decision notice and finding of no -...

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Intermountain Region August 2010

Decision Notice and Finding of No

Significant Impacts

Westside Range Project

Van Wyck Holding S&G Allotment

Boise National Forest Cascade Ranger District

Valley County, Idaho

Responsible Official: Carol McCoy-Brown, District Ranger

Cascade Ranger District P.O. Box 696

Cascade, ID 83611

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.

Westside Range Project, Van Wyck Holding S&G Allotment DN & FONSI

Page 1

DECISION NOTICE and

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS for the

WESTSIDE RANGE PROJECT

Van Wyck Holding S&G Allotment

USDA Forest Service

Boise National Forest

Cascade Ranger District

Valley County, Idaho

INTRODUCTION

The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Westside Range Project has been prepared pursuant to the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 40 CFR 1500-1508), the National Forest

Management Act and its implementing regulations, and the 2003 Boise National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan (Forest Plan) as amended in 2010 (USDA Forest Service, 2010).

PURPOSE AND NEED

National Forest System (NFS) lands provide an important source of livestock forage during parts of the

year for a variety of grazers. Current and prospective permittees desire to continue grazing and have

invested in their resource by purchasing base properties, livestock handling facilities, and a variety of range

improvements. The Forest Plan recognizes the continuing need for livestock forage production and has

determined that the Stringer Pasture C&H and Van Wyck Holding S&G Allotments are capable and

suitable to support grazing by domestic livestock.

The Boise National Forest has a commitment to meet requirements “for the completion of NEPA analysis

and decisions” stipulated in Section 504 of the Rescission Act of 1995 (as amended). Specifically, public

Law 104-19, Section 504(a) states: Establish and adhere to a schedule for the completion of NEPA, Act of

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) analysis and decisions on all allotments within the NFS unit for which NEPA

is needed (PL 104-19 section, General Provision 1995). The current Rescission Act schedule shows that

allotment NEPA analyses and associated decisions should be completed on the allotments by the end of

fiscal year 2010.

Additionally, the analysis is needed to support continued authorization of livestock grazing on the

allotments at current levels and determine if current livestock management practices are sufficient for

achieving and maintaining compliance with current Forest Plan direction, applicable laws, and regulations.

The purpose of this project is to aid in accomplishing the following Public Law and Forest Plan goal and

objective:

1. Comply with Public Law 104-19, Section 504(a), which requires the Forest Service to complete

NEPA analysis on all allotments where needed, to authorize permitted grazing activity.

2. Respond to the Forest Plan Goal (Vol. 1, p. III-44). RAGO01 – Provide for livestock forage

within existing open allotments, in a manner that is consistent with other resource management

direction and uses.

3. Respond to the Forest Plan Objective (Vol. 1, p. III-77). SEOB01 – Provide a predictable supply

of Forest goods and services within sustainable limits of the ecosystem that help meet public

demand.


Page 2

DECISION

I have reviewed the analysis presented in the EA for the Westside Range Project and discussed the project’s

anticipated effects with both the Interdisciplinary Team and Forest Staff. As a result I have decided to

implement Alternative A (Proposed Action). My decision includes the authorization of a total of 10,000

sheep to utilize the allotment twice a year and the associated pack/saddle animals (up to 38 animals) for a

total of 657 head months. Specifically, I am making the following decisions:

1) Should grazing continue on the allotment; and if so, at what level should grazing occur, where

should grazing occur, and during what timeframe should grazing occur?

My decision will implement the continued grazing of the 78 acre Van Wyck Holding S&G Allotment

(Figure DN-1).

My decision will implement a Term Grazing Permit (permit) for the Van Wyck Holding S&G

Allotment. This permit will authorize the 10,000 sheep for a grazing season of May 15th

to November

30th

annually. In addition, there will be up to 38 saddle and pack animals permitted on the allotment in

order to manage the livestock. The allotment will be grazed for one day in the spring and one day in the

fall per band of sheep (about 1,000 sheep per band) between May 15th

and November 30th

, annually.

The sheep will be grazed evenly between the two pastures (north and south) within this allotment, i.e.

half of the bands will overnight in the north pasture and half in the south pasture during the spring and

fall grazing period. In general, eight to ten bands would use this allotment in the spring and fall each

year. In general, eight to ten bands will use this allotment in the spring and fall each year. The permit

will authorized a total of 10,000 sheep to utilize the allotment twice a year and the associated

pack/saddle animals (up to 38 animals) for a total of 657 head months (EA, Section 2.2.1.2).

