Attachment 6-BTPDConservationAndManagementROD2005.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

August 2005

Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation and Management on the Nebraska National Forest and Associated

Units

Including Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment 2 (This amendment was erroneously numbered 1. Amendment 1 was completed in 2003.)

USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Nebraska National Forest

Record of Decision

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

August 2005 Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation and Record of Decision Management on the Nebraska National Forest

RECORD OF DECISION

for

BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Region

Responsible Official: Donald J. Bright

Forest Supervisor

Cooperating Agencies: USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service;

State of South Dakota

Table of Contents

Introduction

Decision and Rationale

My Decision

Rationale for Decision

Other Alternatives Considered

Public Involvement

Changes Between Draft and Final

Consistency and Compliance with Other Laws, Regulations

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

The Animal Damage Control Act

Clean Water Act

Flood Plains and Wetlands (Executive Orders 11988 and 11990)

National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA)

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898)

Stipulated Settlement Agreement for Civil Action No. 04-F-1960 (BNB)

Monitoring and Research

Implementation and Appeal Rights

Implementation

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities

Appeals filed under 36 CFR Part 215

Appeals filed under 36 CFR Part 251 Subpart C

Where to File a 36 CFR 215 Appeal

Where to File a 36 CFR 251 Appeal

Obtaining Additional Information

Signature

Supplement 1 - Maps

Supplement 2 - Implementation Plan

Supplement 3 - LRMP Amendment 2

INTRODUCTION

Since the 1960’s, the Forest Service has been challenged to balance our duty to conserve both prairie dog habitat and our agricultural heritage, both vital attributes of the national grasslands we manage for the public. Through the late 1960s and early 1970s, Forest

Service prairie dog plans called for colonies to be limited to approximately 3,000 acres through annual use of prairie dog rodenticide. Rodenticide use was halted for several years with the issuance of Presidential Executive Order 11643 in 1972 that banned use of chemical toxicants on federal lands that pose secondary poisoning risks to non-target species. In 1978, rodenticide use resumed when the Forest Service issued an environmental impact statement and prairie dog plan (USDA Forest Service 1978) that prescribed use of a newly developed rodenticide formulation (2 percent zinc phosphide on steam-rolled oats, EPA Label Registration No. 6704-74) along with vegetation management through livestock grazing adjustments in the project area. By then, prairie dog colonies had expanded ten-fold, almost to 30,000 acres. The new direction prescribed retention of approximately 5,200 acres (minimum) of active colonies. The remaining colony acreage was prescribed for potential rodenticide application to reduce prairie dog populations and to maintain forage for permitted livestock on the national grasslands. Rodenticide use was also prescribed to help reduce prairie dog conflicts along national grassland property boundaries with neighboring landowners. By the time this direction was fully implemented in 1981, the acreage of active prairie dog colonies combined with those recently treated with rodenticide totaled almost 44,000 acres.

The 1978 prairie dog direction was amended in 1981 (USDA Forest Service 1981) by further reducing the minimum acreage of active colonies to be retained (no rodenticide) to approximately 3,100 to address continued prairie dog encroachment along property boundaries. This direction remained in effect until 1989 when the direction was once again modified, primarily in response to the recent discovery and successful captive propagation of the endangered black-footed ferret in Wyoming. The Forest Service, with new information on black-footed ferrets and the possibility of future ferret reintroductions, developed a new plan in 1989 (USDA Forest Service 1989) to increase the colony retention acreage from 3,100 acres up to 8,000 acres, mostly located in the

Conata Basin area of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland. Annual black-footed ferret releases in Conata Basin were initiated in 1994 under the 1989 prairie dog direction and a separate black-footed ferret reintroduction FEIS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al.

1994). In 2002, the Forest revised its Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) that provided further guidance for managing the habitat for prairie dogs, black-footed ferret, livestock use and other needs. The 2002 LRMP and this ROD continue to direct management of National Grassland habitat for the black-footed ferret in the Conata

Basin.

