Free Declaration - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-2

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 1 of 18

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-2

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 2 of 18

Forest Service
Lincoln National Forest

Southwestern
. Region

æi

FEIS
Final Environinental Iinpact

Stateinent

Sacrainento, Dry Canyon and Davis Grazing Allotinents
July 2004
PL02832

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-2

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 3 of 18

~~ iew. j_ i

~

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Sacramento Ranger District

P.O. Box 288

Cloudcroft, NM 883 i 7

File Code: i 950
Date: 28 July 2004

Re: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Sacramento, Dry Canyon and Grazing Allotments, Lincoln National Forest, Sacramento Ranger District, Otero County, New Mexico
Dear Interested Part:

Enclosed for your review is your copy or copies of the above referenced Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for managing livestock grazing on the Sacramento, Dry Canyon and
Grazing Allotments.

The responsible agency is USDA Forest Service.

The responsible offcial is: Frank R. Martinez, District Ranger, Sacramento Ranger District
For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process contact:

Frank R. Martinez Sacramento Ranger District P.O. Box 288 Cloudcroft, NM 88317 (505) 682-2551
Sincerely,

~K ¡¿rrMA
Frank R. Martinez DISTRICT RANGER

PL02833

æ

Caring for the Land and Serving People

""
Printed on Recyded Paper ..,

¡.

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-2

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 4 of 18

FINAL ENVIRONMNTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SACRAMNTO, DRY CANYON, AN DAVIS GRAZING ALLOTMENTS
USDA Forest Service. Lincoln National Forest Sacramento Ranger District, Otero County, New Mexico

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service
Responsible Official: Frank Martinez. District Ranger

For Further Information: Richard Newmon, Range and Watershed Staff Sacramento Ranger District P.O. Box 288 Cloudcroft, NM 88317 (505) 682-2551
Abstract: The Lincoln National Forest, Sacramento Ranger District proposes to authorize livestock grazing activities and associated range improvements on the Sacramento Grazing Allotment and a portion of the Dry Canyon Allotment. The projt:ct area, which includes both allotments, encompasses approximately 127,484 acres. The project has generated controversy on five main points; effects to threatened and endangered animal and plant species. concern for degraded riparian areas, forage competition between wildlife and livestock, conflicts between cattle and recreation. and social and economic effects on the permittee and the county. Five alternatives for management of the allotment are considered in this analysis. The alternatives are: Alternative A: Maintains present grazing levels and recommends reducing wildlife populations to elimil1ate conflict for available forage. Uses the Sacramento, Dry Canyon and Davis Allotments.
AlternativeB: Forest Service Preferred Alternative. Reduces livestock use to balance with

capacity and maintain wildlife at present levels. Uses the Sacramento and Dry Canyon Allotment.' Alternative C: Eliminates grazing from the allotment.
Alternative D: Is the No Action Alternative required by the National Environmental Policy Act

and continues the present situation into the future. Uses the Sacramento Allotment Alternative E: Is similar to B but considers use of both the adjacent Davis and Dry Canyon Allotments along with the Sacramento Allotment.

PL02834

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-2

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 5 of 18

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

8ackground 1-3
Proposed Action 1-5
Purpose and Need for Proposed Action 1-5

Introduction l-I

Project Area 1-6
Forest Plan Direction 1-8
Desired Future Condition 1-8

Decision to be Made 1-6

Public Involvement 1-9
Issues Addressed in this FEIS 1-10
,Required Permits, Licenses, and Certifications I-i 0
Applicable Laws and Executive Orders I-Ii

PL02855
,-

.-

.-

.-

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-2

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 6 of 18

:

,,
.' ,

I

.

:

.