2) What design features and/or mitigation measures should be applied to proposed activities to mitigate

undesirable effects?

My decision includes a number of design features incorporated to minimize or avoid effects on a variety

of resources. Reference Attachment A of this document for a complete list of those design features

associated with my decision and Attachment B for associated monitoring requirements.

RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION

I have selected Alternative A (Proposed Action) because it provides the greatest attainment of the

project’s purpose and need while still being sensitive to other resource concerns within the project area.

The following discussions summarize my rationale for the decisions made.

1) Should grazing continue on the allotment; and if so, at what level should grazing occur, where

should grazing occur, and during what timeframe should grazing occur?

My decision will authorize the grazing of 10,000 sheep to utilize the allotment twice a year and the

associated pack/saddle animals (up to 38 animals) for a total of 657 head months on the existing open

Van Wyck Holding S&G Allotment. Grazing will occur on 78 acres from May 15th

to November 30th

,

annually. Alternative A will authorize less forage usage than the 678 head months the allotment is

capable of sustaining (EA, Section 3.2.2.2), thus providing forage within the sustainable limits of the

ecosystem. By comparison, Alternative B will not provide any forage within the existing open

allotment, nor will it provide a predictable supply of any good or service. My decision will provide

livestock forage on a predictable annual basis at a level that is sustainable over time.

My decision is consistent with other resource management direction and uses. My decision will not

preclude the implementation of other resource management objectives. While many uses of the

allotment are possible, the principle alternate use of the area is recreation. My decision will, with

incorporated design features, have only limited impacts to recreationist associated with delays from

livestock on roadways (EA, Section 3.11.2.1).


Page 3

While discussed in more detail throughout this decision, my selection of Alternative A will not result in

undue impacts to any threatened, endangered, sensitive, or candidate terrestrial, plant, or fish species

(EA, Sections 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9). My decision will not contribute additional sediment/nutrient in amounts

that will prevent or retard the attainment or maintenance of instream objectives, nor will this alternative

have a measurable effect on the identified beneficial uses (EA, section 3.6.2). My decision is expected to

have no effect or no adverse effect on historic properties (EA, section 3.10.2.1).

Based on my understanding of the Payette National Forest Final Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement and Forest Plan Amendment Identifying Suitable Rangeland for Domestic Sheep and Goat

Grazing to Maintain Habitat for Viable Bighorn Sheep Population (USDA Forest Service, 2010), I have

determined the effects disclosure for bighorn sheep in this EA is valid. Currently, sheep bands are

trailed to this allotment utilizing roads, trails, and livestock driveways in route between summer and

other seasonal grazing areas (EA, section 2.2.1.2). My decision does not preclude the holder of the

term grazing permit from using this allotment as a transitional or staging area to move sheep to and

from any area within trailing or trucking distance.

2) What design features and/or mitigation measures should be applied to proposed activities to mitigate

undesirable effects?

My decision includes a number of design features incorporated to minimize or avoid effects on a variety

of resources. For example, my decision includes design features that require the removal of livestock if

utilization standards are not met (EA, Section 2.2.1.2). If at any point during the grazing season it is

determined that utilization standards will exceed the 40 percent spring upland standard, the 45 percent

riparian greenline standard, and/or the 50 percent fall upland standard, livestock will be removed from

the allotment.

My decision includes design features to reduce or eliminate conflicts with recreational users. Sheep

will not be allowed within the French Creek Campground. Several potential dispersed camping sites

exist within the allotment and sheep will be kept out of occupied sites upon the arrival of bands on the

allotment (EA, Section 2.2.1.2).

My decision will continue to monitor and treat noxious weeds on the allotment. Forest Service

personnel trained in weed management will be present on a regular basis within the allotment as a result

of my decision (EA, Section 3.3.2). Design features will only allow certified noxious weed-free hay,

straw, or feed on the allotment and the permittee will be responsible for notifying the Forest Service if

population/individuals are discovered (EA, Section 2.2.1.2).

Reference Attachment A of this document for a complete list of those design features associated with

my decision and Attachment B for associated monitoring requirements.

