Decision Notice -...

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

September 2013

Decision Notice

Finding of No Significant Impact

Fisher-Ivy/Goose Lake Sheep Allotment

Divide Ranger District, Rio Grande National Forest Mineral County, Colorado

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.

Decision Notice and FONSI

Decision Notice (DN)

and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)


Divide Ranger District, Rio Grande National Forest

Mineral County, Colorado

Lead Agency:

Responsible Official:

For Further Information:

ABSTRACT

USDA Forest Service

Matthew Paciorek, Acting District Ranger Divide Ranger District Rio Grande National Forest 13308 W. Highway 160 Del Norte, Colorado 81132 (719) 657-3321

Tristram Post or Dale Gomez, Interdisciplinary Team Leaders Divide Ranger District 13308 W. Highway 160 Del Norte, Colorado 81132 (719) 657-3321

This document is available on the internet: http://www.fs.usda .gov/projects/riogrande/landmanagement/ projects

Decision Notice/FONSI- This document discloses the decision to implement Alternative 1, detailing the specifics of not reauthorizing domestic sheep grazing on the Fisher-Ivy/Goose Lake Sheep Allotment and changing the designation of the allotment from an active grazing domestic sheep allotment to a vacant allotment. The Decision Notice/FONSI also documents the rationale for the decision and the findings.

This document follows the format established in the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations ( 40 Code of Federal Regulations {CFR} § 1500-1508). It includes a discussion of the need for the proposal; alternatives to the proposal; the physical , biological , social and economic impacts of the proposed action and alternatives; and a listing of agencies and persons consulted. It is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) for the 1996 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (Forest Plan) for the Rio Grande National Forest.


Table of Contents

SUMMARY ..... ......... ........... ... ......... .... .............. ........ .... ...... .................. ..... .................. ......... ....... iii Decision Notice (ON) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) .. ..... ........... ..... .... ...... ... 1

Introduction .. ... ........... ...... ... ... ....... ....... ... ........... ... ..... ......... .. .. .... ....... ...... .... ......... ................. 1

Background .. ....... ...... ... ...... ......... .......... ...... ............... ......... .............. ...... ...... ... ...... ........... .. ... 1

Decision ... ......... ..... ... ... ...... .. ......... ............ ..... ...... ... .... ........... ..... ........ ........... .................... .... 4

Rationale for the Decision .. .. .......... ..... .... ...... ....... ....... .. .. ... ...... .. .. ...... .. ..... .. ... ...... ....... ... .. .. .. .. 5

Alternatives Considered in Detail ......... .... .... .. ............... .... ........ ..... ................. ............. .... ... 10

Legal Requirements for Environmental Protection .... ...... .. ... ... ............. .. ..... ........... ..... ..... ... 12

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) ........ .. .... ..... ......... ...... .. ..... ... .. .. ..... ... .. .... .. ... ... ... 13

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities ...... ...... ... ..... ... ............. ....... .......... ......... ... 15

Implementation ............. ......... ...... ... ............ .. ................... .... ....... ....... .. ... ........... ... ............... 16

Contact Information ... ...... ........ .......... ..... ....... ..... .............. .. ...... ............ ........ ... .... ... .... ... ...... 17

Signature and Date ..... ...... ...... ...... .. ... ... .. ..... ... ................... ... .. .. ... .... .... .... .......... ................ .. . 17

List of Figures

Figure 1: Fisher-Ivy/Goose Lake Domestic Sheep Allotment.. .. . . ..... . . . .. ........ . . ... . .. .. .. 2

List of Tables

Table 1: Authorized allotments and grazing season ........ ..... ........... ........... ...... ..... .......... .... .. ... ..... 3

ii


SUMMARY This document contains a Decision Notice (DN) I Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) which documents the decision (i.e., the DN) and summarizes the evaluation of whether or not to conduct an environmental impact statement (i.e., the FONSI) . The Decision Notice (DN) I Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), signed by the responsible official, explain the environmental and management reasons for selecting an alternative to be implemented. The DN summarizes the rationale for choosing the selected alternative; discusses the rationale for rejecting other alternatives; and discloses how the decision responds to the relevant issues. The environmental assessment (EA) and associated appendices disclose the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed action and alternatives to that action.

Two alternatives were developed in detail for this EA. Each action alternative was designed to be viable and consistent with Forest Plan direction . Alternatives analyzed in detail were as follows : (1) No Authorized Grazing. Grazing by domestic sheep would not be reauthorized and the allotment would become vacant (Forest Service proposed action) and (2) Continued Grazing with project design criteria in place to minimize potential contact between bighorn and domestic sheep and to protect other resources.

The Rio Grande National Forest (RGNF) proposes to not reauthorize domestic sheep grazing on the Fisher-Ivy/Goose Lake (FIG) Allotment and change the designation of the allotment from an active grazing domestic sheep allotment to a vacant allotment. The permittee on FIG will be authorized to graze sheep on his alternate allotments and will continue to operate a viable sheep grazing operation.

The proposed action follows the most recent Washington (WO) and Regional (RO) Forest Service Offices direction which instructs forests to complete risk assessments and states, "Where viability assessments indicate a high likelihood of disease transmission and a resulting risk to bighorn sheep population viability across the forest, the goal of spatial and/or temporal separation between domestic sheep/goats and bighorn sheep is the most prudent action we can use to manage risk of disease transmission." (Bighorn Sheep Analysis for NEPA Documents, WO letter, August 19,2011, Joel D. Holtrop, Deputy ChiefUSFS and September 14,2011, Glenn Casamassa, acting Deputy Regional Forester) .

