FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND
LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Record of Decision
NEBRASKA AND SAMUEL R. MCKELVIE NATIONAL FORESTS,
OGLALA, BUFFALO GAP, AND FORT PIERRE NATIONAL GRASSLANDS
July 31, 2002
Lead Agency:
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Rocky Mountain Region
Responsible
Official:
Rick D. Cables
Regional Forester
Rocky Mountain Region
Recommending
Official:
Donald J. Bright
Forest Supervisor
Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests
Oglala, Buffalo Gap, and Fort Pierre National Grasslands
Located within
Dawes, Sioux, Blaine, Cherry, Thomas Counties, Nebraska
And
Custer, Fall River, Jackson, Pennington, Shannon, Hughes, Jones, Lyman, Stanley
Counties, South Dakota
This document presents the decision regarding the selection of a Revised Land and
Resource Management Plan for the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests,
Oglala, Buffalo Gap, and Fort Pierre National Grasslands. It summarizes the reasons for
choosing the Selected Alternative as the basis for the Revised Forest and Grassland Plan,
which will be followed for the next 10 to 15 years. The long-term environmental
consequences contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement are considered in
this decision.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service prohibits
discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion,
age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status (not all prohibited bases
apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of
1
communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact the USDA office of Communications at (202) 720-2791. To file a complaint, write
the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 202509410, or call 1-800245-6340 or (202) 720-5964. USDA is an equal opportunity employer.
Explanation of Acreages and Data Sources
The information in the tables, figures, and maps in the following document were
generated from a variety of sources, including several different Geographical
Information System (GIS) software platforms, tabular databases, and data from a variety
of models used in the planning analysis. The acreage figures from the various sources
do not match exactly in all cases. However, when added, acres of the National Forest
System lands (regardless of the source) are within acceptable margins of error.
2
Table of Contents
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION ..............................................................................................................................4
My Decision .......................................................................................................................................................4
Technical Review Committee..........................................................................................................................5
Rationale for My Decision ...............................................................................................................................5
Additional Reasons for the Selection of Alternative 3 Final .....................................................................11
BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE .................................................................................................................................12
CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFT EIS AND FINAL EIS ........................................................................................13
Planning Direction ..........................................................................................................................................13
Travel Management........................................................................................................................................14
Roadless Area Conservation Rule ................................................................................................................14
Transportation Rule and Policy ....................................................................................................................16
Oil and Gas Stipulations ................................................................................................................................17
Vegetative Composition and Structure........................................................................................................17
Additional Management Direction and Additional Standards and Guidelines for Species at Risk...17
Indian Creek Management Area Allocation Changed from Special Interest Area to Recommended
for Wilderness Area ........................................................................................................................................18
CHANGES BETWEEN FINAL EIS AND ROD ....................................................................................................18
COMPONENTS OF THE DECISION ....................................................................................................................19
Component 1. Establishment of Forest and Grassland-wide Multiple-Use Goals and Objectives. ...20
Component 2. Establishment of Forest and Grassland-wide Standards and Guidelines....................21
Component 3. Establishment of Management Area Direction (Management Area Direction and
Associated Standards and Guidelines) for 15 Management Areas..........................................................22
Component 4. Determination of Lands Suitable for Livestock Grazing and Browsing and Habitat
for Management Indicator Species. Identification of Lands Available for Oil and Gas Leasing.
Provision for a Broad Spectrum of Rangeland Related Outdoor Recreation Opportunities. ..............28
Component 5. Establishment of Requirements for Monitoring and Evaluating the Implementation
of the Revised Plan to Meet the Requirements of 36 CFR 219.11(d)........................................................29
Component 6. Recommendations Regarding Additions to the Wilderness Preservation System, and
Other Special Designations............................................................................................................................30
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................................................................31
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC ......................................................................................................32
Prairie Dogs .....................................................................................................................................................32
Motorized Access for Administrative Purposes.........................................................................................32
Travel Management........................................................................................................................................33
Economic Impacts and Changes ...................................................................................................................33
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...........................................................................................................................33
General Description and Comparison of the Alternatives........................................................................34
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ................................................................38
IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE....................................39
FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS ..........................................................................................................40
IMPLEMENTATION................................................................................................................................................41
POTENTIAL FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE REVISED PLAN.........................................................................43
APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES ....................................................................................................................................44
CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................................................45
3
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
My Decision
I have selected Alternative 3 Final as described in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS), but with modifications as described in the addendum and errata for
the following units administered by the Nebraska National Forest: the Nebraska and
Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests and the Oglala, Buffalo Gap, and Fort Pierre
National Grasslands. By selecting Alternative 3 Final, I am approving the Revised Land
and Resource Management Plan (Revised Plan) but with modifications as described in
the addendum and errata, that describes in detail the goals and objectives, standards
and guidelines, management area direction, monitoring, and recommendations for
wilderness and other special areas for Alternative 3 Final.
My decision provides programmatic direction for sustaining healthy forest and
grassland conditions. Goals and objectives are based on the 2000 Forest Service
Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) Strategic Plan. Standards and guidelines
ensure that resources are managed in a sustainable manner.
I am recommending two wilderness areas, Indian Creek and Red Shirt, located on the
Buffalo Gap National Grassland to Congress. These two areas are 38,710 acres.
The existing Soldier Creek Wilderness is 7,810 acres. Besides areas recommended for
wilderness, I am allocating an additional 20,400 acres as backcountry non-motorized
recreation areas. I am allocating 30,280 acres as Special Interest Areas and 6,740 acres as
Research Natural Areas.
I have decided to make 187,390 acres of the Oglala and Buffalo Gap National Grassland
administratively available for oil and gas leasing. Immediately after this decision, the
Forest Supervisor will make the leasing decision for specific lands [36 CFR 228.102(e)]
and authorize the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to offer these lands for lease.
I have determined that 969,860 acres are suitable for livestock grazing. The effective
management of grazing allotments will occur through the development of individual
allotment management plans. The largest management area is 6.1 Rangeland and Broad
Resource Emphasis, a total of 698,350 acres.
Forestwide direction provides for species viability and protection of special areas and
habitats. In addition, I am allocating 104,030 acres to MA 3.63 Black-footed Ferret
Reintroduction Habitat, 104,785 acres to MA 3.64 Special Plant and Wildlife Habitats and
5,650 acres to MA 3.51 Bighorn Sheep Habitat.
This Revised Plan and FEIS are programmatic and represent a management strategy for
the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests and the Oglala, Buffalo Gap,
and Fort Pierre National Grasslands. The Revised Plan does not include site-specific
4
decisions. Rather, it provides overall systematic guidance and establishes management
direction to govern future actions. As provided in 36 CFR 219.10(g), this decision will
remain in effect until the Plan is again amended or revised according to applicable
NFMA regulations. The flexibility and adaptability of this Plan to changing conditions
is an important element of my decision. We will amend this plan as circumstances
warrant.
Technical Review Committee
Through this planning process the Forest Service has estimated the effects of
implementing the Revised Plan. There has been much discussion and disagreement
among groups, individuals and agencies related to the perceived uncertainty of effects
from implementing the revised standards and guidelines. In an attempt to remedy this
situation, I will develop a Memorandum of Understanding immediately upon signing of
this Record of Decision with the State of South Dakota, and, if requested, with the State
of Nebraska, to establish an independent, scientific technical review committee. I will
appoint the members of the committee in consultation with the Governors of each state
and in accordance with all applicable federal law, including the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. This Committee will be composed of one (1) person representing each
of the following agencies: 1) a Natural Resource Conservation Service representative or a
local Conservation District representative from each state, 2) a State Department of
Agriculture representative from each state, 3) South Dakota Department of Game, Fish
and Parks, 4) Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, and 5) U.S. Forest Service.
The purpose of this committee is to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the
standards and guidelines in the Revised Plan. Each member of the committee shall
provide their totally independent, scientific view and conclusions in determining if the
actual effects from the implementation of the standards and guidelines are similar to
those projected in the FEIS. Following a period of two years after the date of
implementation of the Revised Plan, the committee will issue an initial report of their
independent findings. This information will be used, along with other internal and
external information to properly modify the plan if necessary through amendment
procedures as provided for by regulation.
The goal for this monitoring and evaluation during the first two-year to four-year period
of implementation is to provide an adaptive management approach by acquiring
appropriate data to make changes and/or evaluate the effectiveness of changes made to
the Plan. These steps will be taken in addition to the annual evaluation process.
Rationale for My Decision
I selected Alternative 3 Final because the strategic guidance it establishes best matches
the direction I believe needs to be implemented on these public lands. The revision
topics represent the significant issues examined in this management plan revision.
Revision topics are:
5
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Community and lifestyle relationships
Livestock grazing
Oil and gas leasing
Plant and animal damage control
Rangeland and forest health
Recreation and travel management
Special area designations
Each alternative evaluated in the FEIS addresses these revision topics in a different way.
From these revision topics, I developed five priorities or decision criteria to aid in
making my decision. The priorities emerged from the revision topics with which we
began the planning process on the Nebraska National Forest. These priorities are:
1. Ensuring the long-term health of grasslands and forests
2. Maintaining and enhancing the viability of native plant and animal species
and contributing to the recovery of threatened and endangered species
3. Contributing to the economic diversity of neighboring communities by
implementing a variety of natural resource programs that provide a
sustainable output of multiple uses
4. Protecting special areas and unique resources
5. Diversifying grassland and forest recreation opportunities
Following is how I considered each of the criteria in my decision.
Ensuring The Long-Term Health Of Grasslands And Forests
This priority encompasses all of the revision topics, but in particular, rangeland and
forest health. It entails protecting soil, air, and water resources while maintaining the
diversity and productivity of forest and grassland vegetation. It includes maintaining
the sustainability of ecosystem characteristics and the quality of watershed functions
and conditions. Control and management of noxious weeds and non-native invasive
plants are also part of this priority, as is the management of the forested areas on the
Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest. Without healthy ecosystems, we
cannot sustain the values currently offered by these public lands.
I looked at the standard and guidelines in the revised Plan, the mix of management area
direction, and the environmental consequences disclosed in the FEIS to see how each
alternative responded to issues such as forest and grassland health, biological diversity,
wildlife habitat suitability, species at risk, noxious weeds and invasive species, RNA’s,
and riparian and watershed health. I conclude that ensuring long-term health of the
land requires a balance between active management of ecosystems through livestock
grazing and prescribed burning, and a more passive approach where natural processes
have more influence on ecosystems and their functions. I believe that Alternative 3 Final
provides that balance. This is compared to Alternative 2 that is commodity oriented and
emphasizes goods and services, Alternative 4 that accentuates restoration of impaired
6
ecosystems and places more of an emphasis on naturally functioning processes, and
Alternative 5 that places an emphasis on non-commodity uses.
Maintaining And Enhancing The Viability Of Native Plant And Animal Species and
Contributing to the Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species
This priority encompasses revision topics 2, 4, 5, and 7. Biological diversity is defined as
the full variety of life in an area, including the ecosystems, plant and animal
communities, species and genes, and the processes through which individual organisms
interact with one another and with their environments. People are asking that the
national grasslands and forests play an increasing role in conserving biodiversity on the
Great Plains. Maintaining biological diversity and providing for the viability of species
requires management direction that protects habitats for threatened, endangered,
sensitive, and management indicator species, as well as provides habitats for other fish,
wildlife, and rare plants. An assumption must also be made that there is a presence of
threatened and endangered species in potential and suitable habitat. Species protected
under the Endangered Species Act that occur on these lands include bald eagle
(threatened) and American burying beetle (endangered). In addition, whooping cranes
(endangered) are occasionally observed during migration on or near these lands, and
two additional species, blowout penstemon (endangered) and the black-footed ferret
(endangered) have been reintroduced to suitable habitats on these areas. The blacktailed prairie dog is now listed as a candidate for protection under the Endangered
Species Act, and recent surveys indicate approximately 15,000 acres of active prairie dog
colonies on these public lands. An additional 26 species that are currently classified as
sensitive in Region 2 of the Forest Service are known to occur on these areas. Providing
for the viability of these species requires management direction that ensures the
protection of habitats and populations on these public lands. It is imperative to me that
my decision addresses this.