.,

i,

s

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-2

Sacramento, Dry Filed 08/15/2008 Canyon and Davis Grazing Allotments Page 7 of 18 Forest Lincoln National

1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Impact Statement (FEIS or EIS) is substantially unchangedfrom the Draft Impact Statement (DEIS). Changes made in the FEISfrom the DEIS are shown in bold italics as shown in this sentence.
This Final Environmental Environmental

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to disclose the potential effects of authorizing livestock grazing activities and associated range improvements on the Sacramento, Dry Canyon and Davis Grazing Allotments. The Sacramento Allotment is the primary focus of the analysis documented in this EIS. In response to administrative action and to potentially alleviate management problems on the Saçramento Allotment, an unused portion of the Dry Canyon Grazing Allotment
and the previously closed Davis Grazing Allotment are included in some of

the alternatives under

consideration in this EIS (See Figure 1, Map of Sacramento, Davis and Dry Canyon Allotments and

Pastures). This EIS was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. The project area is located south, east, and west of Cloudcroft. New Mexico, and is within the Sacramento Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest (LNF). This EIS discloses the direct. indirect, and cumulative impacts and any irreversible commtment of resources that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. This EIS is prepared in the format established by Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508).

~ Chapter 1 explains the purpose and need for the proposed action, discusses how the project relates' to the LNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), and identifies the significant
issues to be addressed in the EIS.

~ . Chapter 2 describes and compares the proposed action. alternatives to the proposed action, and a
no action alternative. Environmental effects of the alternatives are briefly summarized in this
chapter in comparative format.

~ Chapter 3 describes the natural and human environments affected by the proposed action and alternatives. It then discloses the environmental effects that are anticipated if the proposed action or any of the alternatives were to be implemented.
~ Chapter 4 is a listing of principal contributors in preparing the EIS.
~ Chapter 5 is a description of public consultation during project planning.

A project record index. glossary. index, and other explanatory appendices are also included.

This EIS incorporates documented analyses by summarization and reference where appropriate.

The interdisciplinary team that prepared this EIS used a systematic approach for analyzing the proposed action and alternatives and estimating environmental effects. The planning process complies with NEPA

PL02856
1. Purpose and Need for Proposed Action

1-1

Final Environmental

Impact Statement

.-

Sacramento. Dr Canyon and Davis Grazing Allotments Lincoln National Forest

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-2

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 8 of 18

æ

and the CEQ regulations. Planning was coordinated with appropriate Federal, State and local agencies,
and local Federally Recognized Indian Tribes.

\

\ :\r()l)'\T \

\ /-~2""- ,/ \ :"'--.. ~~ ~- ~,-'
., LA LXZ

If\ P \RK

/\I ,- J _ i ~ _'- - - - .. ..
i t'

.. ( - _.,:~r- -L.

i CLOLnCR( )l-T

.. Li.. ..

'r~1.
'-

i

..

-!
"

-- i
I I

i' .. ALL

I

,
I

i
I

¿)

CJ

l

o

_o_ 0-. Cl
¡ !

o Da_ Dr c.-

r: 5l Putu

!:

.."1

'-

II
I

..

L_-r

L-__
,

\

_,. ~_L;¡ KIlometers

o 5 10 Miles
'-

-i

!

"
"''I

Ji",-. A ~\

'" '- - - - ~
Grapevine 0
'\

J\

,

TIMBI :IH.)'\

.. .. ..
Figure 1. Map of Sacramento, Davis and Dry Canyon Allotments and Pastures

PL02857
1. Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
1-2
Final Environmental

Impact Statement

.-

.-

s

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-2

Filed 08/15/2008Dry Canyon and 9 ofGrazing Allotments Page Davis 18 Sacramento,
Lincoln National Forest

Additional documentation may be found in the project planning record located at the Sacramento Ranger, District Office in Cloudcroft. New Mexico. These records are available for public review. Documentation contained in the project record was used to prepare this EIS, which includes references to the project record throughout. The format for project record references is a document number or numbers from the project record index (Appendix A) enclosed in parentheses. For example, references to material contained in the original Environmental Assessment (EA) would be shown as (76).