The LRMP and 2002 ROD provide programmatic direction for conserving and managing black-tailed prairie dogs on the national grasslands and forests in the project area. This direction prescribes use of lethal and non-lethal tools to regulate and manage prairie dog populations. For example, rodenticide can be used on the national grasslands and forests to reduce or eliminate prairie dog populations posing health and safety risks or causing damage to facilities. The 2002 direction involves a small number of prairie dog colonies and results in minimal rodenticide use. The larger and more extensive issue is encroachment of prairie dog colonies from national grasslands onto adjoining private or tribal agricultural lands, where ranchers and farmers are concerned about losses in agricultural production, costs of managing prairie dogs, effects on land values, and risks to health and safety. The Forest Service decided in the LRMP to defer this larger issue until the States of Nebraska and South Dakota completed ongoing prairie dog management planning. The Forest Service also indicated that it would consult statewide prairie dog plans, once they were released and available, for further guidance on how best to respond to unwanted colonization of adjoining agricultural lands (Guideline H-2 in

Chapter 1 of the LRMP). The ROD specifically stated:

“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 plan, pursuant to 36 CFR 219.7. I intend to implement the

State-wide conservation plan to the extent allowable by law and policy in providing direction for the control of unwanted colonization of prairie dog onto private lands.

Should the State-wide conservation plan conflict with provisions of this LRMP, I will propose an amendment to make the LRMP consistent with the State-wide conservation plan.”

Other events have set the stage for further modifications to prairie dog conservation and management direction, including:

In 1998, the black-tailed prairie dog was petitioned for listing and protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated the black-tailed prairie dog as a candidate for possible listing as a threatened species under ESA protection (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). The

USFWS had concluded that listing of this species for federal protection under the

Endangered Species Act was “warranted”. During this period, there was considerable interest by affected States to maximize black-tailed prairie dog conservation on public land to prevent the need to list this species so as to reduce pressure on private agricultural lands to otherwise potentially expand prairie dogs. The Forest Service followed by issuing national guidance to limit use of prairie dog rodenticide to situations involving public health and safety risks and damage to facilities. This direction was incorporated into the revised Land and Resource Management Plan

(LRMP) and 2002 Record of Decision.

The Chief of the Forest Service rescinded the national guidance in February, 2004, and encouraged all field units to use existing agency authorities, including direction and guidance in LRMPs, to further the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs on national grasslands and forests. In August, 2004, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service concluded from updated population information and the extent of range-wide management planning ongoing for the species especially since conferral of candidate status, that the species was not likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future and removed it from the candidate list.

The recent drought in South Dakota and Nebraska has led to accelerated expansion of prairie dog colonies, and increased complaints about unwanted colonization of lands adjoining national grasslands. In response to these complaints and a request by the

Governor of South Dakota, application of prairie dog rodenticide (2% zinc phosphide, EPA Label Registration No. 56228-14) in selected colonies was conducted by the

State of South Dakota on private lands and by the USDA Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service – Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS) on the Buffalo Gap National

Grassland in 2004. Prior to the initiation of rodenticide use, a lawsuit was filed by several conservation/environmental organizations. A stipulated settlement agreement was reached that allowed emergency rodenticide use. As part of the stipulated settlement agreement, no further use of rodenticide would occur until the completion of an environmental impact statement (EIS) and LRMP amendment addressing a long-term solution for management of prairie dog colonies.

DECISION AND RATIONALE

My Decision

The Forest Service has evaluated three alternatives for reducing unwanted prairie dog colonization of private or tribal lands from adjoining national grasslands. Based upon my careful review of the Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation and Management Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), LRMP and associated LRMP Record of

Decision (ROD), my decision is to select and implement Alternative 3 and related

Appendix B Implementation Plan, as described in the FEIS. This ROD describes my decision and rationale, including the Implementation Plan (see Supplement 2 of this

ROD). Although Alternatives 1 and 3 are likely the most environmentally preferred alternatives, Alternative 1 does not address an immediate relief for adjoining landowners in most boundary encroachment areas. I find Alternative 3 to be environmentally acceptable, addressing the issues while balancing environmental concerns. I also have decided to amend the Nebraska National Forest LRMP as described in Appendix C in the

FEIS and Supplement 3 in this ROD.