Forest Service biologists and botanists evaluated the effects of land and resource
management direction prescribed in Alternative 3 Final on plant and animal species
determined as sensitive by Region 2 of the Forest Service. They determined
implementation of this alternative may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to
result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a
loss of species viability. In fact, these public lands can and do play a beneficial role in
conserving these species and their habitats.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the determinations made by Forest
Service biologists and botanists that land and resource management prescribed in
Alternative 3 Final is not likely to adversely affect any threatened and endangered plant
or animal species and is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence or adversely
modify proposed critical habitat on any species proposed for listing under the
Endangered Species Act.
There is currently a shortage of quality sites to help meet the recovery objectives
outlined in the National Recovery Plan for the endangered black-footed ferret. Under
Alternative 3 Final, the Conata Basin Management Area 3.63 (black-footed ferret
7
reintroduction habitat) is expanded to approximately 78,720 acres, and a new 25,310-acre
area on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland is allocated as Management Area 3.63
habitat for future reintroductions. Alternative 2 would only allocate 61,510 acres in a
Management Area 3.63 and Alternative 5 would only allocate 86,780 acres in a
Management Area 3.63. Direction is also included in Alternative 3 Final to establish new
populations of the endangered blowout penstemon on the Nebraska and Samuel R.
McKelvie National Forests to assist in meeting recovery objectives identified in the
National Recovery Plan.
The black-tailed prairie dog is also a species that has been determined by the Fish and
Wildlife Service to be “warranted, but precluded” from listing as a threatened species.
Plan direction in Chapters 1 and 2 provide for expansion of prairie dog habitat and
restrictions on poisoning and other activities to enhance the expansion of prairie dog
colony complexes. Furthermore, land exchanges in intermingled landownership areas
will be pursued where prairie dog expansion is desired and where we want to reduce
conflicts with private landowners.
The Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation recommended conservation
measures for many additional species at risk. These conservation measures were
brought forward in Plan objectives, standards, and guidelines in Chapters 1, 2, and 3. In
addition, Chapter 4 addresses monitoring needed to ensure the implementation and
effectiveness of Plan direction regarding these species.
We recognize the progress that has already been made on the national forests and
grasslands, with the assistance and partnership of many cooperators and permittees, to
conserve biodiversity; but we also recognize the increasing role these lands play in
meeting local, regional, and national conservation goals and objectives. I chose
Alternative 3 Final because the overall intent of the management direction it embodies is
to enhance the vegetative diversity of grasslands and forests and to maintain diverse
habitats using a wide array of vegetation management tools, such as grazing, prescribed
fire, and rest from grazing. Vegetation and habitat management direction within the
Revised Plan is intended to provide ecological conditions that contribute to the
continued viability of all species, including threatened, endangered, sensitive and
management indicator species.
Contributing To The Economic Diversity Of Neighboring Communities By
Implementing A Variety Of Natural Resource Programs That Provide A Sustainable
Output Of Multiple Uses
This priority encompasses revision topics 1, 2, 3, and 6. To have sustainable
communities, we must ensure a sustainable flow of resources and services. By
sustainable, I mean providing outputs of renewable resources and high quality
experiences in perpetuity without impairing the productivity of the land. People value
these public lands for many different reasons. Some depend upon them for their
livelihood; others value the recreational opportunities and scenery and solitude they
provide. Some specific uses that people expect from these public lands include livestock
grazing, mineral development, wilderness, wildlife habitats, special uses, water, and a
8
variety of recreational opportunities. I choose to focus on the concept of balance among
the various uses.
The Forest Service has an interdependent relationship with local communities. Many
individuals who live in and near the Forests and Grasslands rely on them for economic
opportunities and for other values, such as scenery, solitude, and recreational
opportunities, that contributes to a cherished way of life. Alternative 3 Final identifies
969,860 acres suitable for livestock grazing, identifies 187,390 acres as available for oil
and gas leasing, identifies 39,800 acres suitable for timber harvest, and, provides
opportunities for a wide range of recreational pursuits. Alternative 2 emphasizes
resource production within the limits of ecosystem sustainability, but the goals for
biological diversity would be achieved at a slower rate than the other alternatives. The
goals for biological diversity associated with natural processes in Alternative 4 are
emphasized over goals and objectives oriented toward economic values. Alternative 5
emphasizes recreation opportunities, with more intensive management in areas that
have been actively managed in the past with little emphasis on commodity products.
Being a good neighbor to local communities means being mindful of these values and
relationships in making this decision and when implementing this plan. As part of
being a good neighbor, we will implement management practices such as livestock
grazing, land exchange and prescribe fire that will likely contribute to the increase of
prairie dog populations and to reduce conflicts with adjacent landowners. So as to not
place a disproportionate share of prairie dogs on national forest system lands, I will
work with the states of Nebraska and South Dakota in the preparation of the State-wide
prairie dog conservation plans, pursuant to 36 CFR 219.7. I intend to implement the
State-wide conservation plans for Nebraska and South Dakota to the extent allowable by
law and policy in providing direction for the control of unwanted colonization of the
prairie dog onto private lands. Should the State-wide conservation plans conflict with
provisions of this plan, I will propose an amendment to make the plan consistent with
those plans. Thus the Nebraska National Forest will continue to provide the goods and
services needed by our society from which local businesses can continue to prosper.
I selected Alternative 3 Final because it provides outputs of renewable resources and
high quality experiences without impairing productivity of the land. Because this
alternative focuses on sustaining the health and productivity of grasslands and forests, it
ensures that we will continue to provide sustainable outputs and sustainable multiple
uses. And for the first time, we will have formal management direction focused on the
unique needs of people living in the wildland-urban interface.
Protecting Special Areas And Unique Resources
This priority relates to revision topic 7. These public lands offer many scenic landscapes,
historic and cultural properties, geologically and paleontologically significant areas,
roadless areas that provide opportunities for solitude, and special plant and wildlife
habitats. Management area designations and direction for wilderness areas,
backcountry non-motorized areas, special interest areas, and research natural areas will
9
protect the characteristics and resources that make these areas “special” for future, as
well as current, generations.
I chose Alternative 3 Final because it offers greater protection of scenic landscapes,
historic and cultural properties, geologically and paleontologically significant areas,
roadless areas that provide opportunities for solitude, and special plant and wildlife
habitats than we have had before.
Management direction such as the two recommended wilderness areas, two
backcountry recreation non-motorized areas, 13 Special Interest Areas, 5 Research
Natural Areas, 5,600 acres of Bighorn Sheep Habitat and 104,780 acres of Special Plant
and Wildlife Habitat will protect these special areas to ensure their continued use and
enjoyment by future as well as existing generations. Additionally, providing for no new
road construction on Steer Creek West (McKelvie National Forest) and Toadstool
Geologic Park SIA (Oglala National Grassland) protects the unique character of these
two areas.
Alternatives 2 and 4 allocate less acres as Special Interest Areas, Research Natural Areas
Special Plant and Wildlife Habitat than Alternative 3 Final. Alternative 5 allocates less
acres as Research Natural Areas and Special Plant and Wildlife Habitat than Alternative
3 Final.
Diversifying Grassland And Forest Recreation Opportunities
This priority relates to revision topic 6. The demand for recreational opportunities on
public lands in the prairie ecosystem is increasing dramatically. While these public
lands already provide a myriad of dispersed recreation opportunities, both developed
and dispersed recreation opportunities are below their potential. People are seeking a
diversity of recreation experiences in motorized and non-motorized settings.
Alternative 3 Final provides a wide range of recreational settings and opportunities for
people. The broad range of management direction provides for a myriad of dispersed
recreation opportunities. This was a key factor in my decision.
Alternative 3 Final provides for vegetation, watershed, and woody draw management
that will enhance habitat for huntable and watchable populations of wildlife and aquatic
habitats for fish populations and waterfowl production. Geographic Area recreation
objectives found in Plan Chapter 2 explain our desires to provide for more quality
recreation facilities such as picnic areas, campgrounds, trailheads, trails, wildlife
viewing facilities, and for improved interpretation.
Alternative 3 Final Management direction provide for a variety of recreational settings:
wilderness, recommended wilderness, and backcountry recreation non-motorized areas
that provide for solitude and spectacular natural-appearing scenery in a non-motorized
environment; special interest areas that provide for educational and interpretive
opportunities concerning our natural and cultural history; rangelands with broad
resource emphasis that provide for a wide range of developed and dispersed recreation
10
opportunities in a motorized setting; and Dispersed Recreation; High Use areas such as
Merritt Reservoir on the Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests and Railroad Buttes ORV
area on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland. Alternative 2 provides for no
Recommended for Wilderness areas where Alternative 4 provides the most areas.
Alternative 5 provides the most acres allocated as Backcountry Recreation
Nonmotorized, and Alternative 4 provides for the fewest acres.
Additional Reasons for the Selection of Alternative 3 Final
This Plan Revision evolved around the recognition that management of prairie
ecosystems to produce goods and services requires awareness and consideration of the
interrelationships among humans, animals, soil, water, air, vegetation and other
environmental factors within the ecosystems. The alternatives were developed and
analyzed based on the interaction between the revision topics and the information in the
FEIS. I chose Alternative 3 Final because of the balance it provides while ensuring that
the Nebraska National Forest maintains its contributions to the prairie ecosystems of the
northern Great Plains, and while honoring the interdependence between the Forest
Service, other agencies, local governments, and local, regional, and national economies.
The goals, objectives, standards and guidelines, geographic area direction, and
management area direction contained in the selected alternative reflect this relative
balance by safeguarding the integrity of ecological processes while providing for
multiple uses and benefits.
Alternative 3 Final will best address the revision topics and the five priorities I
developed using them. It is responsive to both the needs and desires of those who live
in or near these forests and grasslands and the wishes of those who live elsewhere.
Alternatives 3 Draft, 3 Final, 4 and comply with law, regulation and policy.
(Alternatives 1 and 2 had a “likely to adverse affect” determination for black-footed
ferret.) I did not pick an alternative that maximized or minimized any particular
element because I think it is important to strike a relative balance between these
priorities. However, the most important part of my decision was ensuring the long-term
health of the land for the enjoyment of present and future generations.
I selected Alternative 3 Final in part because of the manner in which it will achieve the
Forest and Grassland goals and objectives. Alternative 3 Final strikes a realistic balance
between protecting and maintaining ecosystem integrity through natural processes and
offering uses, goods, and services through active management. This is something the
Nebraska National Forest has long been known for. One of my priorities in making this
decision is to continue this balance. Forest and Grassland goals and objectives are listed
in Chapter 1-3 of the Revised Plan in accordance with the planning regulations at 36
CFR 219.11(b).
Many comments were received throughout the planning process and during the
comment period. Alternative 3 Final reflects consideration of these comments and other
less formal interactions with the public and other government and tribal spokespeople.
Therefore, it is a logical outgrowth of our analysis and public involvement efforts. I
11
know that selecting Alternative 3 Final is not likely to completely satisfy every group or
individual. However, I feel that Alternative 3 Final sets a reasonable course that gives
most people some satisfaction while providing future opportunities to participate in
plan implementation.
The selection of Alternative 3 Final meets all statutory and legal requirements and
adheres to applicable policies and Manual and Handbook direction governing plan
development and the management of National Forests and Grasslands. Adherence to
these laws, policies, and direction ensures protection of the basic resources (air, soil, and
water).
Issues, concerns and comments on the DEIS and proposed Revised Plan received
particular consideration in the decision-making process. The environmental
consequences of the Revised Plan and the other alternatives have been studied
thoroughly. Alternatives are described and compared in Chapter 2 of the FEIS.
Environmental Consequences are discussed in Chapter 3.
Economic analysis was also performed on each alternative. This analysis showed that
Alternative 3 Final does not have the highest Present Net Value (PNV). However, I am
confident that Alternative 3 Final ranks highest in terms of net public benefits. As
explained in the FEIS, net public benefits are more than just PNV. There are many
outputs and effects (biological diversity, visual amenities, watershed health, etc.) that
are difficult to quantify. These other factors must be taken into consideration in
selecting the alternative with the highest net public benefits. Alternative 3 Final does the
best job at balancing the trade-offs for competing uses, values, costs, and outputs, and
therefore produces the highest net public benefits.
BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE
The application of science is a factor in my decision. There are many facets to consider.
One is the use of biological science as it applies to the management of National Forests
and Grasslands. Another is the application of social science, since people are an integral
part of ecosystems. Science does not always provide clear answers to complex resource
management topics, but it does give insight into the effects of management decisions
and actions. These scientific findings are displayed in the FEIS. In integrating the
biological and social sciences, I considered the following:
•
•
•
•
•
12
The role of the Nebraska National Forest in the greater ecological province and
sections.
The role of fire, insects, and disease in ecosystem dynamics.
Access to the Forests and Grasslands and to the facilities available to the public.
The plans, goals, and policies of other government agencies (local, state, and
national) and Indian Tribes.
The role the Nebraska National Forest plays in local, regional, and national
economies.
•
•
The scientific literature and its application in the analysis of the alternatives.
The inter-dependent relationship between the Forest Service and other agencies
and landowners.
The scientific community played a large role in facilitating an accurate and appropriate
interpretation of data and research information. Our planning team and specialists
consulted with scientists within the Research Branch of the Forest Service, with U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of land Management, state universities in Nebraska,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming, as well as other universities, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Biological Resources Division - USGS, and others.
Numerous cooperative broadscale ecosystem assessments were conducted by several
federal agencies in the Northern Great Plains to be sure that the information we used for
this Plan was the most up-to-date available and that it was properly interpreted.
CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFT EIS AND FINAL EIS
Alternative 3 Final, as described in the FEIS, is a modification of the Alternative 3
described in the DEIS. The differences between Alternative FEIS 3 and Alternative 3 in
the DEIS resulted in changes to the environmental consequences disclosed in the DEIS.
This modified alternative (Alternative 3 Final) is well within the range of alternatives the
Forest Service considered in the DEIS. Most of the modifications stem from the input we
received on the DEIS during the comment period. We received nearly 110,000
comments from 26,000 commentors.
Planning Direction
Over the course of the Northern Great Plains planning process, several events have
occurred that have influenced how these goals and objectives were developed. When
the plan revision effort began, the agency was using direction established in 1982. These
regulations implemented a framework of national planning (the Resources Planning Act
Program), regional planning (the Regional Guides), and unit planning (Forest or
Grassland Land and Resource Management Plans).
In 1993, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) was passed. This
legislation, applicable to all federal agencies, requires the preparation of periodic
strategic plans and annual performance plans, both of which are focused on outcomes
and results. The Forest Service’s first GPRA Strategic plan, issued in 1997, replaced the
RPA Program as the agency’s national strategic plan. In 2000, the Forest Service issued
an updated version of the Strategic Plan. Also in 2000, the Forest Service issued new
regulations implementing the National Forest Management Act. One provision of these
regulations directed the agency to withdraw the Regional Guides within one year. That
withdrawal was accomplished in early 2002, and relevant direction is being moved to
agency directives and technical guides.1
1
Another provision of the 2000 planning rule allowed the Responsible Official to elect to
complete the plan revision process under the 1982 regulations, provided that the process had
13
As a result, the goals and objectives in the revised Forest and Grassland plan are based
on the updated GPRA Strategic Plan. The four GPRA strategic goals are:
1. Ecosystem health
2. Multiple benefits to people
3. Science and technical assistance and
4. Effective public service.
The goal statements in the revised Forest and Grassland plan have changed slightly
from the draft version in order to remain consistent with the most recent Forest Service
Strategic Plan. Changes and additions to the objectives and implementing strategies
were based on public comment and new information in the 2000 Forest Service GPRA
Strategic Plan.
Travel Management
I am making a decision that until a transportation management plan and Roads Analysis
has been completed, which includes full public involvement, existing travel management
will remain in effect. Authorized uses to cooperators and permittees will still occur for
purposes such as grazing permit administration, fencing, salting, approved mineral
exploration and development, fire control, wildfire surveys, and emergency needs. This
decision does not restrict motorized vehicle use on existing roads until a decision is made
designating non-motorized areas and travelways, unless specifically prohibited in
management area direction or existing orders. Motorized use is allowed to continue on
existing travel routes until site-specific analysis with public involvement has been
accomplished for the purpose of designating the permanent transportation facilities. This
decision in no way designates or accepts user-created existing travel routes on a
permanent basis. As site-specific road and trail analyses are conducted and decisions are
made, some of the existing user-created routes may be designated and some of the other
routes, both user-created (unclassified) and classified, may be decommissioned and the
areas restored. The process to site specifically designate motorized routes could not be
completed within the timeframe of this planning process because of the lack of complete
road inventories and the need for extensive public involvement. Future site-specific
travel management analysis will take place within the next five years to designate which
roads, trails, and areas will be available for motorized use.
Roadless Area Conservation Rule
On January 12, 2001, the Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule, 66 FR
3244, (Roadless Rule) was signed by former Secretary of the U. S. Department of
Agriculture Dan Glickman. The Roadless Rule, codified at 36 CFR 294 Subpart B (2001),
prohibited new road construction and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas
subject to exceptions. Specific exemptions allow for roads in conjunction with the
continuation, extension or renewal of a mineral lease [36 CFR 294.12(b)(7)] and for roads
begun prior to issuance of the new rule. That choice was made by the Responsible Officials for
the Northern Great Plains planning effort.
14
pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights [36 CFR 294.12(b)(3)]. Exceptions are also
allowed for roads needed to protect public health and safety (law enforcement, fire
suppression etc.) and to conduct a CERLA action, needed to prevent irreparable
resource damage, needed for road safety, and determined to be in the public interest. In
addition, the rule specifically does not affect a State’s or private landowner’s right of
access to their land. [36 CFR 294.12(b)(3) and 294.14 (a) and preamble at 66 FR 3251,
3253, 3256, 3259.]
Subsequently, eight lawsuits involving seven states in six judicial districts of four federal
circuits have been filed against the January 12, 2001 rule. On May 10, 2001, the Idaho
District Court granted the preliminary injunction requested in Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v.
Veneman and State of Idaho v. U.S. Forest Service enjoining the Forest Service from
implementing “all aspects of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.” The Idaho District
Court’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction has been appealed and is now
pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Roadless Rule currently
remains enjoined. On June 7, 2001, the Chief of the Forest Service issued a letter
concerning interim protection of inventoried roadless areas stating that “the Forest
Service is committed to protecting and managing roadless areas as an important
component of the National Forest System. The best way to achieve this objective is to
ensure that we protect and sustain roadless values until they can be appropriately
considered through forest planning.” As part of that letter, the Chief indicated he would
be issuing interim direction regarding timber harvest and road construction in
inventoried roadless areas until a forest [grassland] plan amendment or revision
considers the long-term protection and management of unroaded portions of
inventoried roadless areas. This interim direction was issued on December 20, 2001 (66
FR 65789).
The Northern Great Plains revision process was begun in 1996 prior to the adoption of
the Roadless Rule, and the Northern Great Plains FEIS was issued in July 2001 after the
May 2001 decision that enjoined the Roadless Rule. As a part of the Northern Great
Plains EIS process an inventory of areas essentially roadless in character was completed
for each planning unit including the Nebraska National Forest. For each area the FEIS
contains a description of the affected environment along with a capability analysis,
availability analysis and an evidence of need for wilderness analysis. See FEIS 3-359 to
3-378 and FEIS Appendix C. In addition, roadless areas were allocated to various
management areas by alternatives. Roadless areas were considered for management
areas that varied from Management Area 1.2 Recommended for Wilderness to
Management Area 6.1 Rangeland with Broad Resource Emphasis. See FEIS 3-369. In so
doing, this Plan Revision process fully met the intent and direction of the Chief to
consider the protection and management of roadless areas appropriately through forest
[grassland] planning.
Until final rule, regulations and direction are promulgated for inventoried roadless areas
management, the Forest Service will manage inventoried roadless areas in compliance
with Interim Directives 1920-2001-1 and 7710-2001-3 and the direction in the Revised
Plan.
15
The Revised Plan addresses the protection of undeveloped natural characteristics in
75,210 acres of roadless areas in Management Areas 1.1-Wilderness, 1.2-Recommended
for Wilderness, 1.31-Non-motorized Backcountry Recreation, 1.31a-Backcountry
Recreation Non-motorized (Pine Ridge National Recreation Area), 2.1-Special Interest
Areas, and 2.2-Research Natural Areas. The remaining 143,370 acres of roadless are
assigned to Management Areas 3.63-Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction Habitat, 3.64Special Plant and Wildlife Habitat, and 6.1-Rangeland with Broad Resource Emphasis
where development is possible.
Transportation Rule and Policy
The Administration of the Forest Development Transportation System; Prohibitions; Use
of Motor Vehicles Off Forest Service Roads, Final Rule, 66 FR 3206 (Transportation
Rule), and Forest Service Transportation, Final Administrative Policy, 66 FR 3219,
(Transportation Policy) were signed on January 12, 2001 by former Chief of the Forest
Service Mike Dombeck. The Transportation Rule and Policy provides only guidance for
transportation analysis – it did not dictate or adopt land management decisions.
The Transportation Rule, codified at 36 CFR 212.5 (2001), requires the Forest Service to
determine a minimum road system – determining those roads that are needed
(classified) and those unneeded (unclassified). Decisions on needed and unneeded
roads will be accomplished through area/project planning with NEPA analysis and
public participation. The Nebraska National Forest Revised Plan does not make these
decisions. These decisions will only be made through subsequent NEPA analysis. The
Nebraska National Forest Revised Plan provides as a Goal 4. a. #1 under Grasslandwide Direction “Within 5 years, identify travel opportunities and restrictions; including
designating motorized travel-ways and areas, to meet land management objectives.” See
Plan at page 1-8.
The Transportation Policy, Forest Service Manual 7700 et seq., requires a roads analysis
process to inform road management decisions. A roads analysis process (watershed or
project area scale) must be prepared prior to most road management decisions to inform
those decisions to construct or reconstruct roads throughout National Forest System
lands beginning on January 12, 2002. The roads analysis process, itself, does not make
decisions – and any road management decisions are made through NEPA analysis and
public participation. The interim direction for Transportation Systems (ID-7710-2001-3)
provides direction for Roads Analysis and the interim direction for Land and Resource
Management Planning (ID-1920-2001-1) describes Chief and Regional Forester
responsibilities for road construction and reconstruction and timber harvest until Forest
(or grassland) Plans are revised. The Nebraska National Forest has not completed a
forest or grassland scale roads analysis. Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1925.03 –
Management of Inventoried Roadless Areas (Policy) states that until a forest (grassland)scale roads analysis (FSM 7712.13b) is completed and incorporated into a forest
(grassland) plan, inventoried roadless areas shall, as a rule be managed to preserve their
roadless characteristics. Therefore, until a grassland-scale roads analysis is completed
16
and incorporated into the Revised Nebraska National Forest plan, inventoried roadless
areas shall, as a rule, be managed to preserve their roadless characteristics subject to
valid existing mineral rights. Since the Plan revision was substantially completed by
January 12, 2002, I have extended the deadline for completing the Roads Analysis to
January, 2003.
The Nebraska National Forest is conducting the road analysis, where required, as a
routine part of project analysis. See Guideline #4 in Grassland-wide Direction under Q
in the Plan. Infrastructure Use and Management (section Q on page 1-29 in the Plan) is
consistent with the Transportation Policy stating: “Perform site-specific Roads Analysis,
including public involvement, prior to making any decisions on road construction,
reconstruction, and decommissioning.”
Oil and Gas Stipulations
Stipulations (provisions for oil and gas leases) for oil and gas development were
changed between the draft and final EIS to respond to legal and biological requirements
associated with the Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act, and to be
consistent with Forest Service Manual policy for sensitive species. New research has
furthered knowledge about wildlife requirements, such as habitat needs for species
survival (see the Biological Assessment and Evaluation for Revised Land and Resource
Management Plans, December 2000). As a result, Timing Limitation (TL) stipulations for
many wildlife species in the Revised Management Plans are different from those
contained in the draft EIS and previous oil and gas leasing analyses. More areas of no
surface occupancy, areas with timing limitations, and areas with controlled surface use
are included in this decision.
