Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Determination
to Comply with the
District of Montana Court Order
Gallatin Wildlife Association vs. Forest Service et al.
CV-15-0027 (D. Mont.)
(June 14, 2016)
Review of New Information Pertinent To
Domestic Sheep Allotment Management Plans
In the Gravelly Mountains
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest
Madison County, Montana
December, 2017
Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service,
Northern Region
Responsible Official: Dale Olson
Madison District Ranger
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest
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.
Determination AMPs –Sheep Allotments in Gravelly Mountains December, 2017
DETERMINATION
of
Review of New Information Pertinent To
Domestic Sheep Allotment Management Plans
In the Gravelly Mountains
INTRODUCTION
This documents my determination and rationale in compliance with the District Court’s order of
June 14, 2016 for the Forest Service to conduct a review of the five issues concerning big horn
sheep raised by the Gallatin Wildlife Association, and any other pertinent new information, to
determine whether any, or all of this new information warrants National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) supplementation for the Gravelly Sheep Allotment Management Plans (AMPs).
To conduct the review ordered by the Court, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (BDNF)
prepared the document Review of New Information Pertinent to Domestic Sheep Allotments in
the Gravelly Mountains (hereinafter “New Information Review”). I have evaluated all
information relating to management of the Gravelly Sheep allotments, considered the analysis in
the New Information Review and considered all public comment to determine if the new
information is sufficient to show that allotment management is affecting the environment in a
significant manner or to a significant extent such that a supplementation of NEPA analysis for the
AMPs must be prepared.
Council on Environmental Quality regulations require supplemental NEPA analysis when there
are “significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and
bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii). Specifically, Ninth
Circuit case law provides: “[i]f there remains major Federal action to occur, and the new
information is sufficient to show that the remaining action will affect the quality of the human
environment in a significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered, a
supplemental EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) must be prepared.” Friends of Clearwater
v. Dombeck, 222 F.3rd 552, 557-558 (9th Cir. 2000), citing Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res.
Council, 490 U.S. 360, 374 (1989).
BACKGROUND
Bighorn Sheep Reintroduction into Greenhorn Mountains: 2003-2004
Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep were once plentiful in Montana. By the 1930’s, hunting, disease,
and range competition from domestic livestock reduced the bighorn to remnant bands. The State
of Montana began reintroduction programs in the 1940’s. In 2001, the State decided to
reintroduce bighorn sheep in the Greenhorn Mountains south of Alder, Montana, to help restore
Page 2
the area’s biodiversity and provide potential hunting and wildlife-viewing opportunities. In 2003
and 2004, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) transplanted 69 bighorn sheep to the
Greenhorn Mountains.
The New Information Review "Background" and "Reintroduction of Bighorn Sheep" sections
provides a more detailed discussion of bighorn sheep in Gravelly Landscape and their
reintroduction.
Domestic Sheep Grazing Allotments and Allotment Management Plans
Domestic livestock, including domestic sheep, were introduced in the Gravelly Landscape
(including the Greenhorn Mountains) shortly after discovery of gold in Alder Gulch in 1863,
more than 150 years ago. In 1920, an estimated 104,700 ewe/lamb pairs were permitted on the
Madison National Forest in the Gravelly, Greenhorn and Snowcrest Mountains.
Currently, 7,800 ewe/lamb pairs are permitted to graze seven domestic sheep allotments (Barnett,
Black Butte, Coal Creek, Cottonwood, Fossil-Hellroaring, Lyon-Wolverine and Poison Basin) on
the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (BDNF) in the Gravelly Mountains. On and off dates
for each allotment vary. The earliest on date is July 1 and the latest off date is October 6. Please
see the New Information Review section “Domestic Sheep Allotment Specific Information” for
details regarding each allotment.
These allotments have been grazed by sheep since prior to the establishment of the National
Forest. Current allotment boundary configurations are a result of various allotment
combinations. Permitted domestic sheep annually trail to and from these allotments. The trailing
route from the west is through The Notch (located in the Snowcrest Mountains). Trailing may
also occur from private lands located to the east. Trailing takes approximately 2-3 days for each
band to trail to the allotments. Please see the New Information Review section “AMP/Grazing
Permit Requirements for Sheep Allotments in the Gravelly Mountains” for a more detailed
discussion of trailing.
Grazing use of these allotments follows prescribed grazing practices detailed in term grazing
permits and Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) which are described in the Review.
