HomeMy WebLinkAbout20070653.tiff United States Forest Arapaho and Roosevelt 2150 Centre Avenue,Building E
USDA Department of Service National Forests and Fort Collins,CO 80526-8119
Agriculture Pawnee National Grassland Voice: (970)295-6600 TDD: (970)295-6794
Web: www.fs.fed.us/r2/amf
Fax: (970)295-6696
File Code: 1570
Date: MAR 0 6 2007
Mr. Gary Dollerschell
Secretary
Pawnee Cooperative Grazing Association
46001 Weld County Road 153
Stoneham, CO 80754
RE: Appeal #2007-02-10-0006 on Prairie Dog Management on the Pawnee National Grassland
Dear Mr. Dollerschell:
This letter constitutes my decision, pursuant to 36 CFR 251, on the appeal filed by you on behalf of the
Pawnee Cooperative Grazing Association. I have reviewed the appeal record with regard to your appeal of
the October 13, 2006 decision of District Ranger Steven R. Currey on the Environmental Assessment of the
Black Tailed Prairie Dog Management on the Pawnee National Grassland. I have also considered the
written recommendation of the Appeal Reviewing Team concerning the disposition of your appeal. The
Team's review focused on the decision documentation developed by the District Ranger, his responsive
statement, and the issues raised in your appeal as well as the oral presentation you provided me at our New
Raymer meeting.
Decision
The Appeal Reviewing Team, based on review of the record, found no evidence of the decision violating
law, regulation or policy, and recommended the decision be affirmed in whole with respect to your appeal.
After my review of the appeal record, I concur with the Team's recommendation and affirm District Ranger
Currey's decision to proceed with management of black-tailed prairie dogs on the Pawnee National
Grassland. I adopt and incorporate the Teams recommendation (enclosed) into my decision.
Pursuant to 36 CFR 251.87(c), my decision is subject to a second level discretionary review by the Regional
Forester. A request for this second level review must be filed by the Appellant with the Regional Forester
within 15 days of this decision.
If the Pawnee Cooperative Grazing Association chooses not to request a second level review, it is my hope
that the Association will continue to work cooperatively with Ranger Currey and the Pawnee National
Grassland staff as they move forward to actively manage prairie dogs.
Sincerely,
LENN P. CASAMASSA
Forest Supervisor
CON IL, 04
Caring for the Land and Serving People 2007-0653
� 4c-t-\-i-f�
CS 7(7--(2 7
Enclosure
cc: Steven Currey, Rick D Cables, Karen Roth, Dave Long, Weld County Commissioner
Enclosure (I)
1
United States Forest Arapaho and Roosevelt 2150 Centre Avenue, Building E
USDA Department of Service National Forest and Fort Collins,CO 80526-8119
Agriculture Pawnee National Grassland Voice: (970)295-6600 TDD: (970)295-6794
Web: fsweb.arnfpng.r2.fs.fed.us
Fax: (970)295-6696
File Code: 1570 (Appeal n 2007-02-10-0006) Date: February 20, 2007
Route To:
Subject: Prairie Dog Appeal
•
To: Glenn P. Casamassa, Forest Supervisor
We have reviewed the appeal record regarding the November 26, 2006 appeal by the Pawnee
Cooperative Grazing Association ( Appeal #2007-02-10-0006)of the decision of District Ranger
Steven Currey concerning the Black-tailed Prairie Dog Management Decision on the Pawnee
National Grassland (PNG). Our review of the appeal as submitted by the eligible appellant
focused on the decision documentation developed by the District Ranger in reaching his decision
in relation to issues raised in the appeal as well as his responsive statement dated, December 23,
2006 and all meeting notes from the oral presentation by the appellant. Pursuant to 36 CFR 251,
Subpart C, this will constitute our written recommendation concerning the disposition of the
appeal, and we are forwarding the appeal record to you.