Some who commented on the DEIS expressed concern that some of the Controlled
Surface Use (CSU) stipulations effectively prohibited surface occupancy. We
acknowledge that some CSU stipulations in the DEIS effectively prohibited surface
occupancy. In the Revised Management Plans we changed those stipulations; some
management activities which were protected by CSU stipulations in the DEIS are now
protected with No Surface Occupancy stipulations in the FEIS.
Vegetative Composition and Structure
As a result of comments on the Draft EIS, more analysis was done in describing desired
vegetative composition and structure for geographic areas on the Nebraska National
Forest to attain goals and objectives of the revised plan. This process is described in
Appendix B of the FEIS.
Additional Management Direction and Additional Standards and Guidelines
for Species at Risk
Additional management direction and standards and guidelines were added between
Draft and Final EIS for species of viability concern. A draft Biological Evaluation (BE)
and a draft Biological Assessment (BA) were completed for the DEIS. However,
between draft and final EIS the BE and BA were finalized (the latter with informal
17
consultation with the USFWS), and final changes in direction, standards, and guidelines
were incorporated to make sure the revised plan was consistent with laws and
regulations for threatened, endangered, proposed, and management indicator species,
and with USFS policy for sensitive species.
Some modifications were made to the black-tailed prairie dog management direction to
be compliant with a July 2000, memorandum from the Forest Service’s Washington
Office. This memorandum further restricts rodenticide use for controlling prairie dog
populations on national grasslands and forests.
It needs to be pointed out that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recently dropped
the status of the swift fox and sturgeon chub as candidate species for protection under
the Endangered Species Act. However, the swift fox remains classified as a sensitive
species in Region 2 of the Forest Service. Management direction for both species was not
changed under Alternative 3 Final because of the change in candidate status.
Indian Creek Management Area Allocation Changed from Special Interest
Area to Recommended for Wilderness Area
Indian Creek area (23,890 acres) was identified as a Special Interest Area (2.1) in the
preferred alternative of the DEIS. It was changed from Management Area 2.1, Special
Interest Area, to Management Area 1.2, Recommended for Wilderness.
CHANGES BETWEEN FINAL EIS AND ROD
National Energy Policy
The National Energy Policy and its direction did not come down to Federal agencies
until after the release of the FEIS. In May 2001, the President’s National Energy Policy
Development Group issued recommendations for developing and implementing a
comprehensive long-term strategy to promote dependable affordable, and
environmentally sound energy for the future. At the same time the President issued
Executive Order 13212, “Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects”, in which
agencies are ordered to expedite their review of permits or take other actions as
necessary to accelerate the completion of such projects, while maintaining safety, public
health, and environmental protections.” In August 2001, the Forest Service developed a
plan to implement the Executive order and Energy Policy Development Group
recommendations that fall within the agency’s jurisdiction and authority.
In following the applicable recommendations of the Energy Policy Development Group
and Executive Order 13212, this plan purposely allows for development of gas and oil
resources. It allows for whatever actions might be necessary, to the extent permitted by
law and regulation and where appropriate, to expedite review of permits and accelerate
completion of energy development and transmission (i.e., pipelines) projects while
maintaining safety, public health, and environmental protection.
18
This plan also provides for increased support for development of renewable energy
resources and combined heat and power units. This is specifically associated with
increased biomass utilization related to small diameter and under utilized wood on a
fair, equitable and sustainable basis.
Under the Forest Service Energy Implementation Plan, we have examined land status
and lease stipulation impediments to federal oil and gas leasing. We have reviewed and
modified those where opportunities exist (consistent with law, good environmental
practices, and balanced use of other resources). We have reviewed public land
withdrawals and lease stipulations with full public consultation, especially with people
in the region, to consider modifications where appropriate.
We believe that with respect to the development of gas, oil and biomass resources, we
have addressed the goals of the National Energy Policy Development Group and the
Forest Service Energy Implementation Plan to the extent appropriate in the land
management plan.
National Fire Plan
National Fire Plan direction came to the Forest Service in 2001. The key points of the
Plan are:
1. Firefighting: Maintain a cost effective level of preparedness in firefighting and
prevention,
2. Rehabilitation and Restoration: Rehabilitate fire damaged wildlands and restore
high-risk ecosystems,
3. Hazardous fuels reduction: Invest in projects to reduce fire risk with focused
effort in wildland urban interface areas,
4. Community Assistance: Work with communities to reduce the risks of
catastrophic fires,
5. Accountability: Establish and maintain a high level of accountability including
oversight reviews, progress tracking and performance monitoring.
Concerns over wildfire have grown over the past several years. Analysis regarding fuels
treatment and prescribed fire were examined, similar to all other activities in the FEIS,
using historic budget levels. I recognize the importance and the value of the National
Fire Plan and expect to implement activities associated with it in coordination and
cooperation with Federal, State, local agencies and landowners during the duration of
the Forest Plan. This is outlined in Section G of the Plan to reduce the threat of wildfire
to public and private developments and to participate in the “Firewise” community
programs.
COMPONENTS OF THE DECISION
There are six fundamental components of the decision made in the Plan Revision:
19
1. Establishment of forest and grassland-wide multiple-use goals and objectives, 36
CRF 219.11(b).
2. Establishment of forest and grassland-wide management requirements
(Standards and Guidelines), 36 CRF 219.13 to 219.27.
3. Establishment of management area direction (Management Area Direction and
associated Standards and Guidelines for 15 management areas), 36 CFR 219.11
(c ).
4. Determination of lands suitable for livestock grazing and browsing and habitat
for management indicator species. Identification of lands available for oil and
gas leasing and subject to constraints (lease stipulations) [36 CFR 228.102 (c) and
(d)]. Provision for a broad spectrum of forest and outdoor recreation
opportunities. 36 CFR 219.14, 219.15, 219.16, 219.20, 219.21 and 219.25.
5. Establishment of requirements for monitoring and evaluating the
implementation of the Revised Plan to meet the requirements of 36 CFR
219.11(d).
6. Recommendations Regarding Additions to the Wilderness Preservation System
and other Special Designations (36 CFR 219.17 and 219.18).
Alternative 3 Final was selected based on the manner in which it addresses the six
decisions listed above, which combine to respond both to the revision topics and to the
priorities upon which I based my decision. The following sections discuss the
components of the decision in more detail.
Component 1. Establishment of Forest and Grassland-wide Multiple-Use
Goals and Objectives.
The goals and objectives are listed and described in Chapter 1, of the Revised Forest
Plan. They are based on the four goals identified in the 2000 Forest Service Government
Performance Results Act (GPRA) Strategic Plan.
The goals and objectives apply to all of the alternatives; however, each alternative
achieves them in different ways and to different degrees, depending on its emphasis. I
selected Alternative 3 Final in part because of the manner in which it will achieve the
forest and grassland goals and objectives. I refer the reader to the comparison of
alternatives in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. With regard to the goals and objectives, the
alternatives compare as follows:
Alternative 1 is the no action alternative and is an expression of management
philosophy at the time the original plan was developed. This alternative focuses
more on outputs and traditional uses than ecosystem health. It provides
direction for achieving and maintaining biological diversity, but clearly
emphasizes the goals and objectives relating to economic values. Biological
diversity goals would be achieved at a rate slower than all other alternatives.
Alternative 2 emphasizes resource production, within the limits of ecosystem
sustainability. This alternative is more focused on achieving goals and objectives
20
based on economic values. The components of biological diversity associated
with more managed landscapes are emphasized. The goals for biological
diversity would be achieved at a rate sooner than alternative 1 but slower than
all other alternatives.
Alternative 3 Draft emphasizes sustainable resource production and a broader
array of management direction for species viability and protection of special
areas and habitats. It provides an array of dispersed recreation opportunities
and contributing to economic viability. Goals for biodiversity would be achieved
at a faster rate than alternatives 1,2, and 5 but slower than Alternative 3 Final or
4.
Alternative 3 Final effectively integrates protecting ecosystem integrity through
natural processes and offering uses, goods, and services through active
management. Goals for biodiversity would be achieved at a rate faster than
Alternatives 1, 2, 3 Draft and 5 but slower than Alternative 4.
Alternative 4 leans heavily toward the function of natural processes with little or
no human intervention. The components of biological diversity associated with
natural processes are emphasized over goals and objectives oriented toward
economic values. Biological diversity goals would be achieved earlier than they
would be for any of the other alternatives provided that natural disturbance
processes were allowed to happen.
In Alternative 5, natural processes are provided for, as are the economic benefits
associated with a more managed landscape. This alternative emphasizes
recreation opportunities, with more intense management in areas that have been
actively managed in the past. Goals for biological diversity will be achieved
sooner with this alternative than they would be for Alternatives 1 and 2.
However, these goals would be achieved slower than Alternatives 3 Draft, 3
Final and 4.
Our focus for the future is on sustainable conditions and their outcomes that should
provide for sustainable uses and products for people. We will take responsibility for
what is produced, and we will also accept responsibility for the condition of the land
when projects are completed. Like many of you, I am concerned about forest and
rangeland health. As many of you know, we cannot meet the needs of the people if we
do not first secure the health of the land. We will define rangeland health through
management objectives. What might be viewed as healthy in a roadless area would
probably not be appropriate in an urban/wildland interface area.
Component 2. Establishment of Forest and Grassland-wide Standards and
Guidelines.
The standards and guidelines ensure that resources are managed in a sustainable
manner. They represent design criteria to ensure that projects implementing the
21
Revised Plan move the Nebraska National Forest toward the desired outcomes
expressed in the goals and objectives. The standards and guidelines allow those who
work for the Forest Service and with the public to design and administer projects that
accomplish Nebraska National Forest objectives. During plan implementation, the
standards and guidelines will be monitored to ensure they are helping us meet the
stated goals, objectives, and desired conditions.
Forest and Grassland-wide Standards and Guidelines listed in Chapter 1 of the Revised
Plan did not vary between the action alternatives. However, in Chapter 2 of the Revised
Plan, standards and guidelines vary by geographic area2. These standards and
guidelines are too general for management areas and too specific for the entire
grassland. In Chapter 3 of the Revised Plan, standards and guidelines vary by
management area. For the Nebraska National Forest Plan, there are fifteen different
management areas where direction and specific standards and guidelines apply.
I am confident that the package of standards and guidelines in Alternative 3 Final
provides needed protection for resources while allowing managers to exercise their
professional judgment when implementing activities.
In addition to the standards and guidelines adopted in this plan, various laws, policies,
and manual and handbook direction apply to Forest Service actions, and they
supplement the Revised Plan direction. I direct you to Appendix K and L of the plan for
a list of them.
Component 3. Establishment of Management Area Direction (Management
Area Direction and Associated Standards and Guidelines) for 15 Management
Areas.
From a list of 24 management areas, I chose the unique mix of the fifteen management
areas in Alternative 3 Final to implement the Revised Plan. This direction will guide
future management activities within each specific management area and is required by
36 CFR 219.11 (c). Chapter 3 of the Revised Plan contains a complete description of the
management area direction and is shown on maps that are part of the Revised Plan. The
application of the management area direction is where the alternatives vary the most
and are compared in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. The mix of direction and their application
are key factors in my decision. This is displayed in Table 1, General Description and
Comparison of the Alternatives Section of this Record of Decision.
Relationship Between Alternative 3 Final and Management Area Direction
Management area direction is grouped into categories of similar management
intensities. Categories range from minimal to substantial human influence. In each
alternative, land is allocated to direction in the various categories depending on the
emphasis of the alternative. The following section briefly describes the management
2
For the Nebraska National Forest units, eleven different geographic areas have been delineated
to distinguish areas where the vegetative types, productivity, and physical character are fairly
distinct.
22
categories, lists key management area direction in each, and discusses the application of
the direction under Alternative 3 Final.
Category 1
Category 1 includes Wilderness Areas and the various direction used within
them, and the backcountry recreation settings. Ecological processes, such as fire,
insects, and disease, are essentially allowed to operate relatively free from the
influence of humans.