In summary, Alternative 3 is prairie dog conservation concurrent with population regulation and management through non-lethal methods and expanded rodenticide use along property boundaries. The boundary management zones are set at 0.25 mile on the

Fort Pierre National Grassland and 0.5 mile on the Buffalo Gap and Oglala National

Grasslands. Supplement 1 of this decision illustrates boundary management zones for each unit. Although the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) already identifies vegetation management and other non-lethal tools for managing prairie dogs, this decision provides additional direction for their use. This alternative prescribes an adaptive management concept using a full suite of tools, including expanded rodenticide use and vegetation management, through livestock grazing coordination, to manage and reduce selected prairie dog colonies along national grassland property boundaries.

Adaptive management is defined as a type of natural resource management in which decisions are made as part of an ongoing process. Adaptive management involves testing, monitoring, evaluating, and incorporating new knowledge into management approaches based on scientific findings and the needs of society. Results are used to adapt management actions based on site-specific conditions and knowledge. These management actions may range from short-term to long-term (i.e. rodenticide use to vegetation management to land adjustments). The initial management actions are prescribed to likely achieve desired conditions in a timely manner. Adaptive management provides forward thinking (i.e. drought issues) and if monitoring shows that desired conditions are not being met, then an alternate set of management actions would be implemented to achieve the desired results.

In response to public comments about concerns over managing for too little or too much prairie dog habitat, I have included in this record of decision a minimum desired range of prairie dog colony acres identified for each grassland unit. This lower end of the range describes the minimum biological conditions desired to maintain many species associated with prairie dogs while the upper end falls within the projected growth of prairie dog colonies as analyzed in the FEIS. This biological analysis demonstrates how the needs of prairie dogs and associated species including black-footed ferret have been provided. At the same time, I believe this range provides for a reasonable balance of these biological considerations with the socio-economic concerns and needs of dependent ranchers and farmers. This desired condition does not require any specific future action and does not represent criteria for rodenticide use. Any site-specific decision in the future would be based on analysis specific to that project level decision.

Grassland Unit Minimum Desired Acreage of

Prairie Dog Colonies

Buffalo Gap N.G. – within Conata Basin 12,500 to 19,000

Buffalo Gap N.G. – outside Conata Basin 4,500 to 6,500

Fort Pierre N.G. 1,000 to 1,400

Oglala N.G. 1,000 to 1,800

I have made my decision after careful consideration of the scientific reviews and public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the Final EIS prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

In reaching this decision, I have carefully considered the issues, including several major ones. They include:

Unwanted prairie dog colonization on adjoining private or tribal lands and effects on landowners and their property, Importance of prairie dogs and these public lands, especially the

Conata Basin and Smithwick Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction

Area, to the recovery of the endangered black-footed ferret and our partners in the recovery program, Public support for continuing prairie dog colony expansion vs. public desires to limit prairie dog colony expansion, Information provided by the South Dakota Black-Tailed Prairie Dog

Conservation and Management Plan which addresses black-footed ferret reintroductions. File correspondence involving this issue indicates that as a condition of State support for the reintroduction of black-footed ferrets, the State of South Dakota required that the prairie dog acreages in the Conata Basin remain between 8,000 and 12,000 acres.

My decision is subject to the following terms, conditions and requirements:

Rodenticide use along boundaries under Alternative 3 will be the first course of action to reduce encroachment (as defined) in response to complaints from adjoining landowners that can demonstrate colonization on their lands along property boundaries or imminent

(1 to 2 years) colonization and that a national grassland colony is a significant contributor to the colonization.

An on site evaluation by Forest Service officials, in coordination with other entities

(including landowners) will consider various questions set forth in the Implementation

Plan of this decision (see Supplement 2) for determining encroachment of prairie dogs and the need to implement various boundary zone management options.

