RE: Appeal # A215, Leggett Grazing Allotment, Reserve RD, Gila National Forest

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Service Gila National Voice: Fax: TTD: E. Camino del Bosque Silver City, NM Internet: File Code: /2200 Date: September 27, 2010 Erik Ryberg Western Watersheds Project 312 S. Convent Ave. Tucson, AZ CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED RE: Appeal # A215, Leggett Grazing Allotment, Reserve RD, Gila National Dear Mr. Ryberg: This is my review decision on the appeal filed electronically on August 23, 2010 by Western Watersheds Project regarding the Decision Notice (DN), Environmental Assessment (EA), and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on the above-referenced project. The Leggett Allotment decision selected Alternative 2 authorizing 101 cattle, cow/calf units for up to 12 months annually. All pastures and traps will be used in a deferred rest rotation management system with one pasture and trap receiving a full year deferment each year. This would be equivalent for up to 1,212 Animal-Unit-Months (AUMs) for cattle and implements conservative grazing intensity standards. No new range infrastructure is proposed and no new roads or improvements are proposed within the Inventoried Roadless Area in the allotment. BACKGROUND District Ranger John Pierson made the decision on July 7, 2010, which was published on July 8, 2010, for the Gila National on the Leggett Grazing Allotment. The District Ranger is identified as the Responsible Official, whose decision is subject to administrative review under 36 CFR 215 appeal regulations. Pursuant to 36 CFR , an attempt was made to seek informal resolution of the appeal. The record indicates that informal resolution was not reached. My review of this appeal has been conducted in accordance with 36 CFR Formal review and disposition procedures. I have reviewed the appeal record, including the recommendations of the Appeal Reviewing Officer. My review decision incorporates the appeal record. APPEAL REVIEWING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Appeal Reviewing Officer found on the Leggett grazing decision that: a) the analysis takes a hard look at effects of livestock grazing to the Mexican gray wolf, b) the action to be taken and Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

2 purpose and need are clearly described; c) the selected alternative should accomplish the purpose and need of the project; d) the decision is consistent with direction in the Plan, agency policy, direction and supporting information; and e) scoping and the public involvement process was appropriate and there was ample opportunity for public participation. A copy of this recommendation letter is enclosed. APPEAL DECISION After a detailed review of the record and the Appeal Reviewing Officer s recommendation, I affirm the Responsible Official s decision on the Leggett Grazing Allotment Project. This decision constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of Agriculture [36 CFR (c)]. A copy of this letter will be posted on the national appeals web page at Sincerely, /s/ Richard E. Markley RICHARD E. MARKLEY Supervisor Appeal Deciding Officer Enclosures (2)- ARO letter, Review and Findings

3 REVIEW AND FINDINGS of Western Watershed Project Erik Ryberg s Appeal # A215 Leggett Allotment Project Reserve District, Gila National For the purposes of this review, contentions have been re-arranged from the original appeal order so that they are addressed in the context of applicable laws, regulation and directives. ISSUE: The Leggett Allotment Project violates NFMA and NEPA. Contention: The Gila NF is obligated by NFMA to manage habitat in a manner that will ensure population viability of Mexican wolves and to be up front that it is livestock management that is the primary cause of non-viable wolf populations. Two documents from U.S. Fish and Wildlife, an Annual Report (2007) and the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project Statistics Causes of Mexican wolf management removals ( ) are cited as the basis of the appeal. An EIS is required because there will be significant effects such as the failure to meet federal law and failure to ensure viable populations. Response: Reintroduction of extirpated species is covered by the 1982 planning regulations at 36CFR219.19(a)(3). The regulations state: Biologists from State fish and wildlife agencies and other Federal agencies shall be consulted in order to coordinate planning for fish and wildlife, including opportunities for the reintroduction of extirpated species. The Mexican gray wolf had been extirpated from Arizona and New Mexico before the Gila National Plan (PR #1) was approved in The Gila National has consulted with State and Federal wildlife agencies to coordinate reintroduction of the Mexican gray wolf (Adaptive Management Oversight Standard Operating Procedures #13.0-Mexican wolf at Project Record #5; Wolf Memorandum of Understanding, PR#6; Adaptive Management Oversight Standard Operating Procedures #11.0-Mexican wolf, PR#8; Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5 Year Review, PR#10; Status of Wolves, PR#12; Cooperative Agreement, and Mexican Wolf/Livestock Interdiction Trust Fund, PR#16). Status of the Mexican wolf on the Leggett allotment; as well as effects from livestock grazing are disclosed in the Wildlife Specialist Report (PR#56, pp ) and the EA (PR#77, pp ). Both analyses specifically discuss modification of the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) in the event of wolf/livestock interactions in accordance with the above cited standard operating procedures and cooperative agreements. Finding: The analysis is consistent with NFMA implementing regulation requirements for reintroduced species. An EIS is not required.