Management Area 1.1 Existing Wilderness– 7,810 acres
Soldier Creek Wilderness will be managed to perpetuate natural conditions,
including native plant and animal species and communities. Livestock grazing
strategies and intensities, along with prescribed fire, will be used to meet desired
vegetation composition and structure. Section 4(d)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act
states, “the grazing of livestock, where established prior to the effective date of
this Act, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as
are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture”. Congressional Grazing
Guidelines for Grazing in National Forest Wilderness Areas (HR-96-1126) will be
followed. There will continue to be evidence of past human activity, but
evidence of present human activity will be limited to that necessary to protect
Wilderness resources, or is a result of prior existing rights. The existing trail
system will be maintained.
Management Area 1.2 Recommended for Wilderness- 38,710 acres
My decision is to recommend to Congress two areas on the Buffalo Gap National
Grassland for inclusion in the Wilderness System, the Red Shirt and Indian Creek
Areas. These areas are managed to protect wilderness characteristics until
Congressional action is taken. No new road construction will be allowed. These
areas will be available for oil and gas leasing with No Surface Occupancy (NSO)
stipulations on future leases. Livestock grazing would continue. Section
4(d)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act states, “the grazing of livestock, where
established prior to the effective date of this Act, shall be permitted to continue
subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary
of Agriculture”. Congressional Grazing Guidelines for Grazing in National
Forest Wilderness Areas will be followed. I chose this direction to ensure
protection of these remarkable scenic grassland areas and their roadless
character.
Management Area 1.31 – Backcountry Recreation Non-Motorized- 13,860 acres
My decision is to allocate two areas totaling 13,860 acres to this management
area; one area is on the Nebraska National Forest adjacent to the Soldier Creek
Wilderness and the other area is on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland on the
eastern edge of Badlands National Park (Rake Creek Area).
23
This direction allows management of these areas to provide recreation
opportunities in natural-appearing landscapes. These areas will be available for
oil and gas leasing with No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations on future
leases. Livestock grazing would continue. I chose this option to protect the
roadless character of these areas and to provide for a variety of non-motorized
recreation opportunities.
Management Area 1.31A Backcountry Recreation Nonmotorized - 6,540 acres
Pine Ridge National Recreation Area will be managed to provide a variety of
uncrowded, year-round, non-motorized recreation in a naturally appearing
setting. Facilities such as trailheads, trails, signs, fences, and water developments
will be present but there will be no net gain in those facilities designed to
support livestock grazing. Large pastures, and developments that blend with the
landscape will promote a natural-appearing landscape. Natural processes and
livestock grazing will be the primary methods of managing vegetation
composition and structure. These areas will be available for oil and gas leasing
with No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations on future leases. Timber cutting
may be used to reduce fire hazard or the imminent threat of epidemic insect
attack, or to enhance wildlife habitat diversity or scenic views, but there will be
no new road construction in this area.
Category 2
Category 2 areas are intended to conserve representative (or particularly rare and
narrowly distributed) ecological settings or components. They help protect
ecosystems or ecosystem components that may have important functions,
ensuring the overall sustainability or larger landscapes. These areas also play an
important role in adaptive management by serving as a “natural” reference for
areas that are intensively managed for a particular objective. Some of these areas
are allocated Research Natural Areas (RNA’s).
Management Area 2.1 – Special Interest Areas (SIA’s) – 30,280 acres
These areas are managed to protect paleontological, cultural, historical,
botanical, geological or ecological resources. There are thirteen SIA’s: Bessey
Tree Plantations (21,980 acres – Bessey unit); McKelvie Tree Plantations (3,200
acres – McKelvie National Forest); Mallard Exclosure (680 acres – McKelvie
National Forest); Edgemont Shark Locality (940 acres - Buffalo Gap National
Grassland) and Marietta South Geologic Area (260 acres - Buffalo Gap National
Grassland); One-Mile Hill Geologic Area (630 acres - Buffalo Gap National
Grassland); Wallace Ranch Localities (420 acres - Buffalo Gap National
Grassland); Burr Oak Enclosure (3 acres – Pine Ridge unit, Nebraska National
Forest); Hudson-Meng Bison Bonebed (40 acres - Oglala National Grassland);
Mountain Mahogany Stand (90 acres - Nebraska National Forest); Quaking
Aspen Stand ( 8 acres - Oglala National Grassland); Toadstool Park (2000 acres Oglala National Grassland); and Warbonnet/Yellow Hair Monument (30 acres Oglala National Grassland).
24
These SIA’s represent important vestiges of past life, habitation and natural
character of the area. Also, they ensure our consideration and protection of the
special and diverse places on the Nebraska National Forest.
Motorized travel will be restricted in these areas. Geologic, paleontologic, and
archeological areas will have surface use restrictions for oil and gas leasing.
Livestock grazing would continue.
Management Area 2.2 – Research Natural Areas (RNA’s) – 6,740 acres
These are areas managed to protect or enhance natural ecosystems established
for non-manipulative research, education, and maintenance of biological
diversity. There are five RNA’s: Steer Creek (2,500 acres - McKelvie National
Forest); Tree Farm (120 acres – McKelvie National Forest); Signal Hill (500 acres Nebraska National Forest – Bessey); South Pasture (1,560 acres - Buffalo Gap
National Grassland); West Wall (1,030 acres - Buffalo Gap National Grassland);
and Mallard South (1,030 acres - Fort Pierre National Grassland).
These RNA’s represent a range of vegetation types and topographic features that
have not been heavily influenced by humans. These RNA’s, combined with
other RNA’s in the Region and Northern Great Plains, ensure that research and
education opportunities will be available in the future across a wide range of
ecosystems. The fences and manageability of each with its surrounding direction
category and/or different ownerships determine the acreages of these RNA’s.
The management direction, including objectives, standards and guidelines for
management of these areas are described in Chapter 3 of the LRMP. The
establishment records along with the order to administratively effect this
decision for these RNA’s will be completed within six months. These areas will
be available for oil and gas leasing with No Surface Occupancy (NSO)
stipulations on future leases. Once established as RNA’s, these areas will be
withdrawn from mineral entry if necessary to protect the values for which they
were allocated.
Category 3
Ecological values in Category 3 areas are in balance with human occupancy, and
consideration is given to both. Resource management activities may occur, but
natural ecological processes and resulting patterns normally predominate. Some
evidence of human activities is present.
Management Area 3.51 Bighorn Sheep Habitat – 5,650 acres
These areas are managed to provide adequate amounts of quality forage, cover,
escape terrain, and solitude for re-introduced bighorn sheep and other species.
The integrity of lambing, breeding, and escape cover will be maintained.
Livestock grazing would continue. It is my decision to allocate two areas on the
Pine Ridge of the Nebraska National Forest to this management area: an area
immediately east of the Ponderosa Wildlife Management Area and an area south
25
of Chadron. These areas will be available for oil and gas leasing with No Surface
Occupancy (NSO) stipulations on future leases.
Management Area 3.63 – Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction Habitat- 104,030
acres
These areas are managed to maintain prairie dog colony complexes and
compatible land uses to establish and/or maintain areas for black-footed ferret
reintroduction. Prairie dog populations are maintained or increased through
limitations on poisoning, vegetation management and/or relocation of prairie
dogs to suitable habitat. Prairie dog shooting is prohibited in this area. Because
of the low vegetative structure in these areas, they are often the key habitat for
burrowing owls and other species that require low structure habitats. Livestock
grazing would continue. My decision prescribes approximately 104,030 acres
under this management area and expands the Conata Basin/Badlands
reintroduction habitat area and establishes new reintroduction habitat areas on
the Buffalo Gap National Grassland near Smithwick, South Dakota. These areas
will have surface use restrictions for oil and gas leasing (see Appendix D in the
Plan).
Management Area 3.64 – Special Plant and Wildlife Habitat- 104,785 acres
These areas are managed to maintain and enhance specific plant and wildlife
communities and species at risk. My decision prescribes 104,780 acres in 23
areas: 400 acres on the Bessey unit; 4,470 acres on the McKelvie National Forest;
97,860 acres on the west half of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland; 1,160 acres
on the east half of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland and 895 acres on the Fort
Pierre National Grassland. These areas will have surface use restrictions for oil
and gas leasing (see Appendix D in the Plan). Livestock grazing would continue.
My decision is to manage these habitats to maintain or enhance specific plant
and wildlife species, guilds, and communities, including wetlands, waterfowl
production areas, sage grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, swift fox and other special
habitats.
Category 4
The ecological values in Category 4 areas are managed to be compatible with
recreation use, but are maintained well within the levels necessary to maintain
overall ecological systems. Resource use for other values is not emphasized and
has little impact on ecological structure, function, or composition. Sights and
sounds of people are expected, and may even be desired. Motorized
transportation is common. My decision to select Alternative 3 Final is based on
the inclusion of these areas and the role they play in the realization of recreation
objectives and desired conditions for the grassland.
Management Area 4.32 – Dispersed Recreation: High Use- 6,520 acres
These areas are managed for visitors to recreate in a relatively natural
environment, while pursuing a variety of unstructured recreational activities,
26
such as camping, picnicking, fishing, and off-highway vehicle use. All resource
uses are compatible with recreational resources and opportunities. These areas
will have surface use restrictions for oil and gas leasing (see Appendix D in the
Plan). Areas allocated to the 4.32 management area include National Forest
System lands adjacent to Merritt Reservoir on the Samuel R. McKelvie National
Forest and the Railroad Buttes Off-Road-Vehicle use area on the Buffalo Gap
National Grassland.
Category 5
Category 5 areas are forested areas managed for a mix of forest products, forage,
and wildlife habitat, while protecting scenery and offering recreation
opportunities. Ecological sustainability is protected, while selected biological
structures and compositions that consider the range of natural variability are
emphasized. These lands often display high levels of investment, use, and
activity; density of facilities; and evidence of vegetative treatment.
Management Area 5.12 – General Forest and Rangelands – Range Vegetation
Emphasis- 27,940 acres
One of the key features of this management area is that the Ponderosa pine forest
will be managed for resource production while ensuring high levels of effective
wildlife habitat. These areas will have surface use restrictions for oil and gas
leasing (see Appendix D in the Plan). Management emphasis is toward a balance
of resource uses and opportunities.
Category 6
Category 6 areas are primarily non-forested ecosystems that are managed to
meet a variety of ecological and human needs. Ecological conditions will be
maintained while emphasizing selected biological (grasses and other vegetation)
structures and compositions that consider the range of natural variability. These
lands often display high levels of investment, use, and activity; density of
facilities; and evidence of vegetative manipulation.
Management Area 6.1 – Rangeland with Broad Resource Emphasis- 698,350
acres
This area is managed for diversity of native plants and animals and ecological
functions and processes while providing livestock forage and a mix of other
rangeland values and uses. This category has a smaller number of acres than all
alternatives except 3 Draft, not because a broad resource emphasis isn’t
important, but because inclusion of more acres of other management areas such
as for big game, dispersed recreation, special interest areas, areas with a diverse
natural appearing landscape, and others were increased to achieve a diverse
balance of management emphasis. A majority of the acreage of each unit is in
this multiple use direction. These areas will have surface use restrictions for oil
and gas leasing (see Appendix D in the Plan).
27
Category 7
Category 7 areas are public lands intermingled with private land to such an
extent that ecosystem management objectives for National Forest System lands
must be tempered by other landowners’ uses and objectives. Private land use is
often residential. Resource uses are not planned on a sustainable basis, but many
occur in concert with surrounding private land values.
Management Area 7.1 Residential/Forest Intermix- 2,610 acres
It is my decision to allocate 2,610 acres of the Nebraska National Forest along the
Highway 385 corridor south of Chadron, Nebraska to this management area.
Intermingled private, state, and National Forest lands are managed to build and
maintain cooperative relationships between landowners and other governments.
State and local governments and fire protection districts are consulted in
developing fire-hazard reduction plans and ordinances. Timber harvests,
livestock grazing, and prescribed fire may be used to attain a natural-appearing
landscape and minimize the risks of catastrophic fires and epidemic levels of
insects and diseases. These areas will have surface use restrictions for oil and gas
leasing (see Appendix D in the Plan).
Category 8
Ecological conditions and processes within Category 8 areas are likely to be
permanently altered by human activities, beyond the level needed to maintain
natural-appearing landscapes and ecological processes. These areas are
generally small. Ecological values are protected where they affect the health and
welfare of humans. Human activities are generally commercial in nature,
directly or indirectly providing jobs and income. Motorized transportation is
common.