These on-site evaluation reports will be submitted to the respective district ranger for final resolution and retained in the official files at the respective district office. After reviewing each evaluation report, the district ranger will develop a set of actions consistent with this decision for addressing each complaint and additional documentation as to how those actions were carried out. Additional site-specific NEPA will be initiated where analysis suggests that probable action is outside the scope of this decision. The colonies are routinely measured on a 3-year cycle. After each cycle the evaluation will be updated. We expect to be in contact with adjoining landowners and to routinely be in the field between these 3-year monitoring cycles. If a colony seems to be responding differently than projected we will initiate a more in-depth analysis. We do not have to wait three years to make modifications in our actions if the results are not being achieved.

Though all prairie dog colonies within the boundary management zones are assumed to be treated with rodenticide for analysis purposes, I want to clarify that the establishment of boundary management zones does not imply that rodenticide will be applied to all prairie dog colonies within the zones. As mentioned above, rodenticide use along boundaries under Alternative 3 will be the first course of action for those colonies where an adjoining landowner is complaining about colonization of their lands. The Forest

Service does not have to wait to take action until after colonization occurs on adjoining lands. Alternative 3 states that rodenticide use can be considered if encroachment on the adjoining lands is likely (imminent) within the next 1 to 2 years. However, if a colony is less than the ¼ mile (Fort Pierre National Grassland) or ½ mile (Oglala and Buffalo Gap

National Grasslands) from the private-federal lands boundary, is not moving towards private or tribal lands and thus is not causing encroachment, we will scale back our treatments to use non-lethal tools such as boundary fencing and grazing modifications as necessary.

As part of being a good neighbor, in those cases where the boundary management zone does not properly address continued encroachment issues onto private or tribal property, we will implement an immediate site-specific evaluation report to determine what further action is needed. We will consider the use of all management tools and analyze poisoning back to a distance of 1 mile on federal lands in order to reach the goals of the good neighbor policy. Landowners experiencing persistent encroachment or imminent encroachment after treatment may request consideration of a 1-mile boundary management zone.

Alternative 3 gives greater emphasis to the use of third party solutions as a management tool. Third party solutions involve participation by other government agencies or private organizations to provide innovative solutions to help conserve prairie dogs while reducing conflicts and offsetting financial hardships. These solutions include but are not limited to financial incentives, conservation agreements and easements with willing landowners, and other tools identified in the national black-tailed prairie dog conservation assessment and strategy.

The Forest Service, in cooperation with the States of South Dakota and Nebraska, will encourage the development of third party solutions. We will not seek to increase prairie dog acres above current levels unless third party solutions are in place, consistent with the LRMP.

I will use, where appropriate and conditions allow, vegetation management tools to increase forage and/or visual barriers along the boundary management zone. Numerous respondents during public involvement expressed doubts about the effectiveness of vegetation management, through livestock grazing coordination, in reducing colony expansion and encroachment onto adjoining lands. We acknowledge that during low precipitation periods (drought) or in areas where shortgrass species dominate, vegetation management will be less effective, especially in the more western portions of the project area. However, the Forest Service has photographical records demonstrating effectiveness of vegetation management in limiting and reducing colony expansion and encroachment in the project area. There’s also a limited amount of published research that also demonstrates some effectiveness of vegetation management in the project area.

In response to those who questioned the value and effectiveness of vegetation management, we will be more selective where vegetation management fencing is used and have scaled back in the FEIS on the amount of fencing we originally proposed in the draft EIS (DEIS). However, the Forest Service remains committed to emphasizing vegetation management at those locations where it will be most effective and where we have chronic encroachment problems. It is an important tool for enhancing the long-term effectiveness of prairie dog management in many areas and for reducing future rodenticide use and costs. I recognize that any one management tool by itself will not always be 100% effective. However, the combination of these management tools can be effective under the right conditions. With rodenticides being the most effective tool in reducing prairie dog populations, other less effective tools alone, such as vegetation management, when combined with rodenticides become increasingly effective.

