determination to comply with the district of montana court...

Determination

to Comply with the

District of Montana Court Order

Gallatin Wildlife Association vs. Forest Service et al.

CV-15-0027 (D. Mont.)

(June 14, 2016)

Review of New Information Pertinent To

Domestic Sheep Allotment Management Plans

In the Gravelly Mountains

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest

Madison County, Montana

December, 2017

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service,

Northern Region

Responsible Official: Dale Olson

Madison District Ranger


The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex,

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information,

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille,

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-

3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Determination AMPs –Sheep Allotments in Gravelly Mountains December, 2017

DETERMINATION

of

Review of New Information Pertinent To

Domestic Sheep Allotment Management Plans

In the Gravelly Mountains

INTRODUCTION

This documents my determination and rationale in compliance with the District Court’s order of

June 14, 2016 for the Forest Service to conduct a review of the five issues concerning big horn

sheep raised by the Gallatin Wildlife Association, and any other pertinent new information, to

determine whether any, or all of this new information warrants National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) supplementation for the Gravelly Sheep Allotment Management Plans (AMPs).

To conduct the review ordered by the Court, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (BDNF)

prepared the document Review of New Information Pertinent to Domestic Sheep Allotments in

the Gravelly Mountains (hereinafter “New Information Review”). I have evaluated all

information relating to management of the Gravelly Sheep allotments, considered the analysis in

the New Information Review and considered all public comment to determine if the new

information is sufficient to show that allotment management is affecting the environment in a

significant manner or to a significant extent such that a supplementation of NEPA analysis for the

AMPs must be prepared.

Council on Environmental Quality regulations require supplemental NEPA analysis when there

are “significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and

bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii). Specifically, Ninth

Circuit case law provides: “[i]f there remains major Federal action to occur, and the new

information is sufficient to show that the remaining action will affect the quality of the human

environment in a significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered, a

supplemental EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) must be prepared.” Friends of Clearwater

v. Dombeck, 222 F.3rd 552, 557-558 (9th Cir. 2000), citing Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res.

Council, 490 U.S. 360, 374 (1989).

BACKGROUND

Bighorn Sheep Reintroduction into Greenhorn Mountains: 2003-2004

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep were once plentiful in Montana. By the 1930’s, hunting, disease,

and range competition from domestic livestock reduced the bighorn to remnant bands. The State

of Montana began reintroduction programs in the 1940’s. In 2001, the State decided to

reintroduce bighorn sheep in the Greenhorn Mountains south of Alder, Montana, to help restore

the area’s biodiversity and provide potential hunting and wildlife-viewing opportunities. In 2003

and 2004, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) transplanted 69 bighorn sheep to the

Greenhorn Mountains.

The New Information Review "Background" and "Reintroduction of Bighorn Sheep" sections

provides a more detailed discussion of bighorn sheep in Gravelly Landscape and their

reintroduction.

Domestic Sheep Grazing Allotments and Allotment Management Plans

Domestic livestock, including domestic sheep, were introduced in the Gravelly Landscape

(including the Greenhorn Mountains) shortly after discovery of gold in Alder Gulch in 1863,

more than 150 years ago. In 1920, an estimated 104,700 ewe/lamb pairs were permitted on the

Madison National Forest in the Gravelly, Greenhorn and Snowcrest Mountains.

Currently, 7,800 ewe/lamb pairs are permitted to graze seven domestic sheep allotments (Barnett,

Black Butte, Coal Creek, Cottonwood, Fossil-Hellroaring, Lyon-Wolverine and Poison Basin) on

the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (BDNF) in the Gravelly Mountains. On and off dates

for each allotment vary. The earliest on date is July 1 and the latest off date is October 6. Please

see the New Information Review section “Domestic Sheep Allotment Specific Information” for

details regarding each allotment.

These allotments have been grazed by sheep since prior to the establishment of the National

Forest. Current allotment boundary configurations are a result of various allotment

combinations. Permitted domestic sheep annually trail to and from these allotments. The trailing

route from the west is through The Notch (located in the Snowcrest Mountains). Trailing may

also occur from private lands located to the east. Trailing takes approximately 2-3 days for each

band to trail to the allotments. Please see the New Information Review section “AMP/Grazing

Permit Requirements for Sheep Allotments in the Gravelly Mountains” for a more detailed

discussion of trailing.

Grazing use of these allotments follows prescribed grazing practices detailed in term grazing

permits and Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) which are described in the Review.