Management Area 8.5 Charles E. Bessey Nursery -70 acres
These areas will be available for oil and gas leasing with No Surface Occupancy
(NSO) stipulations on future leases.
Management Area 8.6 Administrative sites on the Nebraska National Forest
230 acres.
These areas will be available for oil and gas leasing with No Surface Occupancy
(NSO) stipulations on future leases.
Component 4. Determination of Lands Suitable for Livestock Grazing and
Browsing and Habitat for Management Indicator Species. Identification of
Lands Available for Oil and Gas Leasing. Provision for a Broad Spectrum of
Rangeland Related Outdoor Recreation Opportunities.
Livestock grazing will continue on the Nebraska National Forest. Alternative 3 Final
determined 969,860 acres as suitable for livestock grazing. We are emphasizing effective
management of grazing allotments through the development of individual allotment
Management Plans.
28
Management Indicator Species (MIS) were selected to serve as a barometer for species
diversity and viability at the national grassland and forest level. By monitoring
population trends and determining habitat relationships of MIS will help determine if
objectives are being met. Objectives for the maintenance and improvement of habitat for
these species were also developed along with habitat suitability and potential capability.
In Alternative 3 Final, 187,390 acres of the Oglala and Buffalo Gap National Grassland
will be administratively available for oil and gas leasing (36 CFR 228.102(d)). All of
these acres have additional stipulations, including No Surface Occupancy, timing
limitations, and Controlled Surface Use, beyond those found in the standard lease terms.
For more information on lease terms and resource protection stipulations see Appendix
D of the Plan. Immediately after this decision, the Forest Supervisor will make the
leasing decision for specific lands [36 CFR 228.102(e)] and authorize the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) to offer these lands for lease.
With management responsibility and authority for the federal mineral estate, the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) also plays a role in management of oil and gas resources
underlying NFS lands. The BLM is a cooperating agency in this analysis in accordance
with the 1991 Interagency Agreement for Oil and Gas Leasing between the Forest
Service and BLM. The oil and gas analysis addresses all federal minerals including
those under non-federal surface (split estate) lands within the boundaries of the NFS
units to which the analysis applies. Based on the oil and gas analysis the BLM will
make decisions for leasing federal mineral estate under Forest Service administered
surface and under non-federal surface (split estate lands) within Forest Service units, as
appropriate.
The BLM Wyoming Office will make a separate decision on 750 acres of split estate
lands on the Oglala National Grassland. The Bureau of Land Management, Montana
Office will make a separate decision on the 58,720 acres of split estate lands on the
Buffalo Gap National Grassland.
Alternative 3 Final provides for a broad spectrum of outdoor recreation opportunities.
Wilderness and backcountry direction emphasize the more primitive end of the
spectrum, while developed roads and trails and water improvements emphasize the less
primitive aspects of recreation.
Component 5. Establishment of Requirements for Monitoring and Evaluating
the Implementation of the Revised Plan to Meet the Requirements of 36 CFR
219.11(d).
A key feature of all alternatives is the monitoring plan (Chapter 4, Revised Plan).
Monitoring and adaptive management principles are a cornerstone of ecosystem
management. They allow us to be responsive to changing circumstances and changes in
the available science and technology. Nebraska National Forest staff has developed
monitoring questions to help ensure that this Revised Plan is working. A detailed
29
annual Monitoring Plan of Operations will be prepared each year, identifying how the
broad monitoring questions will be addressed. From the Monitoring Plan of Operations,
a Monitoring and Evaluation Report will be prepared. The frequency of reporting is
outlined in the Monitoring Strategy (Chapter 4). A key component of the Monitoring
and Evaluation Report will be the Evaluation and Action Plan. This is a synthesis of
results, interpreted to draw conclusions about whether we are moving toward the forest
or grassland goals and objectives and desired conditions. This will also validate
expected outcomes. Based on the results, amendments to the Plan could be made to
reflect necessary changes.
The old (1984) monitoring plan was detailed, specific, and lacked flexibility. It focused
on quantifying outputs rather than using qualitative assessment to determine how well
we were achieving the Plan goals and objectives. In the development of the Revised
Plan, the monitoring focus shifted from specific activities to broad programmatic
requirements. These broad requirements satisfy the regulatory provisions and are
responsive to the Plan goals and objectives. Because the requirements are flexible and
adaptable, they allow new knowledge and techniques to be easily incorporated into the
monitoring plan.
Monitoring plans do not vary between action alternatives. The Monitoring and
Evaluation Chapter in the Revised Plan identifies the legally required monitoring
activities; the action, effect, or resource to be measured; the monitoring schedule; and the
level of precision or reliability. Also listed are additional monitoring activities to be
conducted based on funding. I have placed emphasis on monitoring, and I am confident
that these requirements will be met.
Component 6. Recommendations Regarding Additions to the Wilderness
Preservation System, and Other Special Designations.
During the Northern Great Plains plan revision process, we updated our roadless
inventory. It will be used for all related Plan implementation activities and is the official
Nebraska National Forest Inventory.
There are no Inventoried Roadless Areas on the Nebraska National Forest. There are 6
Inventoried Roadless Areas on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland. These areas will be
managed in accordance with Management Area Direction that is contained in the
Revised Plan as discussed in Appendix C of the FEIS as follows:
Cheyenne River – 7,570 acres would be allocated Management Area (MA) 6.1,
Rangeland with Broad Resource Emphasis.
First Black Canyon – 4,960 acres would be allocated MA 3.63, Black-footed Ferret
Reintroduction Habitat.
Jim Wilson Canyon – 6,020 acres would be allocated MA 3.63, Black-footed
Ferret Reintroduction Habitat.
30
Red Shirt RARE II Area – 8,450 acres would be allocated MA 1.2, Recommended
for Wilderness and 760 acres would be allocated a MA 6.1, Rangeland with
Broad Resource Emphasis.
Red Shirt – 5,300 acres would be allocated MA 1.2, Recommended for
Wilderness; 1,612 acres allocated MA 2.2, Research Natural Area; and 220 acres
allocated 6.1, Rangeland with Broad Resource Emphasis.
Indian Creek – 23,890 acres would be allocated MA 1.2, Recommended for
Wilderness; 760 acres allocated MA 3.63, Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction
Habitat; and 450 acres allocated MA 6.1, Rangeland with Broad Resource
Emphasis.
I have decided to recommend to Congress the designation of two grassland wilderness
areas on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland – The Red Shirt and Indian Creek areas. I
am not recommending Congress allocate any wild and scenic rivers on the Forest or
Grasslands.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
This plan was developed through a coordinated process involving the resource and
social economic assessments of ten National Forest and Grassland units distributed
across the Northern Great Plains (NGP) and located in North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska and Wyoming. A planning team (called the NGP Planning Team) conducted
and coordinated the assessment and planning process through a combination of
approaches and techniques involving collaboration with other agencies, consultation
with Indian tribes, dialogue with the scientific community, dialogue with consultants,
and by ad hoc teams composed of employees from the Forest Service and other agencies.
The analysis was also supplemented with local considerations and taken into
consideration for this decision.
The NGP Planning Team, along with the ten grassland managers, conducted an
extensive public involvement process throughout the development of the Revised Plans.
The Interdisciplinary Team consulted with other Federal agencies (the Bureau of Land
Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Natural Resources
Conservation Service), various state agencies, including the Department of Agriculture,
South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks, and Nebraska Game and Parks Commission,
Indian tribes, and county governments.
A Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was published in the
Federal Register in February 1997. The public was kept informed throughout the plan
revision process through a series of newsletters, news releases, and less formal means.
31
The revision topics and preliminary alternatives were presented at a series of public
meetings from February through April of 1996. Discussions were lively, opinions
diverse, and the level of interest in the plan revisions high. Another series of meetings
was held following the publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
in August 1999. These meetings were held to clarify information presented in the DEIS
and answer questions. Additional meetings were held with local governments and
interest groups (environmental, motorized and non-motorized recreationists, grazing
associations, the timber industry, and others) throughout the plan revision process.
Publication of the DEIS and proposed Revised Plan in July 1999 was followed by a 90day public comment period which was scheduled to end in October 1999. The comment
period was extended three times until February 3, 2000. Nearly 110,000 individual
comments on the DEIS and draft Revised Plan for all NGP National Grassland units
were received from over 26,000 commentors. Over 2,400 commentors specifically
addressed the Nebraska National Forest. The Forest Supervisor and Forest Planner read
all of the summarized comments from each of those letters, and a team developed
responses to them (see FEIS, Appendix A). The Final EIS was released in July, 2001. A
six month public comment period was then initiated on the FEIS. Approximately 48,000
letters were received. Responses to new comments are addressed as an attachment to
this ROD. I am well informed about the content of those comments and the changes
made between the draft and final documents as a result of these comments. See
Appendix A of the FEIS for more information on public involvement activities.
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC
Prairie Dogs
We received many comments relating concerns over unwanted colonization by prairie
dog populations of adjacent private lands along property boundaries. Some voiced a
desire to have more options to manage for this unwanted colonization. This was
analyzed in Alternatives, 1, 2 and 5 of the FEIS.
The black-tailed prairie dog was recently petitioned for listing as a threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by several conservation organizations and the
petitions were determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to be warranted,
but precluded by higher listing priorities. The black-tailed prairie dog is currently
classified as a candidate species for possible future protection under ESA. The Plans
outline conservation strategies for the contribution that the national grasslands can
make to the long-term viability of black-tailed prairie dogs.
Motorized Access for Administrative Purposes
Some people commented that they were worried that general forest and grassland-wide
and management area direction would preclude motorized use for such things as fire
control, grazing permit administration, noxious weed control, wildlife surveys, mineral
exploration and development, and emergency services such as law-enforcement,
32
medical, search and rescue. Forest and Grassland-wide direction under Section Q (2) in
the Plan on page 1-29 states that access for these purposes will be allowed.
Travel Management
There were comments received voicing opinions about travel management and
restricting off-highway motorized use. Forest and Grassland-wide direction under Goal
4a, Objective 1 in the plan on page 1-8 and Section Q (1) in the plan on page 1-29 states
that the Forest Service will identify travel opportunities and restrictions, including
designating motorized travelways and areas. This will be conducted using public
involvement and input.
Economic Impacts and Changes
There was considerable controversy over income and employment analysis conducted
in the DEIS. The income and employment analysis that was suggested from public
comments received stated that we should use gross business volume (gross value of
sales) to track gross value of business transactions in a study area. The economic impact
analysis used in the DEIS and FEIS used an income approach, the approach used by
economists at the national level to characterize the economic well being of the Nation.
Income is used because it is a better measure of how local area residents will be affected
by the alternatives.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Before describing the alternatives evaluated in the FEIS, I would like to make some
important points concerning their development.
The strength of this planning process lies in the alternatives and the way they were
formulated. The alternatives express a range of concerns and issues raised by the public.
The range of alternatives is not based on predetermined outputs but rather on themes
responding to issues raised by the public. All alternatives include the concepts of
multiple-use, sustained yield, biological diversity, and ecosystem management but to
varying degrees. All alternatives share a set of basic goals and standards and guidelines
that ensure protection of Grassland resources. All alternatives (including the updated
no action alternative) use a new numbering scheme for the management areas that is
consistent with other Forest and Grassland units in the Rocky Mountain Region of the
Forest Service.
All action alternatives meet the management requirements of 36 CFR 219.27, as well as
all other legal and regulatory requirements. More information about the alternatives can
be found in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. The Rocky Mountain Regional Guide was withdrawn
as of February 1, 2002, however under the process, all alternatives strive to meet the
goals established in the 1992 Forest Service Rocky Mountain Regional Guide, as
amended. These include:
•
33
Protecting the basic soil, air, and water resources.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Providing multiple uses and sustainability in an environmentally acceptable
manner.
Providing a variety of life through management of ecosystems.
Providing scenic quality and a range of recreation opportunities that respond to
our customers and local communities.
Emphasizing cooperation with individuals, organizations, and other agencies to
coordinate planning and project implementation.
Promoting rural development opportunities.