PUBLIC AND OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

Public involvement on this project has occurred throughout the planning and analysis process leading to

this document. The proposed project has been listed on the Boise NF Schedule of Proposed Actions

(SOPA) since January 2010. A scoping package was provided to the public and other agencies for

comments during the scoping period beginning in late January 2010. On January 25, 2010, the project

proposal was presented to the Valley County Commissioners. The proposal was discussed with Shoshone-

Paiute tribal representatives at the Wings and Roots meeting on January 27, 2010. A packet describing the

Proposed Action and soliciting comments on that action was mailed to representatives of the Shoshone-

Bannock and Nez Perce Tribes in January of 2010. Three letters commenting on the proposal were

received. The planning record contains all scoping comments received relative to this project and

discloses how the Interdisciplinary Team addressed those concerns.


Page 4

Notification of the 30-day opportunity to comment on this project was published in The Long Valley

Advocate on June 23, 2010. In addition, a copy of the Proposed Action Report was mailed to those

individuals who had expressed an interest in the project, including the permittee. No comments were

received in response to that effort.

OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Although a number of concerns were noted during scoping of the Proposed Action, review of the Proposed

Action Report, and/or during the course of the analysis, no significant issues (i.e. points of unresolved

conflict) were identified. Therefore I was not compelled to direct the Interdisciplinary Team to consider in

detail any alternatives other than Alternatives A and B. The discussion below summarizes my rationale for

not selecting Alternative B (No Grazing).

Alternative B (No Grazing) - Alternative B would not authorize livestock grazing within the project

area (FSH 2209.13 – 92.31). Grazing would be eliminated on the Van Wyck Holding S&G Allotment

and livestock grazing permits would be cancelled. In accordance with agency regulations (36 CFR

§222.4), grazing would cease two years after notice of cancellation. Allotment management would not

change during this two-year interval from the current management.

This alternative was not selected because it did not meet the purpose and need of the project.

Specifically, this alternative would not provide forage and/or goods and services at a predictable and

sustainable level. This alternative would not provide any head months of forage, although the allotment

is capable of producing 678 head months.

CONSISTENCY WITH THE FOREST PLAN AND OTHER LAWS,

REGULATION, AND POLICY

FOREST PLAN

Long term management direction for the project area is provided in the Land and Resource Management

Plan for the Boise National Forest (USDA 2003), the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Land and Resource

Management Plans Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 2003), the Final Environmental Impact

Statement Supporting Forest Plan Amendments to Integrate the Boise National Forest Wildlife

Conservation Strategy, Phase 1: Forested Biological Community and its associated Record of Decision

(USDA 2010), and/or the 2003 Forest Plan as amended in 2010 (USDA Forest Service 2010). Chapter III

of the Forest Plan describes management direction to guide Forest personnel to achieve desired outcomes

and conditions for both land stewardship and public service. This direction is presented in two sections:

(1) Forest-wide Management Direction, and (2) Management Area Description and Direction. The Forest-

wide management direction provides general direction for all Forest resources and the foundation for more

specific direction at the management area level. The management area description and direction describes

these areas in detail, highlights resource areas of importance or concern, and prescribes specific

management direction to address these concerns. Activities within the various management areas are

further directed by management prescription categories (MPCs). MPCs are broad categories of

management prescriptions that indicate the general management emphasis prescribed for a given area.

The entire project area lies within Management Area 18 (Cascade Reservoir) as described in the 2003

Forest Plan as amended in 2010 (USDA Forest Service 2010). Several management prescription categories

(MPCs) apply within this management area. However, proposed activities will occur only within MPC 5.1

(EA, Section 1.6.1).

I have evaluated the features of my decision against the Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards, and

guidelines for consistency with the Forest Plan. As documented in the EA (Chapters 1, 2, and 3), my

decision will be consistent with direction in the 2003 Forest Plan as amended in 2010 (USDA Forest

Service 2010).


Page 5

OTHER LAWS, REGULATION, AND POLICY

As summarized below, my decision is consistent with Federal, State, and local laws or requirements

imposed for the protection of the environment.

National Forest Management Act: This decision is consistent with the National Forest Management Act

(NFMA)(16 USC §§1600-1614). There are no project-level determinations in the NFMA that need to be

made as part of this decision. This decision does not involve the approval of any timber harvest. Since the

Forest Plan was prepared under the NFMA, see also “Consistency with the Forest Plan” below.