BACKGROUND
Starting in 2004 prairie dog management on the Pawnee National Grassland was identified as an
issue and field reviews were held with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Weld County
Commissioners, members of emr'lr0^" ental groups, and private iando'rvr:ers. Other meetings
were held with staffers from Senator Allard and Senator Salazar's offices. A meeting was held
in New Raymer, Colorado in March 2005 for the local farming and ranching community.
Prior to developing a proposal to present to the public, the Forest Service held various
stakeholder meetings. With input from these stakeholders (state and federal agencies, grazing
permittees, private landowners, scientists from Colorado State University, and environmentalists)
a proposed action was developed and mailed in a scoping letter(sent to over 150 interested
parties) on April 12, 2006. Approximately 235 comment letters, 430 emails, and 20 verbal
comments were received.
The environmental assessment was made available for the public to review from August 7, 2006
thru September 6, 2006. About 300 comments were received during the 30 day EA comment
period. The comments and the Forest Service response to the comments are included as
Appendix F of the decision notice.
RELIEF REQUESTED
The appellant seeks to have the Responsible Official's decision overturned, and wants to have
the Grassland managed for a maximum of 1,000 to 1.200 acres. Additionally, the appellant
Caring for the Land and Serving People ?rented an Racycted Paper i
d C
expects the Forest Service to make proper restitution for lost acres (forage) to the Pawnee
Cooperative Grazing Association.
ISSUES AND DISCUSSION
Appeal Issues 1. 2. 3. 12. and 17: Appellant claims the decision to allow a maximum prairie
dog acreage of 8,500 acres is unreasonable as is the,goal of managing for 1,000 to 5,000 acre
complexes of prairie dog towns.
• It is unreasonable to manage a block of federal,state, and private land to meet the
goal of 1,000 to 5,000 acres complexes of prairie dog colonies.
• With larger prairie dog acreage (e.g. 3,000 plus acres), there are more acres lost for
grazing and wildlife.
• Larger prairie dog towns bring plague, which is a health hazard for people, pets,
and livestock.
• Affects the diversity of the allotment.
• Affects the operation of neighboring ranchers.
Discussion: This appeal issue fails to identify where or how the decision does not comply with
law, regulation, or policy; however, the issues raised by the appellant were considered in the
analysis and are addressed in the Project Record.
Appellant states the total number of acres allotted for prairie dogs (8,500 acres) and the
maximum size of complexes (up to 5,000 acres) is unreasonable to manage on the PNG.
Appellant then identifies five concerns that could result from these numbers.
Their first point states that because of the land ownership pattern on the PNG, 1,000 to 5,000
acre complexes could cause prairie dogs to encroach on non-federal lands. The Environmental
Assessment (EA)identified this concern and included the need to develop prairie dog control
measures as part of the purpose and need for the decision(EA, p. 3). Appendix G of the EA lists
the sequence of steps that will be taken if Trigger point 1 is activated, "Prairie dogs are moving
' from the PNG to adjacent land and the landowner requests Forest Service action" (EA, pp. 255-
256).
In his Responsive Statement District Ranger Currey states, "The maps in Appendix F of the EA
show the intermingled land pattern that exists on the PNG with federal, state, and private land.
This intermingled land pattern makes it difficult to manage for a 1,000 to 5,000 acre complex of
prairie dog colonies just on federal land.