An AMP is a document that applies to the management of rangeland ecosystems and livestock

operations on public lands by prescribing: (1) the manner in and extent to which livestock

operations will be conducted in order to meet ecosystem health, multiple use, economic and

other objectives; (2) describes range improvements to be installed and maintained; and (3)

contains such other provisions relating to livestock grazing and other objectives found by the

Secretary of Agriculture to be consistent with the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act. An AMP integrates resource objectives, standards, guidelines and

management requirements for soil and water for watershed protection, wildlife and fisheries,

recreation, timber and other resources on lands within a range allotment.

The specific authorization to graze livestock on National Forest System lands is the Term

Grazing Permit (grazing permit). The grazing permit specifies who is allowed to graze, where

grazing will occur, the number and type of livestock and the time frame when grazing is allowed.

In addition, the grazing permit requires payment of grazing fees, maintenance of structures and

may include additional allotment specific requirements deemed necessary to graze livestock

while protecting resources within the area. Grazing permits are subject to direction contained in

the Forest Plan and any revision thereto. This is specifically stated in the terms and conditions of

the grazing permit. The AMP is also specifically listed as a term and condition of the grazing

permit. Allotment grazing requirements as mentioned in the above paragraph must be followed

to meet the conditions of the grazing permit. If changes to the AMP occur, these changes

automatically change the conditions of the grazing permit. All grazing must follow the

requirements set forth in the permits, AMPs and annual operating instructions (AOIs).

The AMPs at issue in the Review prescribe livestock management practices for the Barnett,

Black Butte, Coal Creek, Cottonwood, Fossil-Hellroaring, Lyon-Wolverine and Poison Basin

sheep allotments located on the BDNF in the Gravelly Mountains near Black Butte. With the

exception of the Black Butte AMP, these AMPs have been approved, over time, following

environmental analysis in an Environmental Analysis Report (EAR), Environmental Assessment

(EA), Decision Memo (DM) or Categorical Exclusion (CE). These environmental analyses did

not include an EIS.

LITIGATION

In 2015, Gallatin Wildlife Association et al. filed a complaint (Case 2:15-cv-00027-BMM) in

U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. One of Gallatin’s1 claims alleged the Forest

Service failed to supplement the domestic sheep grazing AMPs in the Gravelly Mountains (Court

Order2, pg. 9). Gallatin also alleged claims regarding the 2009 Forest Plan. On June 14, 2016 the

District Court issued an order concerning both the AMPs and the 2009 Forest Plan.

District Court Order of June 14, 2016

In terms of the AMPs, the District Court ordered the Forest Service to “conduct a review of the

five issues raised by Gallatin, and any other pertinent new information, to determine whether

any, or all, of this new information warrants supplementation of the original EIS prepared for the

AMPs at issue here” (Court Order, pg. 37). The five issues raised by Gallatin are (Court Order,

pg. 33):

1. The 2003/2004 reintroduction of bighorn sheep in the Greenhorn Mountains,

2. The 2011 listing of bighorn sheep as a sensitive species by the Regional Forester,

3. The existence of the 2002 and 2008 Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between the

BDNF, BLM, MFWP and domestic sheep grazing operators facilitating implementation of a

bighorn sheep transplant in the Greenhorn Mountains,

1 Because the June 14, 2016 Court Order collectively refers to plaintiffs Gallatin Wildlife Association,

WildEarth Guardians, Western Watershed Project and Yellowstone Buffalo Foundation as “Gallatin”,

this document adopts the same term when referring to plaintiffs.

2 For the reader’s convenience, The U.S. District Court Order is electronically available on the BDNF

webpage at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=50067

http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=50067

4. Updated information regarding disease transmission between domestic sheep and bighorn

sheep, and

5. The consideration by MFWP that bighorn sheep could be reintroduced to closed allotments.

The District Court also provided that “The USFS will need to consider the appropriateness and

scope of future domestic grazing based upon a full and open environmental review

process…This full and open environmental review process also must consider whether sufficient

new information has emerged that requires the environmental review for the AMPs to be

updated” (Order, pg. 36-37).

In terms of the 2009 Forest Plan, the District Court ordered the Forest Service to conduct a

Supplement Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to consider the Memorandum of

Understanding. This SEIS is being conducted separately from the New Information Review.

NEW INFORMATION REVIEW

The Forest Service’s analysis of the effects of BDNF’s domestic sheep grazing in the Gravelly

Mountains in terms of whether the five issues raised by Gallatin, and any other pertinent new

information warrants supplementation of the NEPA analyses prepared for the AMPs is

documented in the New Information Review, along with all attachments, record documents,

public comment, and the Forest Service’s responses to comments.