1.2 BACKGROUND
1.2.1 SACRAMENTO GRAZING ALLOTMENT

The present Sacramento Grazing Allotment is the result of combining 10 historical allotments. In the late
1970's, the High Nogal Ranches, Inc.. acquired grazing permts on the 10 historical allotments. The

control of livestock management on the 10 small allotments by one business inter~st made it possible to
combine them into one

large allotment. Combining the 10 allotments provided an opportunity to improve

resource management as well as administrative and economic effciency. An EA and Allotment Management Plan (AMP) were approved in 1979 for the newly consolidated allotment. The AMP prescribed implementation of an intensive rotation grazing system along with a very extensive range improvement development program. Under the 1979 AMP, the allotment was fully stocked for about two years.
However, in 1983 the permttee fied for bankruptcy. Because of AMP was only partially completed. the bankrptcy, implementation of the Between 1983 and 1989, the allotment saw periods of very light use

or non-use by livestock.

In 1989, the current permttee (Sacramento Grazing Association) was issued a Term Grazing Permt on Sacramento Allotment. The new permittee acquired only the grazing permt and did not acquire the private lands, which were an integral part of the livestock operation when the original combination took place. In addition, the long period of non-use on the allotment resulted in deterioration of many of the existing range improvements. Because of the changed private land base and many of the range improvements being non-functional, the i 979 AMP is not functionaL.

on a new Sacramento Grazing Allotment AMP on March 1, 1995 (76). Two appeals were fied protesting the
An EA, Decision Notice (DN). and Finding of No Significant Effect (FONSI) were completed

the NEPA and the National Forest Management Act (NFA). The appeals requested that the decision be set aside and that a new EA or EIS be prepared for the AMP.
decision to implement the new AMP. Both appeals alleged violations of

the appeals, the A¡JpealDeciding,Officer remanded the decision on May 31,1995 (7). The Appeal Deciding Offcer's remand instructed the LNF to prepare a supplement to the EA and include stocking rates for each alternative. clarify forest plan consistency, clarify effects on cultural resources, and complete consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). After preparation, the supplement was to be circulated for comment and a new DN prepared and a new term grazing permit issued.
After review of

PL02858
1. Purpose and Need for Proposed Action

1-3

Final Environmental

Impact Statement

.-

Sacramento, Dry Canyon and Davis Grazing Allotments Lincoln National Forest

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-2

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 10 of 18

s

A supplement to the EA was completed on May 3, 1996. and offered to the public for a 30-day review

period (77). Comments received on the supplemental EA highlighted a need to gather more data before a decision could be issued on the new AMP. A private consultant carried out additional grazing capacity studies and additional monitoring of elk/livestock interactions was initiated.
After review of the troubled history of the NEP A process on this project. the LNF Supervisor decided in November 1998 to have this EIS prepared (58). A Notice Of Intent (NO!) was published in the Federal Register on May 5, 1999. The NOI was amended in January 2000 and again in May 2002 to update expected completion dates (92).
1.2.2 DRY CANYON GRAZING ALLOTMENT

The Dry Canyon Allotment, adjacent to the northwest corner of the Sacramento Allotment, is a community allotment (an allotment used by more than one permttee) with three separate term grazing permts. Two of the grazing permts are presently active. The third permt was canceled in 1995 because of permt violations and retained by the Forest Service for future use. The Forest Service completed an EA disclosing the environmental effects of issuing new permts on the Dry Canyon Allotment and made a
decision to issue three new permts in 1999 (86).

and 20 head of cattle from November 1 to May 15. The third permit for 75 head of cattle from November 1 to May 15 was not issued to a permttee at that time. Issuing the third permit for the 75 head of cattle to the Sacramento Grazing Association is being considered in this EIS. Environmental effects of issuing the 75-head permt were disclosed in the 1999 EA and will be incorporated into this EIS by reference (86).
The two presently active permts were issued for 10

1.2.3 DAVIS GRAZING ALLOTMENT

The Davis Allotment adjoins the Sacramento Allotment on the east side. Two permts were issued for these permits was issued to High Nogal grazing on the Davis Allotment in the early 1980's. One of Ranches and was used in conjunction with the Sacramento Allotment. In 1983, High Nogal Ranches removed all of their livestock from the Davis Allotment and never used it again. The other permt remained in effect and passed through a succession of different permttees. In 1992, the permt was transferred to Angel Canyon Ranch Partnership. In May 1992, discussions between Angel Canyon Ranch Partnership and the Forest Service about the resource and management problems on the allotment resulted in a Memorandum of Understanding to close the allotment to livestock grazing (89). The allotment was closed as a result of the following:

· The 1.25 miles of riparian area in Wills Canyon cannot be economically managed at a level that will meet the standards and guides in the LNF Resource Management Plan.