To facilitate a 1,000 to 5,000 acre complex of prairie dog colonies would likely require federal,
state, and private land to achieve. This would be accomplished by implementing the
conservation tools identified on page 4 of the Decision Notice (Binder#3, page 1744). In all
cases, the land exchanges, conservation easements, and financial incentives identified would
only be entered into between willing landowners. If the adjacent landowner is not willing to
manage for prairie dogs on their property, then the Forest Service will implement tools identified
on pages 3 and 4 of the Decision Notice to minimize the encroachment of prairie dogs onto their
land." (Responsive Statement, p. 6)
2
Secondly, the appellant states that acres occupied by prairie dogs will not be utilized by livestock
or wildlife. The effects of prairie dogs on the rangeland resource were disclosed in the Affected
Environment and Environmental Consequences section (EA, pp. 51-54). Reduced productivity
in prairie dog colonies was acknowledged; however, the overall effects were determined to not
be adverse when compared to the amount of forage on the PNG (EA, p. 51). Effects to
individual allotments (e.g, decreased AUMs)could occur if prairie dog colonization exceeded
more than 22% of the allotment (EA, p. 53). Table 1, Appendix A of the Decision Notice
indicates that all the permitted allotments of the appellant have, on average, 8% of the acres
managed for short vegetation structure allotted to priaire dogs. If an allotment exceeds its prairie
dog allotted acres, control measures would be considered as detailed in Decision Criterion 10
listed in Appendix G (EA, p. 259). Additionally, in his Responsive Statement District Ranger
Currey states, "The PNG totals approximately 193,000 acres of National Forest System land.
Alternative 3 allows the PNG to manage for a range of prairie dog acreage from 200 to 8,500
acres. 8,500 acres is about 4.5% of the total PNG acreage, which seems reasonable."
(Responsive Statement, p. 5)
The effect on public health and safety from human exposure to bubonic plague was addressed on
page 10 of the Decision Notice and in the response to comments (DN, Appendix G, p. 56). To
date, there are no documented cases of plague being transmitted from prairie dogs on the PNG to
humans. To minimize human exposure to plague infected prairie dog colonies, buffers would be
established near areas of increased human use such as the towns of Keota and New Raymer and
the Crow Valley Recreation Area. If prairie dogs encroach on this buffer, control measures
would be implemented as detailed in Decision Criteria 4(EA, pp. 257-258).
The appellant states an increase in the number of acres will affect "the diversity of the
allotment." It is unclear what type,of diversity is affected. In general, prairie dog colonies are
beneficial to many species of wildlife, insects, and invertebrates; therefore, helping maintain the
diverse populations present on the PNG (EA, p. 65). Prairie dog colonies on the PNG can also
increase the diversity of plant species by reducing the competition of grasses and allowing native
forbs and shrubs to become established (EA, p. 52).
The appellant is not specific as to how neighboring operations would be affected. However, a
stated purpose and need for this project is to reduce the potential for movement of prairie dog
populations from the PNG to adjacent private and State lands (EA, p. 3). Implementation of this
decision will allow the District Ranger to use appropriate control measures if colonies encroach
on non-federal lands, and the landowner requests Forest Service action.
Based on the analysis provided in the EA, management of up to 8,500 acres for prairie dogs is
considered reasonable within the context of the PNG, as well as individual allotments. The goal
of managing for 1,000 to 5,000 acre complexes of prairie dog towns is adequately addressed in
the EA; therefore the District Ranger's decision is appropriate.
Recommendation: Recommend the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.
3
C
Appeal Issue 4: The appellant does not believe District Ranger Currey has the right to
plan for 1,000-5,000 acre towns, which would spill over onto private lands.
Discussion: The purpose and need is in response to landowner concerns about prairie dog
encroachment onto their lands. In each alternative, a variety of tools that address prairie dog
encroachment problems are proposed. In addition, this issue was raised during scoping and
public meetings and considered during alternative development (DN, App. G, p. 39, Comment 4-
2, 6-1, 6-2...). (See response to Appeal Issue 1 et al., especially paragraphs 2-4 in the discussion
section). Several trigger points in the EA and DN considers movement of prairie dogs from the
PNG to adjacent lands, therefore this issue was addressed.
Recommendation: Recommend the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.
Appeal Issue 4a: Appellant questions that the Decision finds no significant impact to
appellant and other private landowners, because the decision would cause prairie dogs to
"easily consume most entire allotments..."
• The Pawnee Grazing Association only has one allotment over 4,000 acres, so his
proposal would easily consume most of the entire allotments.
Discussion: Maximum acres allocated for use by prairie dogs have been determined for each
allotment (DN, App. A, Table 1, p. 17). If this threshold is exceeded, control measures will be
impletilented as described in Appendix G (EA, pp. 255-263). See response to Appeal Issue 1 et
al..