4 United States Department of Agriculture Service Coronado National Safford Ranger District th Avenue, Suite D Safford, Arizona Phone (928) FAX (928) File Code: / Date: September 23, 2010 Route To: Subject: To: ARO, Appeal # A215, Leggett Grazing Allotment, Reserve RD, Gila National Dick Markley, Gila National Supervisor, Appeal Deciding Officer This is my recommendation on the disposition of the appeal filed electronically on August 23, 2010 regarding the Decision Notice (DN), Environmental Assessment (EA), and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on the above-referenced project. Background The Leggett Allotment decision selected Alternative 2 authorizing 101 cattle, cow/calf units for up to 12 months annually. All pastures and traps would be used in a deferred rest rotation management system with one pasture and trap receiving a full year deferment each year. This would be equivalent for up to 1,212 Animal-Unit-Months (AUMs) for cattle and implements conservative grazing intensity standards. No new range infrastructure is proposed and no new roads or improvements were proposed within the Inventoried Roadless Area in the allotment. District Ranger John Pierson made the decision on July 7, 2010, which was published on July 8, 2010, for the Gila National on the Leggett Grazing Allotment. The District Ranger is identified as the Responsible Official, whose decision is subject to administrative review under 36 CFR 215 appeal regulations. One appeal was filed electronically on August 23, 2010 for Western Watersheds Project by Erik Ryberg regarding the Decision Notice (DN), Environmental Assessment (EA), and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Pursuant to 36 CFR , an attempt was made to seek informal resolution of the appeal. The record indicates that informal resolution was not reached. Review and Findings My review was conducted in accordance with 36 CFR to ensure that the analysis and decision are in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, polices, and orders. The appeal records, including the appellant s issues and requests for relief have been thoroughly reviewed. Having reviewed the Environmental Assessment (EA), decision, and the project record file, I conclude the following: 1) The analysis sufficiently takes a hard look and discloses the effects of the selected alternative to the Mexican gray wolf. 2) The decision clearly describes the actions to be taken in sufficient detail that the reader can easily understand what will occur as a result of the decision. America's Working s - Caring Every Day in Every Way Printed on Recycled Paper

5 3) The selected alternative should accomplish the purpose and need established. The purpose and need stated in the EA reflect consistency with direction in the Plan for the Gila National. 4) The decision is consistent with policy, direction, and supporting evidence. The record contains documentation regarding resource conditions and the Responsible Official s decision documents are based on the record and reflect a reasonable conclusion. 5) The record reflects that the Responsible Official provided ample opportunity for public participation during the analysis and decision making process. The Responsible Official s efforts enabled interested publics the opportunity to comment and be involved in the site-specific proposal. After considering the claims made by the appellant and reviewing the record, I found that the Responsible Official conducted a proper and public NEPA process that resulted in a decision that is consistent with the Gila National Plan. I found no violations of law, regulations, or Service policy. Recommendation I recommend that the Responsible Official s decisions relating to this appeal be affirmed with respect to all of the appellant s contentions. Signed, /s/ Kent Ellett KENT C. ELLETT District Ranger Appeals Reviewing Officer Cc: Constance Smith Hard copy of this letter to be attached to ADO letter sent to appellants