We remain committed to assessing site-specific needs for vegetation management adjustments, through livestock grazing coordination, prior to authorizing rodenticide use in boundary management zones. These adjustments, though on a temporary basis, may cause financial hardship for some permitted livestock producers on an annual basis. The reduction of forage utilization by permitted livestock in the boundary management zones most likely will result in an increase in vegetation. This will create additional forage as a minimum, and possibly, a visual obstruction depending on several environmental factors.

The forage will provide a food source for prairie dogs on federal lands thus slowing encroachment onto private or tribal lands. When environmental conditions permit taller growth, visual barriers are formed and conditions become unfavorable for prairie dogs to move through this vegetation thus reducing the extent or degree of colony expansion.

Many of the comments referenced the interior portions (those areas outside of the boundary management zones) and the effects that no control is having on rangeland health, soil erosion, etc. The Forest Service recognizes the need to further address long-term conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dog colonies located in interior portions of the national grasslands, but we simply are not there yet. More analyses and on-the-ground coordination with all stakeholders are needed to identify the extent of the problem as well as acceptable and effective strategies. Vegetation management fencing and adjustments in livestock grazing under this decision are for immediate and short-term needs in the most problematic areas. We will also be more responsive and timely in making livestock grazing adjustments in the boundary management zones, especially in

Conata Basin, during low precipitation years and/or early stages of drought and more cautious at returning stocking after drought. Therefore, modifications in livestock grazing to facilitate non-lethal management of prairie dogs over the long-term will be made as needed during either 1) the allotment management planning process, or 2) a stand-alone analysis and decision for prairie dog interior management (including both lethal and non-lethal management).

The Forest Service acknowledges the contentiousness of the prairie dog shooting issue, especially in Conata Basin and the Smithwick areas (black-footed ferret reintroduction habitat) of South Dakota. If shooting can be effectively used to reduce encroachment from selected colonies, rodenticide use in selected colonies in the boundary management zones could be reduced or deferred. As indicated in the FEIS, the Forest Service defers decisions on prairie dog shooting restrictions on national grasslands outside active black-footed ferret reintroduction habitat to the States. We share responsibility with the States for managing fish and wildlife resources. Both agencies involve each other in their decision-making processes. The Forest Service has the responsibility and authority to make sure that state actions on Forest Service lands are consistent with Federal law, policy, or LRMPs. In the Forest Service’s 1994 Record of Decision for black-footed ferret reintroduction in Conata Basin, the Forest Service determined we may restrict shooting in reintroduction habitat, after consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. For further information on the current regulations please consult the South

Dakota Game, Fish & Park, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and/or the Forest

Service District Offices.

Regarding the Smithwick reintroduction habitat, the Forest Service is committed to issuing prairie dog shooting restrictions in the management area to help facilitate development of black-footed ferret reintroduction habitat. However, we are deferring this action until meaningful progress is made in initiating a cooperative black-footed ferret reintroduction plan for this area, in conjunction with adjoining landowners and local, state and tribal governments. Coordination with tribal government is especially important for this area because of the large colony complex (over 75,000 acres) adjacent to the Smithwick area on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Coordination with Fall

River County will also be a critical component in ferret reintroduction planning for the

Smithwick area.

The current Forest Service shooting restriction in Conata Basin will be modified to allow limited and closely regulated shooting in selected colonies along the national grassland boundary. This shooting restriction will be modified under an adaptive management framework. It is hoped that regulated shooting can be effective in reducing encroachment from selected colonies and thus reduce rodenticide use, but if this does not occur, the original shooting closure will be promptly reinstated.