Recommendation: Recommend the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.
Appeal Issue 5: The appellant states they are adversely affected. As an example, an
allotment containing approximately one third of its total acres in prairie dogs, as in the
West Stoneham Allotment, seriously affects the summer grazing period.
• Early removal of the permittee's herd becomes a necessity with this extent of prairie
dog acres occupied, thus causing financial losses. The appellant states they cannot
estimate the financial loss, but believe real financial losses exist.
Discussion: The Economic and Social Science section of the EA states that no change in actual
Animal Unit Months (AUMs) is projected (EA, p. 144 and 150). The Vegetation, Noxious
Weeds, and Livestock management section of the EA also recognizes it is not likely that any
AUMs would be lost due to forage competition, as AUMs are theoretically lost at levels
approaching 22% prairie dog colonization of an allotment (EA, p. 53). Table 1 (Appendix 1, p.
17) in the Decision Notice illustrates that each allotment falls below the 22% threshold (above
22% results in the loss of AUMs) of acres occupied by prairie dogs within a range allotment.
Trigger point 9 describes action to be taken when prairie dog acreage within an individual
allotment approaches the maximum acreage allowed for the allotment (DN, App. D, p. 30).
Therefore, allotments should remain below this threshold and not adversely affect permittee's
AUMs.
4
Recommendation: Recommend the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.
Appeal Issue 6. 7. and 8: The appellant disagrees with the bullets listed in the background
section of the Decision:
• Appellant questions why petitioning for listing prairie dog under ESA was
mentioned because they were removed from the ESA candidate list by USFWS.
• The appellant questions what requests from urban development to move their
prairie dogs onto the PNG have to do with the overall management of the PNG.
• The appellant questions the real weight a recent CSU study has in determining more
suitable acres for prairie dogs.
Discussion: This appeal issue fails to identify where or how the decision does not comply with
law, regulation, or policy. The responsible official is authorized to determine the scope of the
analysis, such that it is not so tightly restricted as to unduly limit the range of alternatives. The
purpose and need allowed for a reasonable range of alternatives to accomplish the objectives as
stated.
Recommendation: Recommend the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.
Appeal Issue 9: The statement at the bottom of page 1 of the Decision Notice concerning
prairie dog numbers exceeding the 1997 management guidelines allows the District Ranger
to increase the acres, thus keeping him from controlling numbers and making tough
management decisions.
Discussion: With implementation of Alternative 3, the District Ranger recognized the need for a
Forest Plan Amendment (DN, p. 7; EA, p. 4, 30). The rationale for increasing the number of
acres is documented in the Decision Notice (DN, p. 5-7; EA, p 2-3). The decision to implement
Alternative 3 improves adherence to Forest Plan standards and guidelines, while using current
science. The District Ranger's decision is adequate in determining appropriate prairie dog
distribution and populations on the PNG. The decision also allows various tools to conserve and
control prairie dog acreage and encroachment on private lands. See response to Appeal Issue I
• et al., Appeal Issue 4a, and Appeal Issue 6 et al..
Recommendation: Recommend the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.
Appeal Issue 10: The appellant asks what scientific information is being talked about that
is in conflict with the current Forest Plan?
Discussion: This issue fails to identify where or how the decision does not comply with law,
regulation, or policy. The Decision Notice illustrates a need to reevaluate guidelines for black-
tailed prairie dogs in the Forest Plan using new scientific information that differs from
information used to develop the current Forest Plan direction for prairie dogs (DN, p. 2). The
5
4 O
Environmental Assessment references Eisen, R.J., L.T. Savage, and M.F. Antolin. 2005.
DRAFT Predicting Suitable Habitat For Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs (Cynomys Ludovicianus) In
A Short-Grass Steppe Ecosystem. Department Of Biology And Short Grass Steppe Long Term
Ecological Research Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 30 pp. (EA, p. 232)
Recommendation: Recommend the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.