Process

The BDNF prepared both a Draft New Information Review and a Final New Information Review

in response to the Court’s Order. The Draft New Information Review was released on January

13, 2017 for a 30-day a public comment period. The Final New Information Review, being

released with this Determination, has been modified based on public comments and comments

from MFWP.

Public Involvement

The Forest Service has responded to each public comment received on the Draft New

Information Review. Twenty-six (26) comments were received. The Forest Service’s responses

are provided as Attachment C to the Final New Information Review and are organized by

comment letter. The Forest Service reviewed each comment letter to identify specific issues

raised. These issues were summarized and identified sequentially by number for each comment

letter. The Forest Service response to each issue raised by each comment is provided in the

“RESPONSE” sections of Attachment C.

The entire content of letters providing comments on the Draft New Information Review are

available on the project web page (https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=50067). Please

click on the “Public Comment/Objection Reading Room” link in the right hand column of the

web page.

DETERMINATION and RATIONALE

I have carefully considered all information relating to management of the Gravelly Sheep

allotments, considered the analysis in the New Information Review and considered all public

comment and it is my determination that the new information does not show that allotment

management, at the present time, is affecting the environment in a significant manner or to a

significant extent such that supplementation of the NEPA documents prepared for the AMPs is

warranted.

The information included in the New Information Review, summarized below, validates my

determination including: no known commingling of the species; no bighorn sheep have been

removed due to presence of domestic sheep on the BDNF; the distribution area of bighorn sheep

does not include the Gravelly Mountains; Forest Service, MFWP and permittees have committed

to measures in the MOU and are taking measures to minimize risk of commingling consistent

with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Recommendations

including removal of any individual commingling bighorn through kill permits, reporting,

marking and counting sheep, locating and reacquiring where possible stray/dead sheep, and

taking action to identify and remove sick domestic sheep on the allotments; the Gravelly

Mountains do not provide suitable winter habitat for bighorn sheep due to snow depth; and

MFWP states in their comments that based on snow depth it would be nearly impossible

logistically for MFWP personnel to transport bighorns, the bighorn sheep would not be expected

to survive the winter, and that “releasing bighorn into the Gravelly Mountains is unlikely to

occur.”

The Forest Service, grazing permittees and the MFWP will continue their efforts working

cooperatively to minimize the risk of commingling and any adverse impact to the Greenhorn

herd. Coordination with the MFWP and Forest Service will include, as feasible, aerial and

ground surveys for bighorn sheep prior to trailing on and off and additional personnel surveying

on-the-ground during trailing to pro-actively manage allotment grazing under the MOU.

My determination is further based on the fact that if circumstances occur that require additional

grazing allotment management measures to be taken, the Forest Service has the authority to

make any needed modifications or cancel the grazing permits, in whole or in part, as provided in

Part 1, Term 3 of the grazing permits. In addition, management of the allotments remains

consistent with sensitive species management and Forest Plan direction.

My determination is also based on the fact that the BDNF, consistent with the Rescissions Act,

plans to begin a new NEPA process in 2018 for the AMPs, as part of AMP revision.

Below is a summary of the information that forms the basis of my determination in terms of: 1)

New Information Review; 2) Permit/Annual Operating Instructions Terms and Conditions; 3)

Allotment Management Plan Rescissions Act Schedule; and 4) Forest Plan Compliance.

New Information Review The Forest Service in the New Information Review analyzed the five issues, along with other

pertinent information, as ordered by Court in considering whether supplementation of the NEPA

analysis for the AMPs was required. The summary of the analysis of the five issues, along with

other pertinent information, is provided below.

1. Reintroduction of Bighorn Sheep

The Greenhorn bighorn sheep herd was reintroduced into the Greenhorn Mountains in 2003-2004 with the knowledge that domestic sheep grazing existed in the seven allotments on National Forest Service land in the Gravelly Mountains. Actions were taken to minimize the risk of commingling, however, the risk of commingling still exists. To date, no known adverse impacts have occurred to the bighorn sheep population from Forest Service grazing management. Facts relevant to the Greenhorn herd and domestic sheep grazing in the Gravelly Mountains and actions being taken to reduce the risk of commingling include the following:

Commingling has not been known to occur on the BDNF in the 13 years since bighorn

sheep were reintroduced to the Greenhorn Mountains.

In 13 years, MFWP or Forest Service personnel have not observed bighorn sheep in the

Gravelly Mountains.