The Forest Service has a responsibility to address the risk of disease posed by its management decisions relating to domestic sheep grazing. A risk of contact analysis was completed for this project and thoroughly followed the direction and utilized the Four Step Outline provided by the Forest Service's WO and RO regarding Bighorn Sheep Analysis for NEPA Documents. The analysis determined that the degree of risk on the FIG Allotment is High. The analysis is a comprehensive and quantitative assessment of the degree of contact risk on the allotment between bighorn and domestic sheep and is based on the most current scientific information available regarding risk of contact.

iii


Decision Notice {ON) and Finding of No Significant Impact {FONSI)

Introduction A Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are provided in this document. The DN documents my decision and provides my explanation of the management and environmental reasons I used to make my decision on selecting an alternative to implement. The FONSI presents the reasons why I find this action will not have a significant effect on the human environment and therefore an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.

The Fisher-Ivy/Goose Lake Sheep Allotment (hereafter referred to as FIG) Environmental Assessment (EA), completed for this project, is incorporated by reference in this DN/FONSI. The DN/FONSI documents the following:

• Background • FIG Allotment; • Weminuche Bighorn Sheep Herd; • Tier 1 Primary Population Status for Bighorn Sheep; • Brief information on potential disease transmission; • Scope of the analysis;

• My decision; • The rationale for my decision; • The alternatives considered; • The public involvement conducted; • The legal requirements for environmental protection; • A Finding of No Significant Impact; • The implementation date; • The rights to appeal and administrative review; • Contact information; and • My signature and date, as the responsible official.

The Rio Grande National Forest (RGNF) Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (hereafter referred to as the Forest Plan) and its accompanying Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) are also incorporated by reference in this DN/FONSI.

Background The FIG Allotment contains approximately 18,862 acres; 3,508 acres (about 19 percent) are suitable for the grazing of domestic sheep as determined through the Forest Plan suitability determination process 1• Steep slopes, ridges and several heavily timbered drainages are included within the allotment boundary, which accounts for the large percentage of non-suitable lands (for grazing) . The majority of the FIG Allotment is located within the Weminuche Wilderness

1 Rangeland Suitability Determination Including a Map of Suitable Rangelands and Active Livestock Grazing Allotments on the Rio Grande National Forest- A Report to Address the Deputy Under Secretary' s Discretionary Appeal Review Decision Direction for the Rio Grande National Forest's 1996 Revised Forest Plan FEIS and ROD (May 2003) (unpublished report on file at the headquarters for the Rio Grande National Forest, Monte Vista, Colorado).


within Mineral County. The allotment is approximately 14 miles south of the community of Creede, Colorado (see figure below).

Allotment Background: Earliest records regarding domestic sheep grazing on the allotment date back to at least 1927. The current permittee is authorized to graze up to 1,200 head of sheep from July 6 to September 18 on a two year on and two off grazing rotation system with the Boot Mountain/Mesa Mountain Allotment.

!::.1 ... t-.y

- - •M..,._.r,••

The current FIG Allotment permittee is authorized to graze four separate sheep allotments on the district with the same band of sheep (Table 1). Two are higher elevation allotments (FIG and Boot Mountain/Mesa Mountain) and two are lower elevation allotments (Pinon and Indian Head) . The higher elevation allotments are each independently grazed for two years and then rested for two years in subsequent years. The lower elevation allotments are grazed if adequate

2


forage and water are available. None of the other three allotments are within bighorn sheep source or occupied habitat.

Table 1. FIG Permittee Authorized allotments and grazing season

Allotment

Fisher-Ivy/Goose Lake

Boot Mountain/Mesa Mountain Indian head

Pinon

Grazing Season

July 6- September 18; two years and then back to Boot June 26- September 14; two years and then back to Fisher Authorized for 24 days during February/March September 15- October 21

The FIG Allotment was last grazed in 2010. Due to concerns of contact with bighorn sheep, the permittee has been instructed through Annual Operating Instructions to graze his alternate allotment, the Boot Mountain/Mesa Mountain Allotment 2011- 2013 instead of the FIG Allotment, until the appropriate NEPA analysis could be completed (this analysis) .

Weminuche Bighorn Sheep Herd Background: The Weminuche Bighorn Sheep Herd occupy yearlong habitat in and adjacent to the FIG Allotment. Of the 18,862 acres on the allotment, 9,304 ( 49%) acres are considered to be suitable habitat for bighorn sheep.

The Weminuche herd was extirpated throughout most of its range by the late 1800's and early 1900's. Through regulated hunting and changes in land management, the population has slowly started to rebound. Bighorn sheep are being observed in new places as they re-occupy historic ranges and fill gaps between core use areas.

The current estimate for the Weminuche Population is 460 bighorn sheep. The population is currently performing extremely well as evidenced by the herd's continued growth, and good lamb production and recruitment (Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2012) . Age ratios obtained during the summer are similar to those from winter which indicates good lamb survival and the absence of a significant disease type which can limit population growth.