Appeal Issue 11: The ranger uses the "Multi-State Conservation Plan for Black-tailed
Prairie Dog"as a guideline for managing for 1,000 acre blocks of prairie dogs. Appellant
believes this will definitely affect neighboring private land.
Discussion: See responses to Appeal Issues 1 et al and Appeal Issue 4.
Recommendation: Recommend the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.
Appeal Issue 12: Appellant believes the decision shows no consideration for being a "good
neighbor", because large prairie dog complexes will spill over onto private lands.
•
Discussion: See responses to Appeal Issues 1 et al and Appeal Issue 4.
Recommendation: Recommend the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.
Appeal Issue 13 - 15: Appellant claims all non-lethal tools for control are useless and just
look good in the decision.
• Relocation of prairie dogs is not realistic and only transfers the problem, which only
becomes more expensive for ranchers and Forest Service control and management.
• Barriers and fences are useless. Taller vegetation will not stop the spread of prairie
dogs and an example of how far they have gone into a conservation reserve field
(taller vegetations structure) can be seen west of Stoneham on Highway 14.
• Finding private land owners to allow for more acres of prairie dogs is a very poor
idea; ranchers would not want to devastate their ranch and destroy the grasses they
have spent a lifetime building to propagate a rodent.
• Using pesticides to reduce flea populations is messing with nature's way of
controlling populations.
Discussion: This appeal issue fails to identify where or how the decision does not comply with
law, regulation, or policy; however, the issues raised by the appellant were considered in the
analysis and are addressed in the Project Record. Numerous comments were received regarding
the use of management tools to control prairie dogs. Many tools are proposed so that the best
tool (or combination of tools) for each specific action needed can be used. The Forest Service
recognizes that not all tools are feasible for all situations (DN, App. G, p. 48, Comment 4-4, 21-
1, 21-4..., Comment 39-2, 39-3, 43-4...). The EA states on Page 21 that the management tools
listed for each alternative are considered to be the most readily available and feasible
6
(�
management options currently used for prairie dog management. The lists are not exhaustive
and new management tools may be considered after appropriate environmental review as they
become available (DN, App. G, p. 54, Comment 131). A variety of management tools (or
combination of tools) were analyzed, therefore if non-lethal tools prove ineffective, other options
will be considered.
Recommendation: Recommend the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.
Appeal Issue 16: The appellant opposes any outside relocation of prairie dogs onto the
PNG (Trigger point#8 of the Decision). If requests from outside sources to relocate prairie
dogs occur, it will result in the PNG becoming a dumping ground for urban development
and the PNG would cease to exist as a diversified PNG.
Discussion: Trigger point #8 (DN, Appendix D, p. 30): "The PNG receives a relocation request
to accept prairie dogs from outside the PNG boundaries." This trigger point is a means of
determining if the PNG is at a place where they can or cannot accept relocations. The trigger
point indicates if prairie dog total acreage is below the 1,000 acre complex level, relocation
would be allowed. Therefore the issue of prairie dog relocation has been considered and the
trigger point will determine if requests are implemented. Regarding diversity on the PNG see
response to Appeal Issue 1 et al..
Recommendation: Recommend the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.
Appeal Issue 18: Appellant questions the statement that current science indicates 1,000 to
8,500 acres would represent lands that were historically occupied by prairie dogs on the
PNG. In the past sixty or seventy years there have been 200-1,000 acres of prairie dogs,
which is not pre-settlement days because there is farming, ranching, and families living out
there now. The appellant states they are not willing to sacrifice their PNG and way of life
for anyone or anything,especially a pest.