An AMP is a document that applies to the management of rangeland ecosystems and livestock
operations on public lands by prescribing: (1) the manner in and extent to which livestock
operations will be conducted in order to meet ecosystem health, multiple use, economic and
other objectives; (2) describes range improvements to be installed and maintained; and (3)
contains such other provisions relating to livestock grazing and other objectives found by the
Secretary of Agriculture to be consistent with the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act. An AMP integrates resource objectives, standards, guidelines and
management requirements for soil and water for watershed protection, wildlife and fisheries,
recreation, timber and other resources on lands within a range allotment.
The specific authorization to graze livestock on National Forest System lands is the Term
Grazing Permit (grazing permit). The grazing permit specifies who is allowed to graze, where
grazing will occur, the number and type of livestock and the time frame when grazing is allowed.
In addition, the grazing permit requires payment of grazing fees, maintenance of structures and
Page 3
may include additional allotment specific requirements deemed necessary to graze livestock
while protecting resources within the area. Grazing permits are subject to direction contained in
the Forest Plan and any revision thereto. This is specifically stated in the terms and conditions of
the grazing permit. The AMP is also specifically listed as a term and condition of the grazing
permit. Allotment grazing requirements as mentioned in the above paragraph must be followed
to meet the conditions of the grazing permit. If changes to the AMP occur, these changes
automatically change the conditions of the grazing permit. All grazing must follow the
requirements set forth in the permits, AMPs and annual operating instructions (AOIs).
The AMPs at issue in the Review prescribe livestock management practices for the Barnett,
Black Butte, Coal Creek, Cottonwood, Fossil-Hellroaring, Lyon-Wolverine and Poison Basin
sheep allotments located on the BDNF in the Gravelly Mountains near Black Butte. With the
exception of the Black Butte AMP, these AMPs have been approved, over time, following
environmental analysis in an Environmental Analysis Report (EAR), Environmental Assessment
(EA), Decision Memo (DM) or Categorical Exclusion (CE). These environmental analyses did
not include an EIS.
LITIGATION
In 2015, Gallatin Wildlife Association et al. filed a complaint (Case 2:15-cv-00027-BMM) in
U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. One of Gallatin’s1 claims alleged the Forest
Service failed to supplement the domestic sheep grazing AMPs in the Gravelly Mountains (Court
Order2, pg. 9). Gallatin also alleged claims regarding the 2009 Forest Plan. On June 14, 2016 the
District Court issued an order concerning both the AMPs and the 2009 Forest Plan.
District Court Order of June 14, 2016
In terms of the AMPs, the District Court ordered the Forest Service to “conduct a review of the
five issues raised by Gallatin, and any other pertinent new information, to determine whether
any, or all, of this new information warrants supplementation of the original EIS prepared for the
AMPs at issue here” (Court Order, pg. 37). The five issues raised by Gallatin are (Court Order,
pg. 33):
1. The 2003/2004 reintroduction of bighorn sheep in the Greenhorn Mountains,
2. The 2011 listing of bighorn sheep as a sensitive species by the Regional Forester,
3. The existence of the 2002 and 2008 Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between the
BDNF, BLM, MFWP and domestic sheep grazing operators facilitating implementation of a
bighorn sheep transplant in the Greenhorn Mountains,
1 Because the June 14, 2016 Court Order collectively refers to plaintiffs Gallatin Wildlife Association,
WildEarth Guardians, Western Watershed Project and Yellowstone Buffalo Foundation as “Gallatin”,
this document adopts the same term when referring to plaintiffs.
2 For the reader’s convenience, The U.S. District Court Order is electronically available on the BDNF
webpage at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=50067
Page 4
4. Updated information regarding disease transmission between domestic sheep and bighorn
sheep, and
5. The consideration by MFWP that bighorn sheep could be reintroduced to closed allotments.
The District Court also provided that “The USFS will need to consider the appropriateness and
scope of future domestic grazing based upon a full and open environmental review
process…This full and open environmental review process also must consider whether sufficient
new information has emerged that requires the environmental review for the AMPs to be
updated” (Order, pg. 36-37).
In terms of the 2009 Forest Plan, the District Court ordered the Forest Service to conduct a
Supplement Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to consider the Memorandum of
Understanding. This SEIS is being conducted separately from the New Information Review.
NEW INFORMATION REVIEW
The Forest Service’s analysis of the effects of BDNF’s domestic sheep grazing in the Gravelly
Mountains in terms of whether the five issues raised by Gallatin, and any other pertinent new
information warrants supplementation of the NEPA analyses prepared for the AMPs is
documented in the New Information Review, along with all attachments, record documents,
public comment, and the Forest Service’s responses to comments.