Numerous comments were received that suggested the Forest Service improperly expanded the project area to include the National Forest System (NFS) lands in Nebraska, which includes the Oglala National Grassland, given the lack of a prairie dog conservation and management plan by the State of Nebraska. The lack of a Nebraska prairie dog plan does not preclude the Forest Service from addressing prairie dog conservation and management on the national grasslands and forests in Nebraska at this time. Direction in the LRMP does not preclude the Forest Service from including

Nebraska in the project area. We recognize the need to act at this time to assure balanced and integrated prairie dog management guidance across the administrative unit of the

Nebraska National Forest in both states. On-site evaluations and reviews of landowner complaints in Nebraska will likely be conducted through coordination with landowners and interagency staff, including staff from the State of Nebraska. We have also considered input provided by the State of Nebraska in their response to the DEIS while preparing the FEIS. Also, if the State of Nebraska eventually issues a prairie dog plan, the Forest Service will consult the state plan at that time.

It should also be noted that the issues associated with prairie dog management along property boundaries are essentially the same in both Nebraska and South Dakota. As indicated above, both states recently completed extensive public involvement efforts regarding prairie dog conservation and management, and I have carefully reviewed the issues identified during both efforts.

Rationale for Decision

The rationale for my decision is based on several issues. The foremost issue is prairie dog encroachment from national forest system lands to adjacent private or tribal lands. I believe Alternative 3 provides the best balance for conservation and management of the black-tailed prairie dog and associated resources while being as effective and efficient as possible, demonstrating a commitment to the “good neighbor” and “no tolerance” concepts. My decision has seriously considered the other issues identified during the public involvement process.

The American public deserves to know the National Grasslands have limits of goods and services that can be provided. This includes prairie dogs, associated black-footed ferret habitat, and livestock grazing that occurs in these areas. I recognize the conflict within many decisions made to balance the uses on the land. I have also tried to understand the social and economic impacts of conflicting uses such as grazing and prairie dogs. I’ve struggled to achieve a management balance that recognizes the likely impacts to black-footed ferret recovery, sustaining adequate prairie dog colonies, and finally to livestock grazing and ranching stability.

This decision takes into account public comments, social/political and economic concerns, the land base and its capabilities, and current science.

My decision demonstrates that the needs of ranchers and farmers impacted by prairie dogs and needs of prairie dogs and associated species are inextricably linked. We fully support the long-term survival of the black-footed ferret and our action is highly influenced by the needs of this unique endangered species while recognizing the need to be a good neighbor to our adjacent landowners.

We will implement and monitor the ¼ mile boundary management zone on the Fort

Pierre National Grassland, and the ½ mile boundary management zone on Oglala and

Buffalo Gap National Grasslands using all the tools, including but not limited to poisoning under the conditions outlined. I believe this will allow us to catch up with our management and demonstrate we can reduce encroachment with the ¼ and ½ mile or less boundary management zone and maintain satisfactory prairie dog acreage on National

Grasslands.

Our goal is to be good neighbors, and in sharing the “no tolerance” concept, we intend to implement an aggressive control policy using all available management tools in dealing with the unwanted colonization on adjacent private or tribal lands while at the same time insuring we provide habitat for prairie dogs and related species. If we find there are certain colonies that are chronic encroachment problems we will implement an immediate site-specific evaluation report, with landowners input, to determine what further action is needed. We will consider the use of all management tools and analyze poisoning back to a distance of 1 mile on federal lands in order to reach the goals of the good neighbor policy. My rationale for this is that monitoring demonstrates that we have considerably expanded prairie dog populations over time, and have the capability and flexibility to manage for fewer prairie dogs along private or tribal land boundaries. The

Forest has also learned much about black-footed ferret recovery and we have through our years of monitoring and testing of predictive models, a sense of what it takes to maintain a healthy population of black-footed ferrets that my decision reflects. I am confident that very few, if any, situations will arise that will need this additional analysis and NEPA, that we can maintain a reasonable acreage of prairie dog habitat without encroaching on private or tribal adjacent lands.