Endangered Species Act: The Wildlife Biological Assessment prepared for this project indicates that

continued grazing will have “No Effect” on Canada Lynx and Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel and will

“not likely jeopardize” gray wolves (EA, Section 3.8). The Fisheries Biological Assessment prepared for

this project indicates that continue grazing will have “No Effect” on Spring/Summer Chinook, Steelhead

Trout, Bull Trout and the associated designated or proposed critical habitat (EA, Section 3.7). The

Biological Evaluation prepared for plant species on this project indicated that continued grazing will have a

“Not Likely to Adversely Affect” determination for Ute ladies’ tresses (EA, Section 3.9). Attachment C

of this decision discusses the August 5 ruling by Judge Molloy to vacate the delisting of gray wolf and the

subsequent change in effects determination to gray wolf.

National Historic Preservation Act: My decision is expected to have no effect or no adverse effect on

historic properties (EA section 3.10.2.1). The Forest Service and the Idaho State Historic Preservation

Officer (SHPO) have agreed that the rangeland management program will be performed in accordance with

the terms and conditions of a Programmatic Agreement (PA, FS No. 06-MU-11040218-059, project record)

to satisfy the Boise NF’s NHPA Section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings of the program.

The PA outlines procedures for the identification, evaluation, and resolution of adverse effects to historic

properties in allotment areas. The criteria for determining adverse effects are outlined in the PA. The

resolution of adverse effects, if adverse effects areas are identified, is also established in the PA.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act): The watershed resources analysis indicated that

implementation of Alternative A will maintain the existing watershed conditions (EA, section 3.6.2). My

decision will not contribute additional sediment/nutrient in amounts that will prevent or retard the attainment or

maintenance of instream objectives, nor will this alternative have a measurable effect on the identified

beneficial uses (EA, section 3.6.2.2). My decision is expected to maintain stream temperature along with other

surrogates for the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of waterbodies (EA, Section 3.7.2).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act: My decision will comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This project

may however result in an “unintentional take” of individuals during proposed activities. However the

project complies with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director’s Order #131 related to the applicability

of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to federal agencies and requirements for permits for “take”. In addition,

this project complies with Executive Order 13186 because the analysis meets agency obligations as defined

under the January 16, 2001 Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service designed to complement Executive Order 13186. If new requirements or direction result

from subsequent interagency memorandums of understanding pursuant to Executive Order 13186, this

project will be reevaluated to ensure that it is consistent (Wildlife Technical Report, Project Record, p. 51).

Consultation with Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175): This order established a requirement for regular and

meaningful consultation between federal and tribal government officials on federal policies that have tribal

implications.

Three federally recognized Native American tribes have expressed interest in activities proposed on the

Boise National Forest; Nez Perce, Shoshone-Paiute, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. A packet describing

the Proposed Action and soliciting comments on that action was mailed to representatives of the Shoshone-

Bannock and Nez Perce Tribes in January of 2010. The Proposed Action Report and the associated

solicitation for comment was mailed to representatives of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe in June of 2010. In

addition, the Agency presented and discussed the Proposed Action at the January 27, 2010 Wings and

Roots meeting. These meetings are an official part of the consultation process between the Shoshone-


Page 6

Paiute Tribe and the Boise National Forest. The tribal notification and subsequent consultation processes

described above did not result in the identification of any adverse effects to tribal interests or rights

specifically associated with this project. (EA, Section 1.8).

Idaho Roadless Rule: My decision does not propose any activities within or adjacent any inventoried

roadless area. Therefore my decision is consistent with the Idaho Roadless Rule.

Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation (E.O. 13443): Grazing associated with my

decision will reduce available forage used by many big game species. However, my decision will not

impact source habitat for bear, ruffed grouse, or dusky grouse. Impacts will principally be restricted to

competition for forage and displacement for both mule deer and rocky mountain elk. My action will only

impact a small number of individual deer/elk and the overall abundance and distribution of deer/elk in the

West Mountain Area will not be impacted. Since mountain lion presence is largely tied to presence of deer,

my action will have minimal impacts on mountain lion given the lack of effects on overall abundance and

distribution (EA, Section 1.6.8).