Tier 1 Primary Population Status: Based on the Colorado Bighorn Sheep Management Plan, the Weminuche Bighorn Herd is designated a primary (Tier 1) core bighorn sheep population. Primary populations are regarded as those large, native populations comprised of one or more interconnected herds that have received few, if any, supplemental releases of bighorn sheep in the past. These populations likely represent those indigenous Rocky Mountain bighorn populations that have maintained the greatest genetic diversity and their ranges represent habitats where bighorn populations have best been able to persist in sizeable numbers despite various adversities (George et al. 2009).

The Weminuche Herd is one of the largest indigenous bighorn populations in the state (Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2012). The Tier 1 designation places the population in the top priority for inventory, habitat protection and improvement, disease prevention, and research. As such, CPW considers the population to be among the most important bighorn herds in the state. For these reason, all available opportunities to reduce the potential for disease transmission from domestic sheep are recommended (George et. al. 2009).

3


Potential Disease Transmission Background: Research has demonstrated that strains of Pasteurellaceae can be transmitted from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep, leading to pneumonia and death (Lawrence et. al. 2010) and that in some cases, exposure has led to largescale bighorn sheep mortality affecting all age and sex classes, followed by a long period of depressed lamb recruitment (George et. al. 2008) .

The Forest Service recognizes that contact with domestic sheep is not the only source of disease die-offs in bighorn sheep, but rather that it is one source of risk. Regardless, the Forest Service has a responsibility to address the risk of disease posed by its management decisions relating to domestic sheep grazing.

Scope of the Analysis: During the internal and external public scoping process, it became apparent that the risk of contact between domestic and bighorn sheep, and subsequent potential disease transmission, is the main source of controversy and contention regarding continued domestic sheep grazing on the allotment.

There is a need to analyze the possible effects upon the Forest's resources, in particular bighorn sheep, as identified during scoping in order to reauthorize grazing. The purpose of the proposed action is to reduce the risk of contact on the allotment between domestic and bighorn sheep in order to minimize potential interspecies disease transmission and to help manage for a healthy bighorn sheep population (Weminuche Herd), while also continuing to sustain an economically viable domestic sheep industry in Colorado.

The EA for Comment for the Fisher-Ivy/Goose Lake Sheep Allotment was prepared and released for public review and comment on May 281

h, 2013. The EA described the alternatives to the proposed action and the effects those alternatives may have on the environment.

Decision This Decision Notice documents my decision to select Alternative 1 which will change the designation of the FIG Allotment from an active grazing domestic sheep allotment to a vacant allotment. The Forest Service has a responsibility to address the risk of disease posed by its management decisions relating to domestic sheep grazing.

Our analysis shows that the FIG Allotment poses a High risk to the Weminuche Bighorn Sheep Herd. Bighorn occupy yearlong habitat in and adjacent to the allotment. Managing domestic sheep grazing to achieve effective separation, reduced risk of association and avoidance of range overlap with bighorn sheep is unlikely. Until the science is available that shows that project design criteria are effective in maintaining separation, I cannot use them as sole basis for authorizing grazing, especially in the case of FIG, where direct overlap between the two species is occurring. For these reasons, I decided against selecting Alternative 2.

There is a distinction between a vacant and a closed grazing allotment. A vacant allotment does not weclude grazing by livestock at some point in the future . The allotment may be restocked with domestic sheep at a later date, in this instance; if current conditions change (i.e. a proven vaccination is developed) . The intent of the vacant proposed designation is to keep open future opportunities should they occur, to continue to support the sheep grazing industry while also providing for a viable bighorn sheep herd. Regardless, a new analysis and NEPA document would be required prior to consideration of restocking the allotment. I feel permanent closure of the allotment would not meet the intent of the Memorandum of Understanding for Management

4


of Domestic Sheep and Bighorn Sheep signed by several entities including the Forest Service and Colorado Woolgrower' s Association (CWGA).

Not reauthorizing grazing by domestic sheep on FIG is the most effective method to reduce the risk of contact between the two species .

Alternative 1 best reduces the risk of contact on the allotment between domestic and bighorn sheep and minimizes potential interspecies disease transmission. Alternative 1 bests contributes to the support of healthy bighorn sheep populations. Alternative 1 also helps to sustain an economically viable domestic sheep industry by authorizing grazing on the permittee's second high elevation allotment (Boot Mountain/Mesa Mountain) on a yearly basis instead of alternating every two years with the Fisher-Ivy/Goose Lake Allotment.

Rationale for the Decision I made my decision based on the best science and information available. In making this decision, I carefully considered applicable laws, regulations, and policy; the information disclosed in the EA, the Forest Plan, the most recent Forest Service direction regarding bighorn sheep population viability and domestic sheep grazing, the most current scientific information including modeling and the project's administrative record. I considered how the alternatives in the EA met the stated purpose of and need for action, how they addressed the key issues and also how they met the goals and objectives in the Forest Plan. Finally, I carefully considered public, private organizations, State and other Federal agencies' comments.

Most recent direction- On August 19, 2011, the Forest Service's Washington Office routed a letter of direction to Regional Foresters in Regions, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the National Forest System regarding direction for Bighorn Sheep Analysis for NEPA Documents. This letter was further followed up with additional information from the Rocky Mountain Region Office (Region 2) on September 14, 2011. Both letters provided national and regional direction and information on addressing potential implications of disease transmission from domestic sheep/goats to bighorn sheep.