The core distribution area of the Greenhorn herd does not include the Gravelly

Mountains. The known distribution area of the Greenhorn sheep herd has been identified

by MFWP biologist Dean Waltee to include the Greenhorn Mountains, the west side of

the Snowcrest Mountains to the Devils Hole, and the lower portion of Hinch Creek in the

Ruby Mountains. (Email communication from Dean Waltee.) This updated bighorn sheep

distribution area is shown on the maps in Appendix A of the New Information Review.

Trailing through modeled bighorn sheep habitat in the Snowcrest Mountains occurs

during a limited period of time and is constrained in a narrow area such that the

possibility for stray domestic sheep is minimized.

The Greenhorn population has met the criteria for limited hunting.

No bighorn sheep have been removed from the Greenhorn herd due to the presence of

domestic sheep on the BDNF.

MFWP agreed in the MOU to issue a kill permit to the grazing permittees to protect the

Greenhorn herd from disease transmission.

Permittees have not needed to utilize the kill permit as no bighorn sheep have been

observed close to the domestic sheep.

Forest Service, MFWP and permittees are taking measures consistent with the WAFWA

Recommendations including reporting, marking and counting sheep, locating and

reacquiring where possible stray/dead sheep, and taking action to avoid and remove sick

domestic sheep on the allotments.

MFWP, Forest Service, and permittees are working cooperatively to minimize risk of

commingling. Specifically, during the spring and fall prior to when domestic sheep are

trailing on and off the Forest and through the neighboring Wildlife Management Area,

permittees have been contacting the local MFWP biologist to determine if any bighorn

sheep are known near the trailing route. Coordination with the MFWP and Forest Service

will include, as feasible, aerial and ground surveys for bighorn sheep prior to trailing on

and off, additional personnel on-the-ground during trailing, and to pro-actively manage

allotment grazing under the MOU. No determination has yet been made by MFWP to

manage bighorn sheep beyond the Greenhorn Mountains into the Snowcrest Mountains.

The MFWP 2001 EA acknowledged the need to conduct an updated assessment if

bighorns become established in the Snowcrest Mountains and MFWP is currently

discussing this need.

2. 2011 Listing of Bighorn Sheep as a Sensitive Species

Bighorn sheep remain on the Region 1 Sensitive Species List but this status is not significant new information related to management of bighorn sheep on the BDNF as the BDNF completed an assessment in 2011 considering effects to bighorn sheep from BDNF management actions. The review of BDNF management direction in the report Potential Bighorn Sheep Interactions with Domestic Sheep on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF – Report to the Chief (USDA 2011) found that the BDNF Forest Plan and specific AMP strategies provided sufficient direction for the overall management of bighorn sheep on the Forest. This coupled with the lack of management removals of any bighorns related to the management of BDNF domestic sheep grazing allotments demonstrates that a change in bighorn sheep management is not warranted.

Domestic sheep grazing on the Madison Ranger District of the BDNF, “May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or the species” at the present time. This is based on the entirety of the information presented in the New Information Review and the following rationale:

While it remains possible the species could commingle on BDNF sheep allotments in the

Gravelly Mountains or along the trailing route in the future, information gained since the

2003/2004 transplants show that bighorn have coexisted within 5 miles of domestic sheep

grazing since transplant and commingling on BDNF lands has not occurred and disease

has not been spread to these bighorn sheep.

All bighorn sheep herds in close proximity to these domestic sheep allotments have

increased in numbers of observed animals or remained relatively stable with no

substantial or recent pneumonia die-offs.

Forest Service, MFWP and permittees are taking measures consistent with the WAFWA

Recommendations including coordination, reporting, marking and counting sheep,

locating and reacquiring where possible stray/dead sheep, and taking action to identify

and remove sick domestic sheep on the allotments. Coordination with the MFWP and

Forest Service will include, as feasible, aerial and ground surveys for bighorn sheep prior

to trailing on and off, additional personnel on-the-ground during trailing, and to pro-

actively manage allotment grazing under the MOU.

In the event of a bighorn sheep at risk of or commingling with domestic sheep on the

BDNF, control measures are permitted by MFWP if necessary to prevent the bighorn

from returning to the herd and potentially spreading disease.

No bighorn sheep have been confirmed in the Gravelly Mountains or along the trailing

routes of the domestic sheep.

However, future review and analysis of domestic sheep management will take place

following the Rescissions Act schedule and additional measures may be warranted and

are permitted under BDNF authority if bighorn sheep routinely appear in the vicinity of

the domestic sheep allotments and domestic-bighorn conflicts arise.