Discussion: The Environmental Assessment references two documents: the draft Predicting
Suitable Habitat for Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs (Cynonrys Ludovicianus) in a Short-grass Steppe
Ecosystem conducted by Colorado State University (EA, p. 232) and A Multi-State Conservation
Plan for the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog(Cynonrys Ludovicianus), in the United States— an
Addendum to the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Assessment and Strategy, November 3,
1999 (EA, p. 236). These documents aid in determining appropriate prairie dog acreage on the
PNG. The Wildlife Report analyzes the history of prairie dog populations on the PNG (Wildlife,
Fisheries, and Rare Plants Specialist's Report, p. 27-28). This report provides the most up to
date scientific research available. The District Ranger's decision adequately considers current
science as well as the current uses (farming, ranching. private land, etc) interspersed within and
the PNG boundaries in determining appropriate prairie dog distribution and populations on the
PNG.
Recommendation: Recommend the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.
7
O
Appeal Issue 19 - 20: The decision failed to give credible consideration to the appellant's
comments concerning:
• the number of acres of prairie dogs on the PNG that will work for the appellants,
• damage caused on the PNG by the 3,000 plus acres of prairie dogs which have been
ignored,
• prairie dogs eating the grass to the ground promoting wind and water erosion, and
• other forms of wildlife and livestock cannot live or make a living in these prairie dog
areas.
Discussion: Appellant states their comments were not considered in the decision-making
process. Upon review of the EA, it is apparent the issue of determining the appropriate number
of acres allotted for prairie dog habitat was the main focus of the analysis. From comments
received during the initial scoping period, a key issue was developed to determine an upper and
lower acreage threshold for prairie dogs (EA, p. 10). Furthermore, all five alternatives in the EA
analyzed different acreages and the economic and social as well as environmental effects from
these different numbers were documented throughout the EA. For example, the Soils section of
the EA (pp. 56-66) discloses the effects of prairie dog towns on soil conditions and determines
there is potential for wind erosion and there are also benefits from soil decompaction and
nutrient recycling. The soil section also shows that a maximum of 4.4% of the soils on the PNG
would be affected by prairie dog activity from implementing the selected alternative (EA,Table
3-3, p. 60). This section states that proportionately this is a small amount of the PNG and other
uses on the PNG have greater impacts to soil and wind erosion.
On page 10 of the Responsive Statement District Ranger Currey references the extensive public
involvement section on pages 6 to 8 of the EA. Additionally, he cites the appellant's appeal
letter stating their own involvement throughout the process. (appeal letter, last paragraph, p. 2)
The topic of competition for forage between cattle and prairie dogs was also identified as a key
issue (EA, p. 9) and the effects on the rangeland resource were disclosed for each alternative.
Additionally, the Economic and Social Science section (EA, p. 150) analyzed the impacts to
ranching operations and determined there would be no reductions in AUMs from implementation
of any of the alternatives. The impacts of prairie dog activity to all other environmental
resources on the PNG were considered in the EA. See response to Appeal Issue 1 et al. and
Appeal Issue 5.
Recommendation: Recommend the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.
Appeal Issue 21: The appellant questions that the Forest Service cannot effectively manage
3,000 plus acres of prairie dogs, without a host of problems, much less the 8,500 acres as
stated in the decision.
Discussion: The EA and DN do not identify additional or new costs associated with inventory
or monitoring under Alternative 3 —beyond those incurred in their current inventory and
monitoring program. The Economic and Social Science section of the EA estimates costs
associated with various management tools that may occur (EA, p. 145). Management of prairie
8
I
•
dogs and normal PNG operations will be contingent on annual federal budget allocations. The
District Ranger's decision did consider the financial aspect associated with each alternative
analyzed. See also response to Appeal Issue 1 et al.
Recommendation: Recommend the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.
Appeal Issue 22-23: The appellant is unsure if law, regulation, or policy has been
specifically violated; however, they do mention two laws.
• The Bankhead-Jones Act set aside these lands for grazing purposes.
• The National Forest Management Act of 1976 Section 6, that the plan is subject to
the appellant's valid and existing rights.
Discussion: The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (BJFTA) is just one of several laws that
shape management of the PNG. Other laws (not a complete list) are National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, National Forest Management Act of
1976, and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. "To summarize,
the Forest Service is charged with administering the national grasslands in conformance with all
applicable federal laws and regulations. To be sure, one of the applicable laws is the BJFTA.