As stated in the directional letters, "The relationship between bighorn sheep population viability and domestic sheep grazing on National Forest System lands continues to be an important wildlife and range management issue facing the Forest Service on western rangelands. Where management objectives include maintenance or enhancement of bighorns sheep populations, the potential for disease transmission from domestic sheep/goats to bighorn sheep must be addressed. To meet these objectives, forests must conduct a bighorn sheep risk assessment using the enclosed viability analysis outline".

"Our viability analyses should be based upon current scientific information and coordination with States taking into consideration state wildlife plans . Where viability assessments indicate a high likelihood of disease transmission and a resulting risk to bighorn sheep population viability across the forest, the goal of spatial and/or temporal separation between domestic sheep/goats and bighorn sheep is the most prudent action we can use to manage risk of disease transmission"

As part of our analysis for FIG, we have thoroughly followed the direction and utilized the Four Step Outline provided by the Forest Service's Washington Office (WO) and Rocky Mountain Regional Offices (RO) regarding Bighorn Sheep Analysis for NEPA Documents. The Four Steps listed in the WO/RO direction and how we addressed them are listed in the Risk of Contact Analysis (App. E) on pages 22-27. The Risk of Contact Analysis completed for this allotment is

5


a comprehensive and quantitative assessment of the degree of contact risk on the allotment between bighorn and domestic sheep.

Most current scientific information - Our Risk of Contact Analysis (EA Appendix E) is based on the most current scientific information available regarding risk of contact between bighorn and domestic sheep as provided by the Forest Service's Bighorn Sheep Working Group and Critigen LLC.

Information on disease transmission and effects on viability are based on the most recent studies and literature which represent the best available science regarding potential viability outcomes due to interspecies contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep.

Risk Analysis -The Risk of Contact Analysis determined that due to documented range overlap between the two species on the allotment, contact between domestic sheep and bighorn may occur more than once every season FIG is grazed. A single contact between the two species does not necessarily mean disease transmission but over time, repeated contact greatly increases the likelihood of a disease event impacting the bighorn herd (EA Page 3-30, second italicized paragraph) .

The Risk of Contact Analysis accurately quantifies in great detail, the degree of risk the allotment poses to bighorn sheep. The analysis goes above and beyond just the allotment analysis and examines the degree of risk on a pasture specific basis . The allotment and each pasture within the allotment is given a risk rating quantifying the degree of risk in Appendix E, Risk of Contact Analysis. The Risk of Contact determined that the degree of risk on the FIG Allotment is High.

FS Responsibility - As directed by the WO and RO offices, the goal of spatial and/or temporal separation between domestic sheep/goats and bighorn sheep is the most prudent action we can use to manage risk of disease transmission. Because bighorn sheep occupy yearlong habitat in and adjacent to FIG, managing domestic sheep grazing to achieve effective separation, reduced risk of association and avoidance of range overlap with bighorn sheep is unlikely.

The Forest Service recognizes that contact with domestic sheep is not the only source of disease die-offs in bighorn sheep, but rather that it is one source of risk. Regardless, the Forest Service has a responsibility to address the risk of disease posed by its management decisions relating to domestic sheep grazing.

In making this decision, I feel that I have carefully weighed the consequences of continuing to graze domestic sheep on the FIG Allotment upon resources, specifically bighorn sheep. It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable for livestock grazing consistent with land management plans. It is also the Forest Service's responsibility to provide habitats that support viable populations of wildlife species, in this case bighorn sheep, particularly given the risks that the species currently faces relative to the impacts of disease on population persistence.

While there clearly are gaps and disagreement in the knowledge base on the causes and mechanisms of bighorn sheep die-offs and disease transmission between these species, the vast majority of literature supports the potential for disease transmission between the species, documents bighorn sheep die-offs near domestic sheep, and support the management option of keeping these species separate to prevent disease transmission. There is no peer reviewed

6


literature that suggests bighorn sheep can be grazed with domestic sheep without concern for disease transmission between the species. Scientists from both sides of the issue also recommend that the species be kept separate until the disease transmission science is better understood.

The Purpose of and the Need for Action (EA, Chapter 1, sections 1.4 and 1.5)

Alternative 1 was selected because it best meets the purpose of the proposed action which is to reduce the risk of contact on the allotment between domestic and bighorn sheep in order to minimize potential interspecies disease transmission and to help ensure healthy bighorn sheep populations. This alternative also continues to support the domestic sheep industry by continuing to authorize the permittee to graze domestic sheep on the Boot Mountain/Mesa Mountain Allotment in lieu of the FIG Allotment in conjunction with his other two authorized allotments on the district.

Not reauthorizing grazing by domestic sheep on FIG is the most effective method to reduce the risk of contact on the allotment. The allotment is the only high risk domestic sheep grazing allotment within the Weminuche Bighorn Sheep Herd boundary. Vacant sheep allotments within the Weminuche Bighorn Sheep Herd Boundary on the adjacent San Juan National Forest have been closed. Spatial and temporal issues involved with risk of contact between domestic sheep and bighorn would not exist within the Weminuche Bighorn Sheep Herd Boundary (See Figure 1-2 in the EA, page 1-4).

Livestock grazing is a discretionary action by the Forest Service and there is an overall need to analyze the possible effects in order to authorize grazing. I find that Alternative 2 does not fully comply with the Purpose of and Need for Action as the risk of contact between domestic sheep and bighorn would remain High.

The Goals, Objectives, and Management Area Prescriptions for the Analysis Area as described in the Forest Plan for the Rio Grande National Forest (EA, Chapter 1, section 1.6).