3. Existence of MOUs

The MOUs provided, and continue to provide, protective measures that reduce the risk of pathogen exposure and subsequent potential pneumonia outbreaks in the bighorn herd. The MOUs improve the likelihood of continued occupancy of the Greenhorn Mountains by bighorn sheep and potential for future hunting opportunities, meeting the intent of the transplant proposal without a need to revise management practices described in the domestic sheep AMPs. Preventative measures in the MOUs further reduce the risk that any bighorn that comes in contact with domestic sheep will not return to the herd and transmit disease.

4. Updated Information Regarding Disease Transmission Between Domestic Sheep and Bighorn Sheep

A review of most recent literature, it is clear maintaining spatial separation between domestic and wild sheep, is foremost the best approach to limiting disease transmission between the two species (Cassier et al 2018). Brewer et al. (2014) notes there is currently no effective treatment once clinical signs of pneumonia are documented. In terms of management of the BDNF domestic sheep allotments in relation to the bighorn sheep, spatial separation has been maintained between the BDNF domestic sheep allotments and bighorn sheep. Further, the modified 2016 MOU between the BDNF, MFWP, BLM, and domestic sheep producers contain preventative measures to manage risk of contact between domestic and wild sheep reducing the risk of an infected bighorn sheep returning to the Greenhorn herd or any bighorn sheep herd and knowingly affecting the population. No known commingling between domestic and bighorn sheep has occurred on the BDNF since the bighorn sheep were transplanted and the herd has not experienced a die-off and is free from pneumonia-like symptoms.

5. Consideration by MFWP that Bighorn Sheep Could Be Reintroduced to Closed Allotments

MFWP comments on the New Information Review has made clear that due to the high amount

of snow (multiple feet) in the Gravelly Mountains, reintroducing bighorn sheep in the winter is

borderline impossible logistically for MFWP personnel to transport bighorns, and the bighorn

sheep would not be expected survive the winter due to the deep snow. Further, non-winter

reintroduction would not be feasible due to heat stress. The MFWP explains: “Because capture

and relocation efforts occur during the winter and the modeled bighorn habitat in the Gravelly

Mountains would be expected to have multiple feet of snowpack, a release directly onto those

habitats would not be feasible. Any bighorns released during the winter would have to be snow

machined or air-lifted to the modeled habitats, and would not be expected to survive that initial

winter season. Any attempts to capture and relocate bighorn sheep to the Gravelly Mountains

during snow free months would be expected to lead to very high mortality associated with heat

stress. Surviving bighorn sheep would need to find suitable winter range on their own. Because

of these factors, releasing bighorn into the Gravelly Mountains is unlikely to occur.” MFWP has

made no determination that they would reintroduce bighorn sheep into the Gravelly Mountains.

6. Other Pertinent Information

Vegetation/Soil/Water: field reviews over the last few decades have found no indicators of over

use of the vegetation or detrimental soil or streambank impacts within the sheep allotments.

(Suzuki, personal communication). Within riparian areas, species diversity and abundance is as

expected for these plant communities – well within the expected potential and natural range of

variability for the sites. Plant cover is high and shrub cover continues to increase. The overall

unique nature of how sheep graze, along with required grazing practices, greatly reduce livestock

impacts in riparian areas. Current vegetative, soil and riparian conditions on the allotments do

not indicate significant environmental impacts from domestic sheep grazing practices as

currently permitted through grazing permits, AMPs and Annual Operating Instructions.

Bighorn Sheep Habitat Assessment GIS Analysis: The MFWP Bighorn Sheep Habitat

Assessment GIS Analysis is only one piece of information the MFWP will consider in

determining future translocation sites. MFWP also considers such site-specific information such

as the overall quality of the habitat to support the population objective, the location of the extent

of habitat, the potential for individuals to foray in relation to domestic sheep allotments, and

whether conditions such as snow-depth (such as in the Gravelly Mountains) would preclude

modeled habitat from providing winter habitat. As such, MFWP modeled habitat in the Gravelly

Mountains from the Bighorn Sheep Habitat Assessment GIS, does not determine that MFWP will

translocate bighorn sheep there in the future.

Permit/Annual Operating Instructions Terms and Conditions

The grazing permit is the authorization to graze domestic sheep on the Gravelly allotment on

National Forest System lands.