· The lack of access in the Peñasco drainage and limited access in Wils Canyon causes excessive trailing on steep slopes adjacent to these drainages. This concentrated trailing along the slopes increases soil movement and sedimentation into the watercourses of Wils Canyon and the Peñasco River. This increased sedimentation is not in compliance with the Standards and Guides in the Forest Plan.

PL02859
1. Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
1-4
Final Environmentai

Impact Statement

.-

.-

~

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-2

Filed 08/15/2008 Dry Canyon and11 of 18 Allotments Page Davis Grazing Sacramento,
Lincoln National Forest

Recent litigation filed by the Sacramento Grazing Association claims that the Association should be allowed to graze the Davis Allotment as part of the Sacramento Allotment based on historical use by its predecessor, High Nogal Ranches. Reauthorization of livestock grazing on the Davis Allotment will be
considered in this EIS.

1.3 PROPOSED ACTION
The LNF proposes to develop and implement a new grazing strategy and associated range improvements for the Sacramento Grazing Allotment to bring it into compliance with the LNF Plan and applicable laws
and regulations.

The LNF proposes to issue a Term Grazing Permt to the Sacramento Grazing Association for 200 to 412

cattle and 5 horses on the summer range (May 15 to October 31) and 200 to 335 cattle and 5 horses on the winter range (November 1 - May 14). The proposed action prescribes the following forage use guidelines: 35% forage use for all key areas on the summer range and 40% forage use for all key areas on the winter range. The proposed action includes an estimated $72,000 in additional range improvements needed to implement the proposal.
The LNF proposes to issue a Term Grazing Permt to the Sacramento Grazing Association for up to 75

cattle on the Dry Canyon Allotment from November 1 to May 15. The maximum forage use in key areas will be 35%. The proposed action includes an estimated $25,000 in additional range improvements on the Dry Canyon Allotment. The LNF proposes to keep the Davis Allotment closed to livestock grazing.

1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
After acquisition of the Sacramento Allotment grazing permit in 1989, the current grazing permttee began to gradually stock the Sacramento Allotment to full permitted numbers. When the Sacramento Allotment was fully stocked in 1991. forage utilization began to exceed acceptable levels. Excessive forage utilization has been a continual concern since then. An adequate or functional AMP does not presently cover the Sacramento Grazing Allotment. Present management is not consistent with the standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan in some areas.
A sound. effective AMP is needed to authorize continued grazing, guide proper resource management on the Sacramento Allotment, repair specific resource problems, bring the Sacramento Allotment into compliance with the LNF Plan, and provide the basis for a new or revised Term Grazing Permt for the next 10 years. Unallocated forage capacity is available on the Dry Canyon Allotment that may help
alleviate problems on the Sacramento Allotment by

shifting some of the grazing use to the Dry Canyon

Allotment.

Authorized grazing on the allotments is consistent with the following:

Where it is consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives, Congressional intent is to allow
grazing on suitable lands. (Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness

Act of 1964, Forest and

PL02860
1. Purpose and Need for Proposed Action

1-5

Final Environmental

Impact Statement

Sacramento. Dry Canyon and Davis Grazing Allotments Lincoln National Forest

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-2

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 12 of 18

æ

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976).
. The allotments contain lands identified as suitable for domestic,

livestock grazing in the LNF and continued domestic livestock grazing is consistent with the goals. objectives, standards, and guidelines of the Forest Plan.

. Forest Service policy is to make forage from lands suitable for grazing available to qualified

livestock operators. consistent with land management plans (FSM 2203.1).
. Forest Service policy is 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 range resources for their livelihood (FSM 2202.1).
. By regulation, forage producing lands will be managed for livestock grazing where consistent with

land management plans (36 CFR 222.2 (c)).