All land management decisions are governed by an array of law and policy which direct or provide bounds for those decisions . Specific management direction for the RGNF, including desired conditions and objectives, is provided in the Forest Plan and its accompanying Record of Decision. Within this plan, lands are delineated and managed for a particular emphasis or theme known as a Management Area Prescription (MAP). Each MAP in the Forest Plan has a description of the theme and physical setting for the area, a description of the desired future conditions for the area, and a list of Standards and Guidelines that apply to the area.

Desired conditions are the attributes toward which management of the land and resources are to be directed (36 CFR 219.7(a) (2) (i)). The FIG Analysis Area desired conditions are guided by four Management Area Prescriptions (MAPS) as described in Figure 1-3 and Section 1.6 on pages 1-6 through 1-10.

The Forest Plan contains goals and objectives to allow livestock grazing on suitable rangelands. It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable for livestock grazing consistent with the Forest Plan. It is Forest Service policy to continue contributions to the economic and social well-being of people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities that depend on rangeland resources for their livelihood.

7


The Forest Plan also contains goals and objectives to help ensure the sustainability of viable populations of all native wildlife species. A viable population has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure the continued existence of the species throughout its range in the planning area.

I find that Alternative 1 best meets the Forest Plan goals and objectives relative to livestock grazing and species viability. Managing the FIG Allotment as vacant does not preclude it from grazing at some point in the future . In addition, Alternative 1 does not exclude the permittee from grazing his flock on other authorized allotments; instead it redirects his summer grazing use to his other available grazing allotments. This Alternative continues to meet Forest Service policy to provide for opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities that depend on rangeland resources for their livelihood.

Alternative 2 may not meet the goals and objectives related to species viability for bighorn sheep. Modeling utilizing the best available science has shown that the risk of contact is High and continued grazing on the allotment may put the viability ofthe Weminuche Bighorn Sheep Herd at risk. In this instance, the goal of spatial and/or temporal separation is the most prudent action I have at my discretion.

The laws, regulations, and policies that govern land management on National Forests (EA, Chapter 1, section 1.6).

It is Forest Service policy to conduct its operations in a manner that ensures the protection of public health, safety, and the environment through compliance with all applicable Federal and State laws, regulations, orders, and other requirements . The EA considered whether actions described under its alternatives would result in a violation of any Federal, State, or local laws or requirements ( 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] § 1508.27), or would require a permit, license, or other entitlement (40 CFR §1502.25). By tiering this project to the FEIS and Record of Decision (ROD) for the Forest Plan, it is expected that all applicable requirements would be met.

Key Issues (EA, Chapter, Section 1.9).

The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) used scoping comments from the public, private organizations, State, and other Federal agencies to identify Key Issues to be analyzed with the proposed action . Two key issues were identified for this Analysis Area, the response to the key issues by alternative are compared below:

Key Issue 1 - Risk of Contact Between Domestic and Bighorn Sheep

Key Issue 2 - Economics

Alternative 1 - No Authorized Grazing

8

Key Issue 1 - Risk of Contact between Domestic and Bighorn Sheep

This alternative will remove the risk of contact between domestic and bighorn sheep within FIG and the Weminuche Bighorn Sheep Herd.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------


Key Issue 2 - Economic value to the term grazing permit holder and Economic Value of Bighorn Sheep

The discontinuation of grazing on the FIG would no longer provide an economic value associated with this particular allotment to the term grazing permit holder. However, the permittee will continue to graze domestic sheep on his alternate allotments.

Decreasing the risk of contact between domestic and bighorn sheep will best insure that bighorn in the Weminuche Bighorn Sheep Herd will continue to provide economic benefit to the local communities.

Alternative 2 - Continued Grazing with Project Design Criteria

Key Issue 1 - Risk of Contact between Domestic and Bighorn Sheep

This alternative will result in a risk rating of High within the FIG regarding contact between domestic and bighorn sheep.

Key Issue 2 - Economic value to the term grazing permit holder and Economic Value of Bighorn Sheep

The continuation of grazing on FIG would provide an economic value to the the term grazing permit holder with this particular allotment.

The risk of contact between domestic and bighorn sheep will remain High. This alternative provides a high risk that the Weminuche Bighorn Sheep Herd may experience a disease driven die off which will negatively impact the economic benefit to the local communities.

Site-specific FIG Allotment resource information and the potential effects upon selected resources (EA, Chapter 3). The EA described the present conditions of the environment in and around the Analysis Area. It also disclosed the probable consequences (impacts and effects) of implementing both of the alternatives (Chapter 2) on selected resources (Chapter 3). It provided the analytical basis to compare the Alternatives.

This project is local and would affect only FIG, which contains approximately 3,508 acres of land suitable for domestic sheep grazing. The scope of this analysis is limited to either discontinuing domestic sheep grazing and managing the allotment as vacant, or continued grazing with project design criteria in place to minimize potential contact with bighorn sheep.

Alternative 1 can be implemented without significant adverse effects on the resources discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA and also in Table 2.4-1.

Alternative 2 can be implemented without significant adverse effects on the majority of the resources discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA and also in Table 2.4-1 . However, direct overlap both spatially and temporally between domestic and bighorn sheep exists on the FIG allotment. The Risk of Contact Analysis determined that the risk of contact between the two species and the potential for subsequent disease transmission is High. Project design criteria are built into Alternative 2 but are not based upon science nor have they been tested for effectiveness of maintaining separation between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep. Until the science is available

9

. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


that shows that project design criteria are effective in maintaining separation, I cannot use them as the sole basis for authorizing grazing in close proximity to bighorn sheep populations and particularly in the case of FIG, where direct overlap between the two species is occurring.