The New Information Review discusses the permit terms and practices required to be followed

by the permittee in the section “AMP/Grazing Permit Requirements for Sheep Allotments in the

Gravelly Mountains.” The term grazing permits and the permit practices apply measures to

minimize risk of commingling during both trailing on and off the allotments and during

allotment grazing. Please see the New Information Review section “Reintroduction of Bighorn

Sheep” discussing the WAFWA Recommendations and measures taken to minimize risk of

commingling.

Required sheep herding practices in Part 3, Term 10 (a-g) of the permit cannot be completed

without the daily presence of a herder. Part 2, Term 8(d) subjects the permit to potential adverse

action (suspension and cancellation) if terms of the permit area not complied with. Moreover,

Annual Operating Instructions, made part of the permit, require record keeping of actual

numbers and actual use dates of pasture/camp unit movement throughout the season, and

notification of the date the permittee plans to enter the Forest. In addition, grazing practices to be

followed on all seven domestic sheep allotments in the Gravelly Mountains include bedding

practices and use of guard dogs as provided in Annual Operating Instructions. (See discussion in

the New Information Review in section “AMP/Grazing Permit Requirements for Sheep

Allotments in the Gravelly Mountains.”)

It is also important to understand that if circumstances occur that require additional protection of

resources, the Forest Service has the authority to make any needed modifications or cancel the

permit, in whole or in part. Part 1, Term 3 states: “This permit can also be cancelled, in whole or

in part, or otherwise modified, at any time during the term to conform with needed changes

brought about by law, regulation, Executive order, allotment management plans, land

management planning, numbers permitted or seasons of use necessary because of resource

conditions . . .”.

Allotment Management Plan Rescissions Act Schedule

The Rescissions Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-19) Section 504(a) and the 2004 Appropriations Act (P.L.

108-108) Section 325 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to schedule when Forests will

complete environmental analysis and documentation required under the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) for all grazing allotments. This schedule is set at the discretion of the

Secretary and periodically reviewed and updated to account for completed environmental

analysis and adjust timeframes due to agency workload management and priorities. Through

various riders, Congress requires reissuance of expired, transferred or waived grazing permits

prior to completion of NEPA analysis for AMP revisions. Existing term grazing permits

authorizing domestic sheep on the seven allotments were issued following this Congressional

direction.

The BDNF prioritizes revision of AMPs based on resource considerations and need to consider

potential management change. The BDNF has approximately 240 active allotments identified on

its Rescissions Act schedule. AMP revision and consideration of alternatives including

consideration of a “no grazing” alternative during the NEPA process will be conducted in

accordance with the Rescissions Act. In accordance with the Rescissions Act, the Forest plans to

begin NEPA analysis in 2018 along with public comment on revision of the Gravelly Mountains

sheep allotment AMPs. We will include the Cottonwood S&G allotment and domestic sheep

grazing portion of the Upper Ruby Cattle and Horse allotment along with the other six Gravelly

Sheep allotments.

Forest Plan Compliance

The BDNF is managed in accordance with the BDNF 2009 Forest Plan. The Forest Plan reflects

the multiple-use mandate of the Forest Service; including the opportunity for domestic sheep

grazing.

The seven sheep allotments are incompliance with the Forest Plan. Yearly monitoring of the six Gravelly sheep allotments show that the allotments are being managed consistent with the Forest Plan livestock grazing standards. (Forest Plan p. 25-27). The Forest Plan wildlife habitat standard provides that sheep allotments which become vacant will be closed to sheep grazing or the vacant allotment may be used by an existing Gravelly Landscape sheep permittee, with no increase in permitted use. (Forest Plan p. 49). The Gravelly sheep allotments have not become vacant. The Gravelly sheep allotments remain as the only domestic sheep allotments on the BDNF.

SUMMARY

Based on the analysis summarized above, I have determined that supplementation of the NEPA

analysis of the Gravelly Sheep allotment AMPs is not required at the present time as new

information does not show that continued domestic sheep grazing is affecting the environment in a significant manner or to a significant extent. However, consistent with the Rescissions Act schedule, the BDNF plans to begin a new NEPA process for AMP revision for the seven Gravelly sheep allotments.

CONTACT PERSON

For more information and or to request a printed copy of the 2017 New Information Review, please contact Jan Bowey Biological Scientist for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest at 406-683-3853, email at [email protected] or Dale Olson District Ranger at 406-682-4253, email at [email protected] with "2017 New Information Review" in the subject line.

SIGNATURE

Dale Olson

District Ranger

Madison Ranger District


C \ \

Date

Page 11

determination to comply with the district of montana court...

Documents