1.5 DECISION To BE MADE
The Sacramento District Ranger will decide whether or not to authorize grazing on the Sacramento
Grazing Allotment. If grazing is authorized, the District Ranger wil decide on the permtted number of

animals and season of use, range facilities to be constructed, allowable forage utilzation guidelines, required monitoring, and requÌred mitigation measures (Best Management Practices (BMPs)).

The Sacramento District Ranger wil also decide whether or not to issue a permt for 75 head of cattle to Scaramento Grazing Association for the Dry Canyon Allotment. If the District Ranger decides to issue a permt for the Dry Canyon Allotment, the District Ranger wil then implement the previously established allowable forage utilization standards, season of use, and facilty contructionlreconstruction for the Dry Canyon Allotment.
The Sacramento District Ranger will also decide whether or not to reauthorize livestock grazing on the
Davis Allotment.

1.6 PROJECT AREA (30, 38, 86, 89)
Sacramento, Dry Canyon, and Davis Grazing Allotments are located in the western portion of the Sacramento Ranger District of the LNF, Otero County, New Mexico (See Figure 1, Map). The Sacramento Allotment contains about 111.484 acres of National Forest Lands, the Dry Canyon Allotment about 16,000 acres of National Forest Lands, and the Davis Allotment about 4,590 acres of National Forest Land. Elevations on the allotments range from4,500 feet to 9,700 feet. Adjacent grazing allotments include the San Andres and Escondido Allotments to the west, the Russia Allotments to the north, the Scott Able and EK North Bluewater Allotments to the east, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands which 'make up the north portion of the McGregor Range to the south.

"

PL02861
1. Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
1-6
Final Environmental

Impact Statement

æ

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-2

Filed 08/15/2008 Dry Canyon and13 of 18 Allotments Page Davis Grazing Sacramento,
Lincoln National Forest

The Sacramento Allotment is presently divided into eight pastures. The Dry Canyon Allotment and the Davis Allotment will be treated as one pasture for each allotment even though they may actually be subdivided. Table I shows the pastures and acreages.

Table 1. Pastures and Acreages

Pasture
Sacramento Allotment
Summer Range North Pasture (Formerly Benson) South Pasture (Formerly Wills) Atkinson Nelson Total Summer Range
Winter Range Mule (Formerly Burleson) Alamo Pasture Ridge Grapevine Total Winter Range Total Sacramento Allotment

Total Acres

Usable Grazing Acres

16,348

5,080
6,460 510
821 12,871

26,266 2,966 8,190 54,190

11,328 11,113 19,558 15,295

57,294 111,484

2,826 3,027 4,397 5,274 15,524 28,395

Dry Canyon Allotment
Davis Allotment

16,00
4,590

.4,072
26

Approximately 99.607 acres within the allotments are not usable for livestock grazing due to steep topography, dense canopy cover of forest and woodland trees, areas of insufficient forage production because of natural site limitations such as rock, or inaccessibility because of private land holdings.
Existing range improvements on the Sacramento Grazing Allotment are as follows:

· 18 miles of pipelines
· 28 earthen stock tanks
· 16 miles of interior fencing

· 12 trick tanks

· 9 corrals
· 12 spring developments

PL02862
1. Purpose and Need for Proposed Action

1-7

Final Environmental

Impact Statement'

.-

Sacramento, Dry Canyon and Davis Grazing Allotments
Lincoln National Forest

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-2

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 14 of 18

æ

1.7 FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
The LNF Plan provides direction and standards and guidelines for managing grazing on National Forest lands. Some of this direction gives specific guidance that affects how grazing on the grazing allotments wil be managed. Forest Plan directions having a bearing on this project are as follows:

· Manage and enhance the vegetation resource and bring penntted grazing use in balance with forage allocated for use by domestic livestock (Plan Replacement Page 12. Amendment 9).
· Place all allotments under appropriate levels of management (Plan Replacement Page 12,
Amendment 9).
· Produce livestock forage consistent with other resources and uses

(Plan Replacement Page 12,

Amendment 9).

· Maintain forage use by grazing ungulates at or above a condition that assures recovery and continued existence of threatened and endangered species (Plan Replacement Page 35,
Amendment 9).