Comments made by the public and other agencies (EA, Chapter 5). Public involvement was a key component in the planning and decision making process. The EA analysis went through several phases of public involvement. The public involvement process is discussed in detail in Section 1.8 - Public Involvement in the EA. The Rio Grande National Forest invited public comment and participation regarding this project through the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), public notice in the Valley Courier (the newspaper of record), a scoping letter, a short article in the Valley Courier, and posting on the Rio Grande National Forest website (EA, Chapter 1, section 1.8; and Chapter 5) . Chapter 5 of the EA lists the state and Federal agencies, tribal governments, individuals, and organizations consulted.

Public comment was received during the scoping process and during the formal comment period in response to the EA for Comment. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) responded to public comment in various ways throughout the NEPA process, including enhancing the analysis. Eight written responses were received in response to the EA for Comment. Comment letters/emails and our response to the comments are included in Appendix F.

Comments from the public in response to the EA for Comment were all related to the issue of bighorn and domestic sheep contact. Seven of the eight comments were supportive of the proposed alternative to manage the allotment as vacant (Alternative 1), while one response was supportive of Alternative 2, continued grazing.

Summary of Decision Rationale I find that Alternative 1 is consistent with the Forest Plan and best meets the stated Purpose of and Need for Action (EA, Chapter 1, sections 1.5 and 1.6).

I considered all relevant public and agency comment to this project. I considered Forest Plan direction and the most recent WO and RO direction regarding bighorn sheep analysis for NEPA documents. I believe Alternative 1 affords me the opportunity to address the uncertainties of disease transmission while also continuing to support the domestic sheep industry by managing the allotment as vacant (vs closed) . Alternative 1 also continues to support the permittee by authorizing continued grazing on three other allotments .

The Forest Service has a responsibility to address the risk of disease posed by its management decisions relating to domestic sheep grazing and to provide habitats that support viable populations of bighorn sheep, particularly given the risks that the species currently faces relative to the impacts of disease on population persistence. As directed by the Washington and Rocky Mountain Regional Offices, "Where viability assessments indicate a high likelihood of disease transmission and a resulting risk to bighorn sheep population viability across the forest, the goal of spatial and/or temporal separation between domestic sheep/goats and bighorn sheep is the most prudent action we can use to manage risk of disease transmission."

Alternatives Considered in Detail Two Alternatives were developed and considered in detail (EA, Chapter 2, section 2.3). A comparison of these alternatives can be found in the EA on pages 2-3 to 2-4.

10


While examining options for alternatives, it became obvious that the choice of alternatives was limited. The alternatives became options of either continuing to graze the allotment with domestic sheep or discontinue grazing by domestic sheep and evaluating the potential effects between these two alternatives.

The Forest Service is a multiple-use agency and preferably, allowing continued grazing by domestic sheep on all or parts of the allotment while also helping to manage for healthy populations of bighorn sheep is ideal. However, in this instance, managing domestic sheep grazing to achieve effective separation, reduced risk of association and avoidance of range overlap with bighorn sheep is unlikely, as overlap between domestics and bighorn sheep is currently occurring on the allotment. In this instance, the option of managing to prevent bighorn from contacting the allotment is already a forgone opportunity, as bighorn are already present on the allotment yearlong.

Alternative 1 - No Authorized Grazing This alternative proposes to discontinue permitted domestic sheep grazing within FIG. The allotment would become vacant. A vacant allotment does not preclude grazing by livestock at some point in the future. The allotment may be restocked with domestic sheep at a later date in this instance; if current conditions change (i.e. a proven vaccination is developed). Regardless, a new analysis and NEPA decision would be required prior to consideration of restocking the allotment. Similarly, if deemed appropriate at a future time, a separate decision signed by the authorized officer could permanently close the allotment.

This alternative would continue to support the domestic sheep grazing industry by continuing to authorizing domestic sheep grazing on the alternate Boot Mountain /Mesa Mountain Sheep Allotment.

The Risk of Contact between domestic and bighorn sheep in the Fisher-Ivy/Goose Lake Allotment would be Low for the Weminuche Bighorn Sheep Herd.

Alternative 2 - Continued Grazing with Project Design Criteria in place to minimize contact between bighorn and domestic sheep and to protect other resources. This alternative would maintain current livestock grazing management practices . One term grazing permit would continue to authorize livestock grazing. There would be no changes in permitted numbers of livestock, permitted season of use, kind or class of livestock, or grazing system (other than minor changes made annually in the AOI planning process). Project design criteria for livestock management would be implemented.

The alternative would continue to support the domestic sheep grazing industry by authorizing domestic sheep grazing on FIG and the alternate Boot Mountain /Mesa Mountain Sheep Allotment in addition to the permittee's two other allotments .

Project Design Criteria which are built into Alternative 2 are not based upon science nor have they been tested for effectiveness of maintaining separation between domestic and bighorn sheep.

The Risk of Contact between domestic and bighorn sheep in the Fisher-Ivy/Goose Lake Allotment would be High for the Weminuche Bighorn Sheep Herd.