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management: The intent of Executive Order 11988 will be met since

my decision will not affect floodplains in the Van Wyck Holding S&G Allotment and thereby will not

increase flood hazard (EA, Section 3.6.1.4).

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands: My decision is consistent with Executive Order 11990

since this project will have negligible impact on wetlands in the Van Wyck Holding S&G Allotment (EA,

Section 3.6.1.4).

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land (USDA Regulation 9500-3): There are no prime

farmlands, rangelands, or forest lands located on the Boise National Forest (Forest Plan EIS, p. 3-979).

Therefore no effects to prime farmland, rangeland, or forest lands will occur with implementation of

Alternative A.

Environmental Justice – Executive Order 12898: After reviewing the EA and project record, I find that

the selected alternative is in compliance with Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations.” My decision will not place

any burden or disproportionate impact which could be considered an environmental injustice on any

segment of the population. The proposal would not result in unequal protection of any part of the

population of Valley County, Idaho.

Case No. CV-05-189-E-BLW, District Court of Idaho: As a result of the 2006 North Sheep decision

(Western Watersheds Project v. USFS, Case No. CV-05-189-E-BLW, District Court of Idaho), Forest Plan

Capability Analyses and Site-Specific Capability Analyses are required for all allotments. These analyses

have been completed for the Van Wyck Holding S&G Allotment and the Rangeland Management

Specialist has determined that there is sufficient capable rangeland to support permitted numbers associated

with my decision (EA, Section 3.2).

Best Available Science: The conclusions disclosed in the EA and summarized in this document are based

on a review of the project’s record that reflects consideration of relevant scientific information and

responsible opposing views where raised by internal or external sources, and the acknowledgement of

incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and/or risk where pertinent to the decision

being made.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

I have reviewed the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for significance (40 CFR 1508.27) and

have determined that this decision is not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of

the human environment, either individually or cumulatively. Preparation of an Environmental Impact

Statement pursuant to Section 102 (2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not required.

This determination is based on the following factors as outlined in 40 CFR 1508.27.


Page 7

1. The selected alternative will be limited in geographic application [40 CFR 1508.27(a)].

Activities associated with my decision will be confined to the 78 acre VanWyck Holding S&G

Allotment described in the EA and will be limited to those actions disclosed in that document and its

appendices. Further, this action will be consistent with the management area prescription and Forest

Plan standards and guidelines specified for the area (EA, Chapters, 1, 2, and 3).

2. My decision will not result in any significant beneficial or adverse effects [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(1)].

The analysis documented in Chapter 3 of the EA did not identify any individually or cumulatively

significant impacts resulting from implementation of Alternative A (EA, Chapter 3).

3. The selected alternative will not result in substantive effects on public health or safety [40 CFR

1508.27(b)(2)].

My review of the EA and the project record including comments from the public did not identify any

concerns on the effects the selected alternative might have on public health and safety. My decision

would only continue activities currently occurring and will not authorize any new ground-disturbing

activities. Design features associated with my decision (EA, Section 2.2.1.2) will minimize the potential

impacts on public health and safety during implementation.

4. My decision will not result in any significant effects on any unique characteristics of the geographic

area, historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or

ecologically critical areas [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(3)].

The analysis documented in the EA discloses that Alternative A will not result in any significant effects

on cultural or historic resources (EA, Section 3.10) or wetlands (EA, Section 3.6.1.4). There are no wild

and scenic rivers, park lands, or prime farmlands within the project area.

5. The selected alternative will not result in any effects that are likely to be highly controversial [40 CFR

1508.27(b)(4)].

Controversy in this context refers to situations where there is substantial dispute as to the size, nature, or

effect of the Federal action, rather than opposition to its implementation. The scientific basis for the

analysis is contained in the project record and summarized in the EA. Standard analysis techniques and

models were used and limitations of those models summarized in the EA where pertinent. Literature

supporting the use of these models, as used in this analysis, is contained in the project’s planning

record. I have concluded that the effects of this action are not highly controversial.

6. The effects associated with the selected alternative will not result in any highly uncertain, unique, or

unknown risks [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(5)].

The environmental analysis, including the EA, resource technical reports, Biological Assessments, and

Biological Evaluations, determined that the selected alternative will not involve any highly uncertain or

unknown risks. The management activities associated with my decision are typical of those

successfully implemented in the past on National Forest lands.