Process
The BDNF prepared both a Draft New Information Review and a Final New Information Review
in response to the Court’s Order. The Draft New Information Review was released on January
13, 2017 for a 30-day a public comment period. The Final New Information Review, being
released with this Determination, has been modified based on public comments and comments
from MFWP.
Public Involvement
The Forest Service has responded to each public comment received on the Draft New
Information Review. Twenty-six (26) comments were received. The Forest Service’s responses
are provided as Attachment C to the Final New Information Review and are organized by
comment letter. The Forest Service reviewed each comment letter to identify specific issues
raised. These issues were summarized and identified sequentially by number for each comment
letter. The Forest Service response to each issue raised by each comment is provided in the
“RESPONSE” sections of Attachment C.
The entire content of letters providing comments on the Draft New Information Review are
available on the project web page (https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=50067). Please
click on the “Public Comment/Objection Reading Room” link in the right hand column of the
web page.
Page 5
DETERMINATION and RATIONALE
I have carefully considered all information relating to management of the Gravelly Sheep
allotments, considered the analysis in the New Information Review and considered all public
comment and it is my determination that the new information does not show that allotment
management, at the present time, is affecting the environment in a significant manner or to a
significant extent such that supplementation of the NEPA documents prepared for the AMPs is
warranted.
The information included in the New Information Review, summarized below, validates my
determination including: no known commingling of the species; no bighorn sheep have been
removed due to presence of domestic sheep on the BDNF; the distribution area of bighorn sheep
does not include the Gravelly Mountains; Forest Service, MFWP and permittees have committed
to measures in the MOU and are taking measures to minimize risk of commingling consistent
with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Recommendations
including removal of any individual commingling bighorn through kill permits, reporting,
marking and counting sheep, locating and reacquiring where possible stray/dead sheep, and
taking action to identify and remove sick domestic sheep on the allotments; the Gravelly
Mountains do not provide suitable winter habitat for bighorn sheep due to snow depth; and
MFWP states in their comments that based on snow depth it would be nearly impossible
logistically for MFWP personnel to transport bighorns, the bighorn sheep would not be expected
to survive the winter, and that “releasing bighorn into the Gravelly Mountains is unlikely to
occur.”
The Forest Service, grazing permittees and the MFWP will continue their efforts working
cooperatively to minimize the risk of commingling and any adverse impact to the Greenhorn
herd. Coordination with the MFWP and Forest Service will include, as feasible, aerial and
ground surveys for bighorn sheep prior to trailing on and off and additional personnel surveying
on-the-ground during trailing to pro-actively manage allotment grazing under the MOU.
My determination is further based on the fact that if circumstances occur that require additional
grazing allotment management measures to be taken, the Forest Service has the authority to
make any needed modifications or cancel the grazing permits, in whole or in part, as provided in
Part 1, Term 3 of the grazing permits. In addition, management of the allotments remains
consistent with sensitive species management and Forest Plan direction.
My determination is also based on the fact that the BDNF, consistent with the Rescissions Act,
plans to begin a new NEPA process in 2018 for the AMPs, as part of AMP revision.
Below is a summary of the information that forms the basis of my determination in terms of: 1)
New Information Review; 2) Permit/Annual Operating Instructions Terms and Conditions; 3)
Allotment Management Plan Rescissions Act Schedule; and 4) Forest Plan Compliance.
Page 6
New Information Review The Forest Service in the New Information Review analyzed the five issues, along with other
pertinent information, as ordered by Court in considering whether supplementation of the NEPA
analysis for the AMPs was required. The summary of the analysis of the five issues, along with
other pertinent information, is provided below.
1. Reintroduction of Bighorn Sheep
The Greenhorn bighorn sheep herd was reintroduced into the Greenhorn Mountains in 2003-2004 with the knowledge that domestic sheep grazing existed in the seven allotments on National Forest Service land in the Gravelly Mountains. Actions were taken to minimize the risk of commingling, however, the risk of commingling still exists. To date, no known adverse impacts have occurred to the bighorn sheep population from Forest Service grazing management. Facts relevant to the Greenhorn herd and domestic sheep grazing in the Gravelly Mountains and actions being taken to reduce the risk of commingling include the following:
Commingling has not been known to occur on the BDNF in the 13 years since bighorn
sheep were reintroduced to the Greenhorn Mountains.
In 13 years, MFWP or Forest Service personnel have not observed bighorn sheep in the
Gravelly Mountains.