11


Legal Requirements for Environmental Protection I find the selected Alternative is consistent with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and requirements for the protection of the environment. The selected Alternative is also consistent with the Forest Plan for the Rio Grande National Forest (EA, Chapter 1, sections 1.1 and 1.6).

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

My decision and the EA analysis comply with NEPA. Direction in 40 CFR § 1500-1508 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 was followed throughout the development of the EA and the project.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

This project and my decision comply with the NFMA and the Forest Plan. The NFMA and its implementing regulations govern National Forest management planning through Forest-level planning.

I have evaluated the selected Alternative and compared it to the Forest Plan, as amended, to determine if the selected Alternative is in compliance with the Forestwide goals, objectives, desired conditions, and standards and guidelines. I have also evaluated the selected Alternative and compared it to the Management Areas within the Analysis Area to determine compliance with those desired conditions and standards and guidelines. I find that the selected Alternative is consistent with the Forest Plan.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Under provisions of the ESA, Federal agencies are directed to seek to conserve threatened and endangered species and to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of these species. I have complied with all applicable Federal laws and regulations and consulted with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, where it was appropriate to do so. I have considered the effects of this project and complied with relevant Forest Service regulations and policies . Effects of the selected Alternative on all listed threatened and endangered species, relevant to this Analysis Area, were analyzed in a Biological Assessment (BA) (project administrative record) and summarized in the EA.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Executive Order 13186

The selected Alternative was evaluated against Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and Project Design Criteria, to ensure consistency and to eliminate or reduce potential adverse effects to migratory birds. As a result, direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the selected Alternative would not be expected to adversely affect identified birds of conservation concern, and would be consistent with the MBTA, Executive Order 13186, Forest Service standards and guidelines, and Colorado Landbird Conservation Plan (BCP) goals and objectives to conserve migratory and resident birds in Colorado.

Clean Air Act (CAA)

The basic framework for controlling air pollutants in the United States is the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990 and 1999 (42 USC 7401 et seq.) The CAA was designed to protect and enhance the quality of the nation's air resources. All National Ambient Air Quality Standards are being met in the Analysis Area and in the surrounding area. The selected Alternative is not expected to impact air quality. The selected Alternative is consistent with and complies with the Clean Air Act.

12


Clean Water Act (CWA)

The Clean Water Act requires that chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all waters, stream channels, and wetlands be protected. Implementation of Forest Plan standards are normally expected to provide that protection. All streams within the Analysis Area are currently meeting water quality standards for the designated uses and, therefore, are not on the State of Colorado 303(d) Impaired Waters List. The selected Alternative is consistent with the Clean Water Act.

National Historic Preservation Act

Heritage and tribal interests are regulated by Federal laws that direct and guide the Forest Service in identifying, evaluating, and protecting heritage resources. The selected Alternative complies with these Federal laws. Heritage resources within the Analysis Area were considered during project development. The heritage resource analysis and assessment was done according to terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer and the Rio Grande National Forest regarding Range Management Activities. Literature and field review, followed by Native American Tribal consultation, found that there were no known traditional, cultural, or historical properties eligible to the National Register of Historic Places within the Analysis Area.

Environmental Justice- Executive Order 12898

Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations," requires that Federal agencies make achieving environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low income populations. No minority or low income populations were identified during scoping (internal or external) or during the analysis that might be adversely affected by the activities. My conclusion is that there would be no disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or lowincome populations as a result of implementing the selected Alternative. The selected Alternative does not pose any significant socioeconomic risks that disproportionately affect low income or minority populations in communities potentially affected by the Alternative.

Roadless Area Conservation Rule

The selected Alternative complies with the Colorado Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR §294, July 3, 2012) because no timber harvest, road construction, or reconstruction is approved within inventoried roadless areas on the Rio Grande National Forest.

Wilderness Act

This project and my decision comply with the Wilderness Act. The Weminuche Wilderness was designated in 1975.

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) I have reviewed the environmental effects of the selected Alternative disclosed in the EA. I have also evaluated whether the selected Alternative constitutes a significant impact on the quality of the human environment or whether the environmental impacts would be significant based on their context and intensity, as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) using the criteria in the implementing regulations (40 CFR §1508.27).

13


I have determined that the implementation of the selected Alternative will not result in any anticipated effects that exceed the level at which a significant effect on the human, biological, or physical environment in terms of context or intensity would occur. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered. The effects from the selected Alternative are expected to be minor. The effects are not highly uncertain and do not involve unique and unknown risks. The action will not, in relation with other actions, cause cumulatively significant impacts. I have reviewed the actions from Alternative 1 in terms of both context and intensity in detail below:

Context -- this project is local and would affect only the FIG Allotment. The scope of this analysis is limited to evaluating the appropriateness of continued grazing by domestic sheep.

Intensity- severity of projected impacts is subdivided into several individual components, as suggested by 40 CPR §1508.27 as follows :

Environmental Effects-- I find that the selected Alternative can be implemented without significant adverse effects on the resources discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA and also in Table 2.4-1.

Public Health and Safety- I find that there are no adverse effects expected to public health or safety under Alternative 1. The project activities will comply with all State and Federal regulations, Air and water quality will not be adversely affected.

