Ledger, and Clark Fork Valley Press newspapers. Only one comment was received, which was from one of the permittees regarding implementation of the proposed action. No specific concerns or questions regarding the necessity of the proposed action were received by the Forest Service. Page 2 of 9
FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS This decision is consistent with the Lolo National Forest Plan. The project was designed in conformance with the standards and guidelines listed in the Lolo National Forest Plan. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, 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 1508.27). Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. I base my finding on the following: Beneficial and adverse impacts My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action. The proposed action will protect sensitive riparian areas and enhance recovery of soils and vegetation in these areas. These beneficial impacts are disclosed in the EA on pages 7-14. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety The proposed action continues grazing of these areas with additional protection measures to enhance vegetation recovery of riparian areas, and reduces the potential for the establishment and spread of invasive species. There are no identified activities or effects that would adversely impact public health or safety. Unique characteristics of the geographic area There are no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area, as there are no ecologically critical areas (such as historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers), or designated wilderness areas within the project area. The allotment areas contain riparian areas, but they will be protected through resource protection measures. The degree to which the effects on the human environment are likely to be highly controversial The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. There are no known scientific controversies regarding the impacts of the project. Page 3 of 9
The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks We have considerable experience with the types of activities to be implemented. The effects analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk (see EA pages 7-22). Grazing has occurred on these allotments for numerous years, and past monitoring has not identified any impacts that were unique or unknown. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects because the proposed action is authorizing the continuation of an existing use which has been monitored annually. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts The cumulative impacts are not significant (see EA pages 7-22). As the direct and indirect effects for each resource are either negligible or beneficial, there are no significant impacts that may, when added to other impacts within the project area, have an adverse cumulative impact. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources The action will have no adverse effects on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, as determined by the field reconnaissance and analysis conducted in accordance with regulation and policy direction. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 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, because the proposed action minimizes the potential for adverse effects (see EA pages 10-14, 16-18, and 19-22). The biological assessment for fish species determined that the proposed action would have no impact on bull trout or designated critical habitat for bull trout. The biological assessment for wildlife species concluded that the proposed project would have No Effect on either grizzly bear or Canada lynx. No consultation was required with the US Fish and Wildlife Service for Page 4 of 9
these species. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or other requirements imposed for the protection of the environment The action will not violate Federal, State, and local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Conformance with applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA (see EA pages 7-22). The action is consistent with the Lolo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (See EA pages 7-22). FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS My decision to implement the proposed action is consistent with the intent of the Lolo Forest Plan's long term goals and objectives. The project was designed in conformance with land and resource management plan standards and incorporates appropriate land and resource management plan guidelines for grazing and resource protection (Lolo National Forest Plan, pages II-9, III-64 through III-67). ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES Only supportive comments were received during the 30-day comment period that commenced with publication of legal notice in the Missoulian newspaper on July 19, 2012. Thus, pursuant to 36 CFR 215 regulations, this decision is not subject to appeal. Implementation may begin immediately after publication of legal notice of this decision in the Missoulian newspaper. CONTACT Further information about this decision can be obtained from Dave Wrobleski, Resource Assistant, during normal office hours (weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger District Office (Address: 408 Clayton St, P.O. Box 429, Plains, MT 59859; Phone/voicemail: (406) 826-4321. /s/ Deborah L. R. Austin 9/18/2012 DEBORAH L. R. AUSTIN Forest Supervisor Date Page 5 of 9
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) 720-2600 (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. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Page 6 of 9
Figure 1 Page 7 of 9
Figure 2 Page 8 of 9
Figure 3 Page 9 of 9