The core distribution area of the Greenhorn herd does not include the Gravelly
Mountains. The known distribution area of the Greenhorn sheep herd has been identified
by MFWP biologist Dean Waltee to include the Greenhorn Mountains, the west side of
the Snowcrest Mountains to the Devils Hole, and the lower portion of Hinch Creek in the
Ruby Mountains. (Email communication from Dean Waltee.) This updated bighorn sheep
distribution area is shown on the maps in Appendix A of the New Information Review.
Trailing through modeled bighorn sheep habitat in the Snowcrest Mountains occurs
during a limited period of time and is constrained in a narrow area such that the
possibility for stray domestic sheep is minimized.
The Greenhorn population has met the criteria for limited hunting.
No bighorn sheep have been removed from the Greenhorn herd due to the presence of
domestic sheep on the BDNF.
MFWP agreed in the MOU to issue a kill permit to the grazing permittees to protect the
Greenhorn herd from disease transmission.
Permittees have not needed to utilize the kill permit as no bighorn sheep have been
observed close to the domestic sheep.
Forest Service, MFWP and permittees are taking measures consistent with the WAFWA
Recommendations including reporting, marking and counting sheep, locating and
reacquiring where possible stray/dead sheep, and taking action to avoid and remove sick
domestic sheep on the allotments.
MFWP, Forest Service, and permittees are working cooperatively to minimize risk of
commingling. Specifically, during the spring and fall prior to when domestic sheep are
trailing on and off the Forest and through the neighboring Wildlife Management Area,
Page 7
permittees have been contacting the local MFWP biologist to determine if any bighorn
sheep are known near the trailing route. Coordination with the MFWP and Forest Service
will include, as feasible, aerial and ground surveys for bighorn sheep prior to trailing on
and off, additional personnel on-the-ground during trailing, and to pro-actively manage
allotment grazing under the MOU. No determination has yet been made by MFWP to
manage bighorn sheep beyond the Greenhorn Mountains into the Snowcrest Mountains.
The MFWP 2001 EA acknowledged the need to conduct an updated assessment if
bighorns become established in the Snowcrest Mountains and MFWP is currently
discussing this need.
2. 2011 Listing of Bighorn Sheep as a Sensitive Species
Bighorn sheep remain on the Region 1 Sensitive Species List but this status is not significant new information related to management of bighorn sheep on the BDNF as the BDNF completed an assessment in 2011 considering effects to bighorn sheep from BDNF management actions. The review of BDNF management direction in the report Potential Bighorn Sheep Interactions with Domestic Sheep on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF – Report to the Chief (USDA 2011) found that the BDNF Forest Plan and specific AMP strategies provided sufficient direction for the overall management of bighorn sheep on the Forest. This coupled with the lack of management removals of any bighorns related to the management of BDNF domestic sheep grazing allotments demonstrates that a change in bighorn sheep management is not warranted.
Domestic sheep grazing on the Madison Ranger District of the BDNF, “May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or the species” at the present time. This is based on the entirety of the information presented in the New Information Review and the following rationale:
While it remains possible the species could commingle on BDNF sheep allotments in the
Gravelly Mountains or along the trailing route in the future, information gained since the
2003/2004 transplants show that bighorn have coexisted within 5 miles of domestic sheep
grazing since transplant and commingling on BDNF lands has not occurred and disease
has not been spread to these bighorn sheep.
All bighorn sheep herds in close proximity to these domestic sheep allotments have
increased in numbers of observed animals or remained relatively stable with no
substantial or recent pneumonia die-offs.
Forest Service, MFWP and permittees are taking measures consistent with the WAFWA
Recommendations including coordination, reporting, marking and counting sheep,
locating and reacquiring where possible stray/dead sheep, and taking action to identify
and remove sick domestic sheep on the allotments. Coordination with the MFWP and
Forest Service will include, as feasible, aerial and ground surveys for bighorn sheep prior
to trailing on and off, additional personnel on-the-ground during trailing, and to pro-
actively manage allotment grazing under the MOU.
In the event of a bighorn sheep at risk of or commingling with domestic sheep on the
BDNF, control measures are permitted by MFWP if necessary to prevent the bighorn
from returning to the herd and potentially spreading disease.
Page 8
No bighorn sheep have been confirmed in the Gravelly Mountains or along the trailing
routes of the domestic sheep.
However, future review and analysis of domestic sheep management will take place
following the Rescissions Act schedule and additional measures may be warranted and
are permitted under BDNF authority if bighorn sheep routinely appear in the vicinity of
the domestic sheep allotments and domestic-bighorn conflicts arise.