In cooperation with other landowners, striving for improved land ownership
and access patterns, to the mutual benefit of both public and private landowners.
Improving the financial efficiency of all programs and projects.
General Description and Comparison of the Alternatives
The alternatives are described here in general terms, in relation to the revision topics.
Only major alternative elements are discussed, and the reader is encouraged to review
both Chapters 2 and 3 of the FEIS for the full scope of the alternatives and their effects.
Lands administratively available for oil and gas leasing do not change in Alternatives 2
through 5, however stipulations do change between alternatives.
Each alternative is essentially a separate and distinct set of Management Area allocations
and a distinct Management Plan. The alternatives in the DEIS were developed without
preconceived notions of a preferred alternative. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3)
in the DEIS has been modified in the Final EIS in response to public comments. While
all alternatives provide a wide range of multiple uses, goods, and services, some
alternatives give more emphasis to particular uses in order to respond to public
comment and to explore management options, opportunities, and trade-offs. The
characteristics of alternatives considered in detail, and modified based on public
comment received on the DEIS, are described below:
Alternative 1 – (No Action)
The no action alternative is required by regulation. Current Land and Resource
Management Plan (Management Plan) direction and emphases would continue with this
alternative. Since current plans were developed, management area titles and the
management area numbering system have changed. Therefore, Management Area titles
and numbers have been changed to make this alternative more easily comparable to
other alternatives.
This alternative does not recommend any additional wilderness, Special Interest Areas
(SIA’s), or Research Natural Areas (RNA’s) and does not provide any areas for nonmotorized backcountry recreation. This alternative had the most acres of MA 6.1
Rangeland with Broad Resource Emphasis (977,180 ac) and the least acres of special
management area designations.
34
This alternative would provide for partial reversion of pine and cedar plantations on the
Bessey Ranger District to native prairie. Firewood cutting, post and pole cutting, and
other forms of wood product removal would be encouraged. Prescribed fire would be
used to reduce cedar encroachment on native grasslands.
Oil and gas leasing would continue under the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant
Impact for Oil and Gas Leasing, Oglala National Grassland and Portions of the Buffalo Gap
National Grassland, March 2000.
Alternative 2
This alternative would emphasize production of commodities such as livestock,
minerals, oil, gas, and timber. Recreation opportunities, and special area designations
would be provided where they would not foreclose commodity production.
For the Nebraska National Forest, this alternative had the most acres of MA 5.13 Forest
Products and it had 891,380 acres of MA 6.1 Rangeland with Broad Resource Emphasis.
It had no recommended wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, or bighorn sheep habitat
management areas.
This alternative would manage pine and cedar plantations on the Bessey Ranger District
the same as in Alternative 1.
Alternative 3 (Draft)
This was alternative 3 in the DEIS and it is carried forward in its entirety from the DEIS
to the FEIS.
This alternative would adopt additional special area designations, such as Research
Natural Areas, Special Interest Areas, Recommended Wilderness, Backcountry NonMotorized, and place added emphasis on native plants and animals, and recreation
opportunities. Plant and animal habitats would be managed to provide viable
populations and many standards and guidelines have been prescribed to ensure this.
This alternative would provide 54,490 acres of MA 2.1 Special Interest Areas, MA 3.51
Bighorn Sheep Habitat (6,590 ac), and MA 3.64 Special Plant and Wildlife Habitat
(107,290 ac).
This alternative would entail managing and maintaining about 20,000 acres of pine
plantations on the Bessey Ranger District through a combination of thinning, prescribed
burning, planting, and insect and disease control. Cedar plantations would be harvested
for forest products and cedar stands would be converted to either pine plantings or
native grasslands. Within the next ten to fifteen years, approximately 20% of the pine
plantations with cedar understories or cedar encroachment would be treated to remove
the cedar. Prescribed fire would be actively used to reduce cedar encroachment on
native grasslands. Active reforestation of ponderosa pine through tree planting would
occur on plantations burned in the 1960’s.
35
Alternative 3 Final - (SELECTED ALTERNATIVE)
This alternative would modify current Management Plan direction by adopting
additional special area designations, such as Research Natural Areas, Special Interest
Areas, and Recommended Wilderness Areas. It would also place added emphasis on
native plants and animals and recreation opportunities.
Changes in Alternative 3 from the Draft EIS include the following: Changes in goals,
objectives, standards and guidelines, and monitoring requirements, proposed
Management Area allocations, Geographic Area direction, oil and gas stipulations (See
Final Land and Resource Management Plans), and including “bison-friendly” grazing
policies. This alternative would facilitate bison grazing on the lands administered by the
Nebraska National Forest after evaluating the suitability of allotments for bison grazing.
Permittee requests to graze bison would be fully considered.
This alternative would manage pine and cedar plantations on the Bessey Ranger District
the same as in Alternative 3 (Draft), except that firewood cutting, post and pole cutting,
and other forms of wood product removal would be encouraged in pine plantations
where needed to meet stand objectives.
Alternative 4
This alternative would feature natural processes and aggressive restoration of impaired
native ecosystems. It would demonstrate the role that national grasslands and forests
have in sustaining rare animal and plant communities within the Northern Great Plains.
Plant and animal habitats would be managed to meet viable populations with the lowest
risk level.
This alternative would allow for “bison-only” grazing on a minimum of 5% of the lands
administered by the Nebraska National Forest. In this alternative, bison will be treated
as a type of livestock, not as free-roaming wildlife herds. Permittees requests to graze
bison would be fully considered as well as the opportunities to convert to “bison-only”
grazing on vacant and newly acquired allotments determined to be desirable and
suitable for bison grazing.
This alternative has the largest acreages of MA 1.2 Recommended Wilderness (174,970
acres), MA 3.4 Scenic Rivers Recommended (1,790 acres), Black-footed Ferret
Reintroduction Habitat (109,930 acres), and MA 3.66 Ecosystem Restoration (22,410
acres).
This alternative would include actively converting non-native pine and cedar
plantations on the Bessey Ranger District to native prairie through tree cutting and
burning over the next 20 years. Firewood cutting, post and pole cutting, and other
forms of wood product removal would be encouraged. Prescribed fire would be
actively used to reduce cedar encroachment on native grasslands. No active
reforestation through tree planting would occur.
36
Alternative 5
This alternative would accentuate recreation opportunities and non-commodity services
and also provide commodity outputs that complement or fit within recreation
objectives. Plant and animal habitats would be managed to meet viable populations
with a low risk level. This alternative would provide the most acres of MA 1.31
Backcountry Recreation Non-motorized (126,660 ac), MA 2.1 Special Interest Area
(55,190 ac), MA 4.32 Dispersed Recreation: High Use (11,550 ac), and MA 4.4 National
River System: Recreation Rivers Recommended (1,790 ac).
This alternative would manage pine and cedar plantations on the Bessey Ranger District
the same as in Alternative 3 (Final) except that pine management would be limited to
15,000 acres and cedar removal would be limited to 5% of the pine plantations with
cedar understories or cedar encroachment.
Summary Comparison of Management Areas by Alternative
For the following table, acres are rounded to the nearest 10. Acres for Alternative 3a are
the same as Alternative DEIS 3 unless shown otherwise in italic (these are not additive).
Acres in parentheses are concurrent management area acres, meaning they overlap other
management area acres.
Table 1. Management Areas by Alternative for Nebraska National Forest
DEIS Alt
3
FEIS Alt
3
9,700
7,810
15,970
0
14,000
6,540
6,540
14,350
Management Area
Alt 1
Alt 2
Category 1
1.1 Wilderness Soldier Creek
1.2 Recommended for Wilderness
7,810
7,810
0
0
0
1.31 Backcountry Recreation Nonmotorized
1.31a Backcountry Recreation Nonmotorized Pine
Ridge Recreation Area
TOTALS
Category 2
2.1 Special Interest Areas
2.2 Research Natural Areas
TOTALS
Category 3
3.4 National River System Scenic Rivers
Recommended
3.51 Bighorn Sheep
3.63 Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction Habitat
3.64 Special Plant and Wildlife Habitat
3.66 Ecosystem Restoration
TOTALS
Category 4
4.32 Dispersed Recreation High Use
37
Alt 4
Alt 5
7,810
7,810
7,810
38,710
174,970
970
13,860
1,830
126,660
6,540
6,540
6,540
6,540
24,050
44,320
66,920
191,850
150,720
70
1,060
30,280
2,820
55,190
500
3,090
6,740
4,150
5,270
(4,060)
8,090
4,120
570
54,490
103,030
6,740
1,560
61,230
104,590
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,590
109,40
83,870
107,290
6,850
0
223,020
90,720
5,650
8,050
61,510
54,340
16,640
0
62,390
0
78,390
1,110
1,110
6,350
5,250
37,020
59,310
104,780
1,790
(40)
5,950
109,930
(11,450)
15,580
0
214,520
22,410
155,200
0
112,870
6,520
1,110
11,550
104,030
4,120
5,950
86,780
20,140
Management Area
4.4 National River System Recreation Rivers
Recommended
TOTALS
Alt 1
Alt 2
DEIS Alt
3
FEIS Alt
3
Alt 4
Alt 5
0
0
0
0
140
1,790
1,110
1,110
6,350
5,250
6,520
1,250
13,340
0
22,410
27,000
27,940
27,000
0
Category 5
5.12 General Forest and Rangelands Range Vegetation
Emphasis
5.13 Forest Products
TOTALS
Category 6
6.1 Rangeland with Broad Resource Emphasis
0
0
31,990
54,400
0
27,000
0
27,940
0
27,000
0
0
977,180
891,380
698,350
670,130
716,980
TOTALS
977,180
891,380
691,300
673,790
691,300
698,350
670,130
716,980
TOTALS
0
0
2,600
2,600
2,610
2,610
2,610
2,610
2,610
2,610
2,610
2,610
240
0
80
390
710
0
0
70
230
300
0
0
70
230
300
0
0
70
230
300
0
0
20
190
210
0
0
70
230
300
Category 7
7.1 Residential/Forest Intermix
Category 8
8.3 Designated Utility Corridors Existing and Potential
8.4 Mineral Production and Development
8.5 Nursery
8.6 Administrative Sites
TOTALS
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
The following alternatives were considered and eliminated from further detailed study
during the planning process. They are discussed more specifically in Chapter 2 of the
FEIS, including the reasons for their elimination.
Passive Management Alternative: This alternative would restore biological
communities and health using limited active resource management activities.
Bison-Restoration/Free Roaming Bison Alternative: Tribes, inter-tribal organizations,
individual tribal members and many others proposed removing domestic livestock and
restoring free-roaming bison to the national grasslands.
Conservation Reserve Alternative: This alternative would include principles of
conservation biology, establish core reserve areas on national grasslands and link core
areas with biological corridors.
Designation of the Site-Specific Motorized Routes: This alternative would have
included information to make these site-specific travel way determinations within this
revision decision.
No Grazing Alternative: This would prohibit livestock grazing.
38
IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations require agencies to specify the
alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable [40
CFR 1505.2(b)]. Alternative 4 would allow the fewest ground-disturbing activities, only
one measure of the environmentally preferred alternative. According to Forest Service
policy, the environmentally preferred alternative is the one that best meets the goals of
Section 101 of NEPA. Section 101 emphasizes the protection of the environment for
future generations; the preservation of historic, cultural, and natural resources; and
attainment of the widest range of beneficial uses.
Evaluation Of How The Preferred Alternative Meets The Goals Of The
National Environmental Policy Act
The goals of Section 101 are similar to the principles of ecosystem management and of
this Revised Plan, calling for sustainable and balanced use and making provision for
future generations. Section 101 does not exclude Americans from use of their natural
resources, but does demand that such uses avoid degradation of the environment.
Section 101 of NEPA defines national environmental policy, calling upon federal, state,
and local governments and the public to create and maintain conditions under which
humans and nature can exist in productive harmony. This broad policy is further
defined in six goals:
1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustees of the environment
for succeeding generations.
Alternative 3 Final ensures the health of the land by relying upon active
management and natural ecological processes to achieve desired conditions and
outcomes. Alternative 3 Final includes standards and guidelines that preserve
the health of basic resources, such as soil, air, and water.
2. Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and
culturally pleasing surroundings.