· Identify key ungulate forage monitoring areas. These key areas will normally be 1/4 to 1 mile from water, located on productive soils on level to intermediate slopes, and be readily accessible for , grazing. Size of the key forage monitoring areas could be 20 to 500 acres. In some situations such as high mountain meadows with perennial streams, key areas may be closer than 1/4 mile from water and less than 20 acres. Within key forage monitoring areas, select appropriate key species to monitor average allowable use (Plan Replacement Page 35, Amendment 9).

· Achieve moderate (C) to high (D) levels of management on all full capacity ranges except in Management Area 2C, which calls for low (B) level of management (Plan, Pages 87,89,92,97). · Treat ranges in unsatisfactory condition through improved management along with structural and non structural range improvements (Plan Page 34).

1.8 DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION
Desired future condition is a description of the long-range management goals for the area based on management goals, standards, and guidelines from the Forest Plan. Desired future conditions are described for broad areas of the forest rather than site-specific project areas. Desired future condition is a vision of how the forest should look to best achieve Forest Plan goals and objectives. The desired state is a target, which may never be reached, but is the direction in which all management actions are aimed.

The desired condition for the allotments shall be accomplished when

· Unsatisfactory rangelands become satisfactory as defined in Forest Service manuals and handbooks, FSM 2200 Zero Code, FSM 2210 Range Management Planning, FSM 2230 Grazing and Livestock Use Permit System, FSM 2240 Range Improvements, FSM 2250 Range

PL02863
1. Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
1-8

Final Environmenta/lmpact Statement

æ

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-2

Filed 08/15/2008 Dry Canyon and15 of 18 Allotments Page Davis Grazing Sacramento,
, Lincoln National Forest

Cooperation, FSH 2209.11 Range Project Effectiveness Handbook, FSH 2209.13 Grazing Permit Administration Handbook, FSH 2209.14 Service-Wide Range Analysis and
Management Handbook.

· Riparian areas on the allotment are in good to excellent condition as defined in Forest Service manuals and handbooks, FSM 2500 Zero Code, FSM 2510 Watershed Planning, FSM 2520 Watershed Protection and Management, FSM 2530 Water Resource Management, FSM 2540 Water Uses and Development, FSM 2550 Soil Management, FSH 2509.16 Water Resource Inventory Handbook, and FSH 2509.15 Soil Management Handbook. · Watersheds are properly functioning as defined in Forest Service manuals and handbooks, FSM 2500 Zero Code, FSM 2510 Watershed Planning, FSM 2520 Watershed Protection and
Management, FSM 2530 Water

Resource Management, FSM 2540 Water Uses and Develop-

ment, FSM 2550 Soil Management, FSH 2509.16 Water Resource Inventory Handbook, and FSH 2509.15 Soil Management Handbook. · Stream banks are stable and water quaiity meets state water quality standards. · Permitted livestock grazing is in balance with other resources. · Listed and rare plants and animals thrive with acceptable effects from livestock grazing as defined in Forest Service manuals and handbooks, FSM 2600 Zero Code, FSM 2610 Cooperatve
Relations, FSM 2620 Habitat Planning and Evaluation, FSM 2630 Management of Wildlife

and Fish Habitat, FSM 2640 Stocking and Harvesting, and FSH 2609.13 Wildlife and Fisheries
Program Management Handbook.
.. Livestock grazing is permtted and used as a tool to meet vegetative management objectives as set

forth in the LNF's Land and Resource Management Plan. · A viable livestock operation, which contributes to the local communities and the localeconomy, is maintained. · The Forest Service and grazing permittee are committed to proper stewardship of the land and its resources. · Recreational uses and the production of other products are enhanced through the improved management of rangeland ecosystems.