However, there are many other laws and regulations that apply to the national grasslands as well.
The Forest Service must take into account all of these laws in its decisionmaking process."
(USDA Office of General Counsel. 1997. Eric Olson. National Grasslands Management -A
Primer. pp 16-17. (Appeal Record Binder#4)
Livestock grazing is only one of many authorized uses for lands acquired under the Bankhead-
Jones Farm Tenant Act. As District Ranger Currey states in his Responsive Statement on p. 11,
"The second myth is that the BJI-_IA established livestock grazing as the preferred or dominant
use of the national grasslands. This too is plainly incorrect. There is simply nothing in the
BJFTA, its preamble or legislative history to corroborate such an assertion. Grazing has been and
will continue to be an important use of the national grasslands. But it is just one of many
recognized uses and it is within the discretion of the Forest Service to determine through the
planning process how those uses should be managed and where they should occur."
Appellant states that under the National Forest Management Act, the prairie dog management
plan is subject to their"valid and existing rights". Because the appellant does not specify the
rights affected, an assumption must be made that the reference is to their grazing permit
authorizing their use of the PNG for livestock grazing. Based on the analysis presented in the
EA, implementation of this decision will not result in a loss of AUMs on any of the allotments;
therefore, the terms of the allotment permits have not been modified and appellant's operations
not adversely affected. Forest Service Manual 2200 Range Management in the Grazing and
Livestock Use Permit System, Chapter 2230.3(2) states:
2. Grazing permits authorize livestock grazing on National Forest System (NFS) lands.
The holding of such permits is a privilege, not a property right. Permit holders may not
assign or transfer grazing privileges in whole or in part.
9
0 0
Recommendation: Recommend the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.
Appeal Issue 24: The Appellant states that "with all the additional forage lost to these
pests, where is the association at least, being repaid for these lost acres?"
Discussion: This appeal issue fails to identify where or how the decision does not comply with
law, regulation, or policy. According to a Memorandum Opinion from the United States District
Court, District of South Dakota, Western Division, regarding Civil Case 80-5070 (American
Farm Bureau Federation, et al. vs. John R. Block et al) the Forest Service is not legally
responsible for damage caused by prairie dogs and is not liable for monetary damages (DN, App.
G, pp. 34-35, Comment 47-3, 47-4, 48-8). The District Ranger's response to comments in the
Decision Notice adequately addresses the appellant's concern for reimbursement.
Recommendation: Recommend the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend the decision of the District Ranger be affirmed and the Appellant's request for
relief be denied.
DYCE GAYTON LlaiNE
Canyon Lakes Natural Resource Coordinator Forest Wildlife Biologist
ant-tutvLi
AMANDA CAMERON
Canyon Lakes Range Staff
cc: Karen Roth, Appeals Coordinator
10
Correspondence Document Summary
USDA Forest File Codes: 1570
Service Control Number:
SO Formal To: Name: Mr. Gary Dollerschell
Template Title: Secretary
Organization: Pawnee Cooperative Grazing Association
Draft Street: 46001 Weld County Road 153
Line 2:
Signed City, State,Zip: Stoneham, Colorado 80754
(expected date) cc: Steven Currey/R2/USDAFS, Rick D Cables/R2/USDAFS, Karen
Roth/R2/USDAFS, Dave Long, Weld County Commissioner
R2 Email To: Tom Ford/R2/USDAFS
Arapaho Roosevelt * Subject: Prairie Dog Appeal by Grazing Assoc
Categories: R2 ARP SO
• Signature Block(s): Glenn P. Casamassa
These fields must be entered before the letter can be finalized
o-authors: ebra Scho field/R2/U AF , Barbara L ager/ /U DAF
SO formal
prairie dog reviewing_team_memo.doc
Document History
Created 03/01/2007 03:30:15 PM MST by Karen Roth from template SO Formal
Hello