Alternative 3 Final provides many opportunities for quality visitor experiences.
Standards and guidelines are in place to ensure clean water, clean air, and
visually pleasing surroundings.
3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without
degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended
consequences.
Alternative 3 Final provides a wide range of beneficial uses, such as livestock
use, dispersed and developed recreation, clean air and water, and wildlife
habitat. Standards and guidelines ensure these uses do not result in undesirable
or unintended consequences.
39
4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our natural
heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports
diversity and variety of individual choice.
The mix of management area allocations in Alternative 3 Final preserves the
historic and natural aspects of the Grassland and provides a variety of individual
choices. Standards and guidelines ensure compliance with the National Historic
Preservation Act, as well as access for people with disabilities.
5. Achieve a balance between population pressures and resource use, which
will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities.
Alternative 3 Final achieves a balance between resource use and protection.
Resource uses are sustainable and contribute to a high standard of living and a
wide sharing of life’s amenities.
6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum
attainable recycling of depletable resources.
The standards and guidelines in Alternative 3 Final provide quality resource
management. Forest and Grassland health will be enhanced. Sustainable
resource production will contribute to the vitality of local communities.
After considering Section 101 of NEPA and the alternatives evaluated in the FEIS, I find
that Alternative 3 Final best meets the goals of Section 101 of NEPA and it is the
environmentally preferred alternative. This is one of the reasons it is my preferred
alternative.
FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS
I have considered the multitude of statutes governing management of the Nebraska
National Forest, and I believe that this decision represents the best possible approach to
reconciling the current statutory authorities of the Forest Service. The following
discussion highlights the findings of compliance with some of the major statutes guiding
management of National Grasslands and Forests.
•
•
•
•
40
The Nebraska National Forest Plan is in compliance with the Clean Water Act as
disclosed in the conclusions presented in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.
The Nebraska National Forest Plan is in compliance with the National Historic
Preservation Act as disclosed in the conclusions presented in Chapter 3 of the
FEIS.
The Nebraska National Forest Plan is in compliance with the Endangered Species
Act as disclosed in the conclusions presented in Chapter 3, of the FEIS and
appendix B of the FEIS. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurs with our
determination that this decision is not likely to adversely affect federally listed
species.
The Nebraska National Forest Plan is in compliance with the Clean Air Act as
disclosed in the conclusions presented in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Nebraska National Forest Plan is in compliance with the Executive Order for
Environmental Justice disclosed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.
The Nebraska National Forest Plan is in compliance with the Bankhead-Jones
Farm Tenant Act of 1937 and the 1963 Secretary of Agriculture Executive Order
as disclosed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.
The Nebraska National Forest Plan is in compliance with the Mineral Leasing
Act of 1920 as amended as disclosed in the conclusions presented in Chapter 3 of
the FEIS.
The Nebraska National Forest Plan is in compliance with the Federal Onshore
Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 as disclosed in the conclusions
presented in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.
The Nebraska National Forest Plan is in compliance with the Mining and
Minerals Policy Act of 1970 as disclosed in the conclusions presented in Chapter
3 of the FEIS.
The Nebraska National Forest Plan is in compliance with the National Forest
Management Act of 1976 as amended with regards to the determinations of
suitability for livestock grazing, management indicator species, oil, gas and
timber, as disclosed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.
IMPLEMENTATION
In accordance with 36 CFR 217.10(a), implementation of this decision will occur 7
calendar days after the legal notice of this decision is published in the Denver Post. The
Notice of Availability for the Northern Great Plains FEIS and the Nebraska National
Forest Plan was previously published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2001.
Under NFMA, “permits, contracts, and other instruments for the use and occupancy” of
National Forest System lands are required to be “consistent” with the current Land and
Resource Management Plan. Use and occupancy agreements, which might require
modification of pre-existing authorization, include those for timber harvesting, livestock
grazing, and outfitting/guiding. However, this requirement is not absolute. In the plan
revision context, NFMA specifically qualifies the requirement in three ways: 1) these
documents must be revised only “when necessary,” 2) these documents must be revised
“a soon as practicable,” and 3) any revisions are “subject to valid existing rights.”
In developing this Revised Plan, implementing pre-existing decisions and the associated
effects of that implementation were considered part of the baseline against which the
alternatives were evaluated. Because these earlier decisions were considered in our
effects analysis, their implementation is not in conflict with the Revised Plan. Exercising
my legal discretion under NFMA, I have determined that it is not “necessary” to apply
the Revised Plan’s standards and guidelines retroactively, and I find that NFMA does
not require revision of these pre-existing use and occupancy authorizations. I have also
determined that I have the discretion, on a case-by-case basis, to modify pre-existing
authorizations if they are not consistent with newly established standards, including the
standards and guidelines in the Revised Plan.
41
Use and occupancy agreements may be for a substantial term. For example, livestock
grazing permits are generally issued for a ten-year term. My decision is to require
grazing permits to comply with the Revised Plan’s standards and guidelines. The case
law is clear that grazing permits are privileges rather than rights, and they are subject to
modification by their terms and under the grazing regulations. The Forest will
implement appropriate Revised Plan Standards and Guidelines associated with
permitted livestock grazing and allotment management via incorporation in site specific
NEPA Decisions conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969. The NEPA Decisions will be conducted in accordance with but no sooner than
the Allotment Management Planning schedule for the Nebraska National Forest dated
July 15, 2002 contained in the Administrative Record. I find that applying the Revised
Plan’s standards and guidelines through this process will meet the “as soon as
practicable” provision as stated in NFMA. Other classes of “use and occupancy”
agreements will be reviewed to determine whether or when the Forest Supervisor
should exercise his/her discretion to bring them into compliance with the Revised Plan.
The Forest Supervisor will accomplish many management activities to implement the
Revised Plan. Unlike the programmatic decisions listed above, these activities are sitespecific and require analysis and disclosure of effects under NEPA. These site-specific
analyses will be done during implementation of the Revised Plan. Site-specific analysis
of proposed activities will determine what can be accomplished. The outcomes
specified in the Revised Plan are estimates and projections based on available
information, inventory data, and assumptions. More information on the difference
between programmatic and site-specific projects can be found in the planning record
(Overview of Forest Planning and Project Level Decision making, Gippert, GC, June
2002, http://www.fs.fed.us/forum/nepa/decisionm/index.html) that is incorporated
into this ROD by reference.
All activities, many of which are interdependent, may be affected by annual budgets.
However, the desired future conditions, goals, objectives, standards and guidelines, and
management area direction described in the Revised Plan may not change unless the
Plan is amended. The Plan will be amended or revised to adjust to changing
circumstances. The amendment process gives us the flexibility to adapt the decisions
made today to the realities of tomorrow. We will involve the public in future changes to
the Revised Plan.
Oil and Gas Leasing
As required by law and as specified in 36 CFR 228 102 (c ) (1) (ii) oil and gas stipulations
are developed for leases on Nebraska National Forest. These stipulations are developed
from the standards and guidelines and are described for each of the plan revision
alternatives in Appendix D of the Plan. The Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming
Office will make a separate decision on 750 acres of split estate lands on the Oglala
National Grassland. The Bureau of Land Management, Montana Office will make a
separate decision on the 58,720 acres of split estate lands on the Buffalo Gap National
Grassland.
42
All new mineral leases and lease renewals are subject immediately to the stipulations
outlined in the plan this decision prescribes for Nebraska National Forest. Again, all
valid existing lease rights remain in effect for the terms of the current leases.
Off-Road Motorized Use
In some management areas, off-road motorized use is allowed to continue in compliance
with Forest Supervisor special orders for travel restrictions until site-specific analysis
with public involvement has been accomplished for the purpose of designating
permanent transportation facilities. This decision in no way designates or accepts usercreated existing travel routes on a permanent basis. As directed by the Final Rule for the
Administration of the Forest Development Transportation System; Prohibitions; Use of
Motor Vehicles Off Forest Service Roads and the Policy published in the Federal Register
on January 12, 2001, Forest and Grassland along with site-specific road and trail analyses
will be conducted and decisions formulated. Some of the existing user-created routes
may be designated and some of the other routes, both user-created (unclassified) and
classified, may be decommissioned and the areas restored. The Steer Creek RNA on the
Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest contains FDR 601 and 602. Motorized use within
the RNA will be allowed on these roads only.
Management areas where motorized use is prohibited include:
MA 1.1
Soldier Creek Wilderness
MA 1.2
Recommended Wilderness
MA 1.31 Backcountry Recreation Non-Motorized
MA 1.31a Pine Ridge National Recreation Area
MA 2.2
Research Natural Areas; and specific MA 2.1 Special
Interest Areas listed in Plan Chapter 3 MA 2.1
Consultation
The Forest Service will consult or confer with US Fish and Wildlife Service in a timely
manner if any of the following conditions occur:
• If new information reveals effects of the action may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered;
• If the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect
to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the biological
opinion; or
• If a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the
identified action.
POTENTIAL FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE REVISED PLAN
The following proposals and possibilities have been initiated and depending on the
outcomes of their processes, have the potential for causing an amendment to some parts
of this plan.
43
•
•
•
•
•
Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern railroad proposal, which is currently undergoing
an environmental impact statement (EIS) being conducted by the National
Surface Transportation Board.
Listing or proposed listing of additional species for protection under the
Endangered Species Act.
The Forest Service Roads analysis, which could lead to some site specific changes
in road facilities. I am directing the Forest Supervisor to complete a Forest and
Grassland scale roads analysis and have extended the deadline to complete the
analysis to no later than January 13, 2003.
State-wide prairie dog conservation strategies being developed for South Dakota
and Nebraska may provide additional information suggesting changes in
management direction to be considered.
The current list of sensitive species in Region 2 of the Forest Service is being
reviewed and future additions and deletions are possible.
Also, if monitoring indicates that something in the plan is not working as anticipated,
we may consider a specific amendment to adapt and improve the plan. The Forest
Service will involve interested people and organizations in all amendment processes.
APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES
This decision is subject to administrative review pursuant to 36 CFR 217. A written
appeal of this decision must be filed in duplicate within 90 days of the date of the
published legal notices. Appeals must be filed with:
USDA Forest Service
Attn: NFS-EMC Staff (Barbara Timberlake)
Stop Code 1104
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20250-1104
Any notice of appeal must be fully consistent with 36 CRF 217.9 and include at a
minimum:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
44
A statement that the document is a Notice of Appeal filed pursuant to 36 CFR
part 217;
The name, address, and telephone number of the appellant;
Identification of the decision to which the objection is being made;
Identification of the document in which the decision is contained, by title and
subject, date of the decision, and name and title of the Deciding Officer
Identification of the specific portion of the decision to which objection is made
The reasons for objection, including issues of fact, law, regulation, or policy and,
if applicable, specifically how the decision violates law, regulation, or policy
Identification of the specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks.
Requests to stay implementation of the Revised forest Plan will not be granted [36 CFR
217.10(a)}
Final decisions on proposed projects will be made after site-specific analysis and
documentation in compliance with NEPA and are subject to appeal at that time. For
questions concerning the appeal process, contact:
USDA Forest Service
Attention: Ecosystem Management Staff (Steve Segovia)
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, D.C. 20090-6090
202.205.1066
For questions concerning the Nebraska National Forest Plan, contact:
Donald J. Bright
Forest Supervisor
Nebraska National Forest
125 North Main St.
Chadron, NE 69337-2118
(308) 432-0300
Reviewers are encouraged to contact the Forest Supervisor before submitting appeals to
determine if misunderstandings or concerns can be clarified or resolved.
CONCLUSION
I am pleased to announce this decision and bring this phase of the Nebraska National
Forest Plan revision to completion. The challenge that remains before all of us is to work
together. Together we can meet the challenges, realize the opportunities, and achieve
the goals and objectives of this Revised Plan.
The Revised Plan is our strategic plan for ensuring the long-term health of the land. We
will use adaptive management as we work to implement it. We will carefully monitor
our activities, the condition of the land, the goods and services produced, and the
effectiveness of the resource protection measures included in the Revised Plan to ensure
a healthy forest and grassland for the present and next generation.
/s/ Rick D. Cables
RICK D. CABLES,
REGIONAL FORESTER
DATE:_July 31, 2002
45