1.9 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
an AMP for the Sacramento Grazing Allotment. Public scoping was done during the beginning stages of the initial EA. The draft EA was sent to the public for comment. The final EA, DN, and FONSI were distributed to the public for comment and appeaL. Two appeals were filed and also serve as public comment on this project. As a result of the appeals, a supplement to the EA was circulated for public comment. Based on the comments received on the EA supplement, the Forest Supervisor decided to have this EIS prepared rather than make a decision on the EA supplement. An NOI to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on January 25, 1999(61) and previously involved people were notified by letter and encouraged to provide further comment, which many did. The LNF received several Congressional inquiries and comments. A number of comments were received on various parts of the process such as on the Grazing Capacity Report.
The public has been heavily involved in development of

'i

~ o N

00

0\

.t

1. Purpose and Need for Proposed Action

1-9

Final Environmental

Impact Statement

.-

Sacramento, Dry Canyon and Davis Grazing Allotments

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-2

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 16 of 18

Lincoln National Forest

e

There was substantial public involvement in the decision to permt grazing on the Dry Canyon Allotment. In addition to the public comments received during scoping and on the draft EA, the decision was appealed and additional comments from the public were received.
The extensive public comments in all the various forms described above were used along with information gathered by the Forest Service interdisciplinary team of management specialists to develop the issues
discussed in this EIS.

1.10 ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS EIS
An issue is defined as a point of disagreement, debate, or dispute with a proposed action based on some anticipated effect. Based on the extensive public comments described above, five issues were identified and will be addressed in this EIS. Alternatives to the proposed action have been developed to address the
five identified issues.

The issues to be addressed in this EIS are listed below:
Issue 1: Livestock grazing'and range improvement construction on the grazing allotments could

potentially affect the habitat and/or individual plants or animals that are classed as threatened, endangered, or sensitive by Federal or State agencies.

Issue 2: A marked increase in the number of elk using the allotments over the past decade has resulted in increased competition between elk and livestock for available forage. The use by both elk and livestock may be contributing to overgrazing.
'Issue 3: A goal of maintaining a viable livestock operation can be affected by the kind and number of range improvements needed to implement a change in management. Also, changing the number of permtted animals may also have an effect on the viabilty of the operator's livestock business and possibly affect the economics of local comíunities and counties.

Issue 4: Continually increasing demands for recreational opportunities on the LNF have increased conflcts between recreational users and livestock. Management changes in how livestock are distributed
wil affect the degree of recreation/livestock interaction.

Issue 5: The allotments contain approximately 40 miles of perennial streams. Riparian inventory data

indicate that less than 10% of the riparan zones associated with these perennial streams are in satisfactory condition based on Region 3 Standards and Guidelines for riparian areas. Grazing management may affect the riparian condition on the allotments.

1.11 REQUIRED PERMITS, LICENSES, AND CERTIFICATIONS
Once a decision has been made whether or not to authorize livestock grazing activities on the Sacramento Grazing Allotment, a lO-year Term Grazing Permit will be issued to the permittee to authorize and control the grazing on the allotment. If it is decided to use the Dry Canyon or Davis Allotments as part of the Sacramento Allotment management system, lO-year Term Grazing Permts will be issued to authorize
and control the grazing on those allotments as welL.

PL02865
1. Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
1-10
Final Environmental

Impact Statement

~

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-2

Filed 08/15/2008 Dry Canyon and Davis Grazing Allotments Page 17 of 18 Sacramento,
Lincoln National Forest

1.12 ApPLICABLE LAWS AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
laws and Executive Orders pertaining to project-specific planning and environmental analysis on Federal lands. Disclosures and findings required by these laws and orders
Following is a partial list of Federal

are contained in this EIS.
~ Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960
~ National Historic Presèrvation Act of 1966 (as amended)

~ NEPA of 1969 (as amended)
~ Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended)

~ Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended)
~ Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 (as amended)

~ NFMA of 1976 (as amended)
~ Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended)

~ American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978
~ Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1980

~ Executive Order 11593 (cultural resources)
~ Executive Order 11988 (floodplains)
~ Executive Order 11990 (wetlands)

~ Executive Order 12898 (environmental justice)
~ Executive Order 12962 (aquatic systems and recreational fisheries)

i

PL02866
1. Purpose and Need for Proposed Action

1-11

Final Environmental

Impact Statement

Sacramento, Dry Canyon and Davis Grazing Allotments Lincoln National Fares!

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-2

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 18 of 18

æ

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

PL02867
1. Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
1-12
Final Environmental

Impact Statement