Unique Characteristics of the Area -- I find there are no significant adverse effects on unique characteristics of the Rio Grande National Forest (see EA, Chapter 3), such as historic or cultural resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, floodplains, wild and scenic rivers , inventoried roadless areas, or ecologically critical areas. The selected Alternative will have no adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic places, and there is no loss of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

Controversy- There is clearly disagreement in the knowledge base on the causes and mechanisms of bighorn sheep die-offs and disease transmission between bighorn and domestic sheep. The vast majority of literature supports the potential for disease transmission between the species, documents bighorn sheep die-offs near domestic sheep, and support the management option of keeping these species separate to prevent disease transmission. There is no peer reviewed literature that suggests bighorn sheep can be grazed with domestic sheep without concern for disease transmission between the species. Scientists from both sides of the issue also recommend that the species be kept separate until the disease transmission science is better understood.

Uncertainty - The effects analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk.

Precedent -- The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects. The action does not represent a decision in principle about future considerations. Similar projects conducted in the future will have to be evaluated under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the significance of the effects of those specific actions .

Cumulative Impact -- I find that the cumulative impacts are not significant because this activity, when considered with other past or reasonably foreseeable actions, is not expected to have a cumulatively significant impact.

14


Properties on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places- I find that the action will have no adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The action will not cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

Endangered or Threatened Species -- The action will not adversely affect any federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species. A Biological Assessment (BA) and Biological Evaluations (BE) were completed for this project (for animals and plants) . The BA determined that the proposed action will have "no effect" on the federally listed species. The BA and BEs are part of the project's administrative record.

The action is in compliance with all Federal, State, and local environmental protection laws. Based on the EA and the above considerations, I find that the selected Alternative is not a major action that will not constitute a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, it does not require the preparation of an environmental impact statement.

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities This Forest Service decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 36 CFR Part 215 .14. This decision is also subject to administrative review under 36 CFR Part 214 by term grazing permit holders or applicants (§214.4). Term grazing permit holders or applicants may choose to appeal under either 36 CFR 214 or 215 .

Notices of Appeal that do not meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14 or 36 CFR. 214.90 as appropriate will be dismissed.

Appeals filed under 36 CFR Part 214

Appeals must be filed within 45 days following the date on the notice of the written decision (§214.9). Attachments received after the 45 day appeal period will not be considered. Appeals filed under 36 CFR Part 214 (including attachments) must be in writing and submitted (by regular mail) to :

USDA Forest Service, Rio Grande National Forest Appeal Reviewing Officer Rio Grande National Forest Supervisor's Office 1803 W Highway 160, Monte Vista, CO, 81144

Appeals may also be hand or express delivered to the address shown above. Office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered appeals are 8:00a.m. through 5:00p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Appeals may also be submitted by fax to: 719-852-6250. Electronic appeals must be submitted in a format such as an email message, rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc) to: [email protected]. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an electronic message, a verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature is one way to provide verification.

15


Appeals filed under 36 CFR 214 must have a copy of the appeal simultaneously sent to the Deciding Officer at:

Deciding Officer, Divide Ranger District Rio Grande National Forest Attention: Matt Paciorek, 13308 W Highway 160 Del Norte, CO 81132

It is an appellant's responsibility to provide sufficient activity-specific evidence and rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why the Deciding Officer's decision should be reversed (§214.8). The Deciding Officer is willing to meet with applicants and holders to hear and discuss any concerns or issues related to the decision (§214.15).

An appellant may also include in the notice of appeal a request for oral presentation (§214.16) or a request for stay of implementation of the decision pending decision on the appeal (§214.13).

Appeals filed under 36 CFR Part 215

Pursuant to 36 CFR 215.13, only those individuals or organizations who submitted substantive written or oral comments during the notice and comment period for the EA for Comment may file an appeal. Notices of Appeal that do not meet the content requirements of 36 C.F.R. 215.14 will be dismissed.

Appeals (including attachments) must be in writing and filed (regular mail, fax, e-mail, handdelivery, express delivery or message service with the Appeal Deciding Officer (36 CFR 215 .8) within 45 days following the date of publication of a legal notice of this decision in The Valley Courier (the newspaper of record) . The publication date of the legal notice in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal (36 CFR 215.15 (a)). Those wishing to appeal should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source.

Where to File an Appeal: USDA Forest Service Region 2 Appeals Deciding Officer 740 Simms Street Golden, CO 80401 Fax: 303-275-5134 to the attention of Appeals Email: appeals-rocky-mountain-regional-office@ fs .fed. us

Implementation Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 214, if no appeal is filed, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may occur during the appeal process, unless the Reviewing Officer grants a stay (§214.13).

Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215, if no appeal is filed within the 45-day time period, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, five business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15th business day following the date of the last appeal disposition.

16


Contact Information For further information on this project and implementation, contact Tristram Post or Dale Gomez, Interdisciplinary Team Leaders, Divide Ranger District, 13308 W Highway 160, Del Norte, Colorado 81144, telephone (719) 657-3321. The EA and DN/FONSI are available on the Rio Grande National Forest web site as follows: http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/riogrande/landmanagement/projects

Signature and Date I have been delegated the authority in this DN/FONSI. Note th t

d I am the Responsible Official for the decisions outlined y cases this DN/FONSI summarizes information described g EA. For more detailed information, please refer to the EA

------b'---'-----\1--\-''--"'----"------"--~~ve record. 1( ~ u~o ( 5 Ranger Divide Ranger District Rio Grande National Forest

17

Decision Notice -...

Documents

Transcript of Decision Notice -...