3. Existence of MOUs
The MOUs provided, and continue to provide, protective measures that reduce the risk of pathogen exposure and subsequent potential pneumonia outbreaks in the bighorn herd. The MOUs improve the likelihood of continued occupancy of the Greenhorn Mountains by bighorn sheep and potential for future hunting opportunities, meeting the intent of the transplant proposal without a need to revise management practices described in the domestic sheep AMPs. Preventative measures in the MOUs further reduce the risk that any bighorn that comes in contact with domestic sheep will not return to the herd and transmit disease.
4. Updated Information Regarding Disease Transmission Between Domestic Sheep and Bighorn Sheep
A review of most recent literature, it is clear maintaining spatial separation between domestic and wild sheep, is foremost the best approach to limiting disease transmission between the two species (Cassier et al 2018). Brewer et al. (2014) notes there is currently no effective treatment once clinical signs of pneumonia are documented. In terms of management of the BDNF domestic sheep allotments in relation to the bighorn sheep, spatial separation has been maintained between the BDNF domestic sheep allotments and bighorn sheep. Further, the modified 2016 MOU between the BDNF, MFWP, BLM, and domestic sheep producers contain preventative measures to manage risk of contact between domestic and wild sheep reducing the risk of an infected bighorn sheep returning to the Greenhorn herd or any bighorn sheep herd and knowingly affecting the population. No known commingling between domestic and bighorn sheep has occurred on the BDNF since the bighorn sheep were transplanted and the herd has not experienced a die-off and is free from pneumonia-like symptoms.
5. Consideration by MFWP that Bighorn Sheep Could Be Reintroduced to Closed Allotments
MFWP comments on the New Information Review has made clear that due to the high amount
of snow (multiple feet) in the Gravelly Mountains, reintroducing bighorn sheep in the winter is
borderline impossible logistically for MFWP personnel to transport bighorns, and the bighorn
sheep would not be expected survive the winter due to the deep snow. Further, non-winter
reintroduction would not be feasible due to heat stress. The MFWP explains: “Because capture
and relocation efforts occur during the winter and the modeled bighorn habitat in the Gravelly
Mountains would be expected to have multiple feet of snowpack, a release directly onto those
habitats would not be feasible. Any bighorns released during the winter would have to be snow
machined or air-lifted to the modeled habitats, and would not be expected to survive that initial
winter season. Any attempts to capture and relocate bighorn sheep to the Gravelly Mountains
during snow free months would be expected to lead to very high mortality associated with heat
stress. Surviving bighorn sheep would need to find suitable winter range on their own. Because
Page 9
of these factors, releasing bighorn into the Gravelly Mountains is unlikely to occur.” MFWP has
made no determination that they would reintroduce bighorn sheep into the Gravelly Mountains.
6. Other Pertinent Information
Vegetation/Soil/Water: field reviews over the last few decades have found no indicators of over
use of the vegetation or detrimental soil or streambank impacts within the sheep allotments.
(Suzuki, personal communication). Within riparian areas, species diversity and abundance is as
expected for these plant communities – well within the expected potential and natural range of
variability for the sites. Plant cover is high and shrub cover continues to increase. The overall
unique nature of how sheep graze, along with required grazing practices, greatly reduce livestock
impacts in riparian areas. Current vegetative, soil and riparian conditions on the allotments do
not indicate significant environmental impacts from domestic sheep grazing practices as
currently permitted through grazing permits, AMPs and Annual Operating Instructions.
Bighorn Sheep Habitat Assessment GIS Analysis: The MFWP Bighorn Sheep Habitat
Assessment GIS Analysis is only one piece of information the MFWP will consider in
determining future translocation sites. MFWP also considers such site-specific information such
as the overall quality of the habitat to support the population objective, the location of the extent
of habitat, the potential for individuals to foray in relation to domestic sheep allotments, and
whether conditions such as snow-depth (such as in the Gravelly Mountains) would preclude
modeled habitat from providing winter habitat. As such, MFWP modeled habitat in the Gravelly
Mountains from the Bighorn Sheep Habitat Assessment GIS, does not determine that MFWP will
translocate bighorn sheep there in the future.
Permit/Annual Operating Instructions Terms and Conditions
The grazing permit is the authorization to graze domestic sheep on the Gravelly allotment on
National Forest System lands.