7. My decision does not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor does it

represent a decision in principle about a future consideration [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(6)].

My decision is consistent with direction found in the 2003 Forest Plan as amended in 2010 (USDA

Forest Service 2010). Implementation of my decision will not establish a precedent for future actions

with significant effects nor does it represent a decision in principle about a future consideration.

8. The analysis documented in the EA discloses that my decision will not result in any significant short-

term, long-term, or cumulative effects [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(7)].


Page 9

Cascade Ranger District

ATTACHMENT A

DETAILS OF DECISION


VanWyck Holding S&G Allotment

Alternative A (Proposed Action)

Alternative A will implement the continued grazing of the 78 acre Van Wyck Holding S&G Allotment

(Figure DN-1).

The Term Grazing Permit (permit) for the Van Wyck Holding S&G Allotment will authorize 10,000 sheep

for a grazing season of May 15th

to November 30th

annually. In addition, there will be 38 saddle and pack

animals permitted on the allotment in order to manage the livestock. This allotment will continue to be

grazed for one day in the spring and one day in the fall per band of sheep (about 1,000 sheep per band)

between May 15th

and November 30th

, annually. The sheep will be grazed evenly between the two pastures

(north and south) within this allotment, i.e. half of the bands will overnight in the north pasture and half in

the south pasture during the spring and fall grazing period. In general, eight to ten bands will use this

allotment in the spring and fall each year. The permit will authorized a total of 10,000 sheep to utilize the

allotment twice a year and the associated pack/saddle animals (up to 38 animals) for a total of 657 head

months.

Design Features

Livestock management design features specific to the Van Wyck Holding S&G Allotment include:

The Forest Service Representative administrating this permit will be notified at least five days

in advance and given the date, time, and place where livestock will enter the allotment to

allow for counting of livestock on the allotment.

The Forest Service will notify the Permittee at list two weeks in advance of the scheduled

turnout date, if spring conditions affect range readiness for livestock grazing.

The Forest Service will have continued flexibility in allotment administration to allow for

weather conditions, range readiness, and livestock needs. If at any time during the grazing

season the Forest Service determines the forage is fully utilized or that further grazing will

damage existing resources, the permittee will be required to remove livestock early.

Permittee will use high intensity, short duration grazing. Livestock management will

emphasize moving sheep in a timely manner. Livestock will be removed from the riparian

area after watering.

Permittee will practice open or loose herding and minimize the use of herding dogs.

Maximum forage utilization of representative areas within each pasture containing NFS land

will not exceed the values shown below at the end of the growing season. Those utilization

levels are as follows (Forest Plan Standard RAST01, Forest Plan, p. III-45):

o Riparian Areas: Maximum 45 percent use or retain a minimum 4-inch stubble

height of hydric greenline species whichever occurs first.

o Upland Vegetative Cover Types: Early season or season long pastures – 40

percent use. Vegetative slow growth, after seed ripe conditions, or late season

pastures – 50 percent use.

The Permittee will monitor the allotment for noxious weeds and promptly notify the Forest

Service if populations are discovered. If populations are found, the Forest Service will

determine a treatment regime.


Page 10

The Permittee will be required to periodically monitor and document utilization levels during

the grazing season. If utilization limits are reached prior to the scheduled off dates, livestock

will be removed from the allotment early.

Livestock salting is prohibited in Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) (Forest Plan Standard

RAST04, Forest Plan, p. III-45). The placement of salt will be used as a management tool to

help minimize livestock use in riparian areas, tree plantations, or water.

Only certified noxious weed-free hay, straw, or feed is allowed on NFS land (Forest Plan

Standard NPST01, Forest Plan, p. III-36).

All garbage generated by the herder will be cleaned up by the camptender for the ranch

foreman to haul away. All garbage will be hauled to the county water disposal facility.

The French Creek Campground is closed to grazing.

Permittee will keep sheep out of occupied dispersed recreation campsites in the allotment.

The Permittee will be responsible for all annual maintenance of range improvements listed in

the permit. There are currently no improvements listed in the permit for this allotment and no

improvements are proposed.