The New Information Review discusses the permit terms and practices required to be followed
by the permittee in the section “AMP/Grazing Permit Requirements for Sheep Allotments in the
Gravelly Mountains.” The term grazing permits and the permit practices apply measures to
minimize risk of commingling during both trailing on and off the allotments and during
allotment grazing. Please see the New Information Review section “Reintroduction of Bighorn
Sheep” discussing the WAFWA Recommendations and measures taken to minimize risk of
commingling.
Required sheep herding practices in Part 3, Term 10 (a-g) of the permit cannot be completed
without the daily presence of a herder. Part 2, Term 8(d) subjects the permit to potential adverse
action (suspension and cancellation) if terms of the permit area not complied with. Moreover,
Annual Operating Instructions, made part of the permit, require record keeping of actual
numbers and actual use dates of pasture/camp unit movement throughout the season, and
notification of the date the permittee plans to enter the Forest. In addition, grazing practices to be
followed on all seven domestic sheep allotments in the Gravelly Mountains include bedding
practices and use of guard dogs as provided in Annual Operating Instructions. (See discussion in
Page 10
the New Information Review in section “AMP/Grazing Permit Requirements for Sheep
Allotments in the Gravelly Mountains.”)
It is also important to understand that if circumstances occur that require additional protection of
resources, the Forest Service has the authority to make any needed modifications or cancel the
permit, in whole or in part. Part 1, Term 3 states: “This permit can also be cancelled, in whole or
in part, or otherwise modified, at any time during the term to conform with needed changes
brought about by law, regulation, Executive order, allotment management plans, land
management planning, numbers permitted or seasons of use necessary because of resource
conditions . . .”.
Allotment Management Plan Rescissions Act Schedule
The Rescissions Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-19) Section 504(a) and the 2004 Appropriations Act (P.L.
108-108) Section 325 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to schedule when Forests will
complete environmental analysis and documentation required under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) for all grazing allotments. This schedule is set at the discretion of the
Secretary and periodically reviewed and updated to account for completed environmental
analysis and adjust timeframes due to agency workload management and priorities. Through
various riders, Congress requires reissuance of expired, transferred or waived grazing permits
prior to completion of NEPA analysis for AMP revisions. Existing term grazing permits
authorizing domestic sheep on the seven allotments were issued following this Congressional
direction.
The BDNF prioritizes revision of AMPs based on resource considerations and need to consider
potential management change. The BDNF has approximately 240 active allotments identified on
its Rescissions Act schedule. AMP revision and consideration of alternatives including
consideration of a “no grazing” alternative during the NEPA process will be conducted in
accordance with the Rescissions Act. In accordance with the Rescissions Act, the Forest plans to
begin NEPA analysis in 2018 along with public comment on revision of the Gravelly Mountains
sheep allotment AMPs. We will include the Cottonwood S&G allotment and domestic sheep
grazing portion of the Upper Ruby Cattle and Horse allotment along with the other six Gravelly
Sheep allotments.
Forest Plan Compliance
The BDNF is managed in accordance with the BDNF 2009 Forest Plan. The Forest Plan reflects
the multiple-use mandate of the Forest Service; including the opportunity for domestic sheep
grazing.
The seven sheep allotments are incompliance with the Forest Plan. Yearly monitoring of the six Gravelly sheep allotments show that the allotments are being managed consistent with the Forest Plan livestock grazing standards. (Forest Plan p. 25-27). The Forest Plan wildlife habitat standard provides that sheep allotments which become vacant will be closed to sheep grazing or the vacant allotment may be used by an existing Gravelly Landscape sheep permittee, with no increase in permitted use. (Forest Plan p. 49). The Gravelly sheep allotments have not become vacant. The Gravelly sheep allotments remain as the only domestic sheep allotments on the BDNF.
SUMMARY
Based on the analysis summarized above, I have determined that supplementation of the NEPA
analysis of the Gravelly Sheep allotment AMPs is not required at the present time as new
information does not show that continued domestic sheep grazing is affecting the environment in a significant manner or to a significant extent. However, consistent with the Rescissions Act schedule, the BDNF plans to begin a new NEPA process for AMP revision for the seven Gravelly sheep allotments.
CONTACT PERSON
For more information and or to request a printed copy of the 2017 New Information Review, please contact Jan Bowey Biological Scientist for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest at 406-683-3853, email at [email protected] or Dale Olson District Ranger at 406-682-4253, email at [email protected] with "2017 New Information Review" in the subject line.
SIGNATURE
Dale Olson
District Ranger
Madison Ranger District
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest
C \ \
Date
Page 11