The Forest Service Motor Vehicle Use Travel Management Rule (36 CFR §261.13) is in place

on the Cascade RD, which prohibits motorized use off-road/trail. Public motorized wheeled

vehicle use is prohibited on all NFS lands except on routes that are designated for motorized

use on the current Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). The permittee will be allowed to use

wheeled motorized vehicles on all NFS routes for administrative use within the allotment for

livestock management purposes. This administrative use includes salting and herding of

livestock, maintenance of range improvements, and forage utilization inspections. Use of

heavy equipment, such as bull dozers or backhoes is not included in this authorization.

The Permittee will be required to clear and restore the forest roads and trails used for trailing

of sheep and saddle stock to their original condition immediately after use.

The Permittee will be allowed to protect livestock from the immediate threat of predators. All

other predator control must be conducted through proper channels by contacting Wildlife

Services. Through a memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the Forest Service, Wildlife Services is responsible

for control of predators.

The Permittee will be required to remove and dispose of dead animals located within 300 feet

of water and roads and within 0.5 miles of human habitation. The Forest Service will be

notified prior to the disposal of animals on NFS lands. Disposal will not occur until approval

of location and method are approved by the Forest Service.


Page 11

Figure DN-1


Page 12

ATTACHMENT B

MONITORING PLAN


VanWyck Holding S&G Allotment

The following monitoring will occur with implementation of Alternative A.

Rangeland Riparian Monitoring

Objective and Implementation - The key riparian area has previously been identified and annual grazing

use indicators are currently being monitored. In 1991 a riparian greenline transect was established along

North Hazard Creek. This transect was based on the protocol developed by Alma H. Winward which can be

found in Monitoring the Vegetation Resources in Riparian Areas. This transect will determine if riparian

Desired Future Conditions (DFC) are being met.

Schedule – The Range Management Specialist or their representative will conduct surveys every 3 to 5

years.

Rangeland Upland Condition and Trend Monitoring

Objective and Implementation - Upland condition and trend monitoring studies are forms of long

term monitoring to determine if compliance with proper use criteria and other management

requirements are effective in maintaining or improving upland and riparian ecological conditions.

Currently there are no long term upland monitoring sites located within the Van Wyck Holding S&G

Allotment. However, at this time photos are taken in the North and South Pastures at the locations

where upland utilization is annually measured. These sites will be marked and converted into

permanent photo point plots. Past photos will then be added to the new photo point monitoring data so

that a record can be established for long term upland trend monitoring in the North and South Pastures.

Schedule – The Range Management Specialist or their representative will conduct photo point surveys

annually.

General Allotment Monitoring

Objective – General allotment monitoring will be conducted to ensure and document that FP standards,

terms and conditions of the grazing permit, AMP objectives, and the AOI, are being followed and met.

These observations will be used to adjust AOIs and determine if livestock need to be removed early due

to over utilization.

Schedule and Implementation – The Range Management Specialist or their representative will

conduct surveys as described in the following table:

Short Term Allotment Inspections

Type of Inspection Schedule of Inspection

Livestock distribution Periodic inspections may be conducted throughout the grazing season.

Annual Operating

Instructions compliance

Inspections for AOI compliance will occur at least once during the grazing season.

Upland Use (utilization) Periodic inspections may be conducted throughout the grazing season.

Riparian Stubble Height Stubble ht. will be conducted in conjunction with upland use inspections.

Grazing Response Index Grazing Response Index will be conducted annually.


Page 13

Actual livestock grazing use will be documented annually in the 2210 allotment file. The dates and

numbers of livestock entering and leaving each unit (actual use) are part of the permittees reporting

requirement.

Noxious Weed Monitoring

Objective and Implementation - Noxious weed infestations are currently being treated aggressively

within the Van Wyck Holding S&G Allotment by the local County Weed Management Agency

(CWMA). Infestations will continue to be treated annually until they are controlled. Effectiveness

monitoring will determine if annual treatments of noxious weeds are meeting goals to eliminate noxious

weeds in the allotment. Treatments will be documented in the annual noxious weed report.

General noxious weed monitoring will be conducted to determine if new infestations become

established on the allotment. The objective of these surveys will be to locate new populations for

treatment while the population is small and more manageable.

Schedule – The Range Management Specialist or their representative will conduct effectiveness monitoring

each year at the time weeds are treated. The Range Management Specialist or their representative will

conduct surveys annually for new infestations.

decision notice and finding of no -...

Documents