The Forest Service has demonstrated its commitment to black-footed ferret and prairie dog conservation as evidenced by the most successful national recovery efforts to date for the endangered black-footed ferret and a remarkable comeback for prairie dogs on this

Forest’s National Grasslands. But for the support of local people, this would not likely have occurred. However, expanding prairie dog populations without limits comes with high social and environment costs that are inextricably linked. For example, the LRMP makes it clear that if the Forest Service were to only emphasize conservation for prairie dogs, the unacceptable tradeoff would be the loss of habitat for some other wildlife species, and impacts to other resources.

The LRMP is centrally designed around a desirable range of vegetative structure conditions that will maintain the biodiversity potential of these grasslands while providing for important agricultural based goods and services, equally vital to this nation’s welfare. If prairie dog populations expand to the point of being considered a nuisance by local citizens, this not only threatens potential support for this and other related species, but impacts private landowner interests affecting relationships that are vital in the Forest Service carrying out it’s land stewardship responsibilities. My decision, which I believe is in the best interests of our neighboring landowners and prairie dogs, is to reduce encroachment (as defined) onto private or tribal lands where the adjacent landowner does not want them. Further, in response to those commentors advocating more prairie dog acres and those wanting less, I have clarified a minimum desired acreage of prairie dogs which is in keeping with the LRMP’s original focus on maintaining a diversity of vegetation on the Grasslands.

The LRMP identified that the National Grasslands would manage for black-footed ferrets and more prairie dog colonies and acres than in the past. I have identified the minimum desired range of prairie dog colony acres, which includes Conata Basin. This desired acreage in Conata Basin is based on acreage-density needs to maintain a 200 ferret family rating on Federal lands capable of supporting at least 100 breeding adults. We have not achieved the highest prairie dog densities except in continued high-rainfall years, thus the need to be above 12,500 acres. I also recognize the potential to provide many more acres of black-footed ferret habitat. We received extensive comments from the public to provide this greater level of black-footed ferret habitat and the ESA under section 7(a)(1) requires that Federal Agencies utilize their authorities for the conservation of federally listed species.

The State of South Dakota’s Prairie Dog Conservation and Management Plan points to

SDCL 41-11-15 which limits the participation of the State Departments of Agriculture and Game, Fish & Parks in the reintroduction of black-footed ferrets if certain conditions are not met. One of those 5 conditions noted in this state statute states “The existing U.S.

Forest Service prairie dog management plan for the Conata Basin, Buffalo Gap National

Grasslands shall be directly adhered to, and if future increases in prairie dog acres are needed, a funding mechanism shall be established to provide financial compensation to landowners suffering lost income”. Due to this statute requirement, coupled with substantial public comments during the formulation of the State Conservation and

Management Plan, it is the State’s position that an incentive program for Conata Basin must be in place prior to management actions that would raise the stated minimum acreage of prairie dog colonies within Conata Basin above the minimum 12,500 acres.

The Revised LRMP has superseded the prairie dog management plan referenced in the

State legislation. The LRMP Record of Decision states “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 plan, pursuant to 36 CFR 219.7. I intend to implement the State-wide conservation plan to the extent allowable by law and policy in providing direction for the control of unwanted colonization of prairie dog onto private lands. Should the State-wide conservation plan conflict with provisions of this LRMP, I will propose an amendment to make the LRMP consistent with the State-wide conservation plan”.

I have carefully considered the State of South Dakota’s Prairie Dog Conservation and

Management Plan and incorporated applicable elements of this Plan into Alternative 2 and 3, to the extent allowable by law and policy while providing for multiple use objectives. We have pursued and/or implemented the following options available to us to meet the above direction:

The Forest Service has provided comprehensive input for consideration to the

State Plan during public review on multiple occasions.

The Forest Service has agreed with most major objectives (20 of 24 objectives) of the South Dakota State Prairie Dog Conservation and Management Plan (see

FEIS Appendix H).

The Forest Service has proposed an amendment to the LRMP in both Alternatives

2 and 3 (see FEIS Appendix C).

The National Forest Management Act regulations (36 CFR Part 219.19) also identify the need to select “management indicator species” to help estimate the effects of management activities on other species of major biological communities. Black-tailed prairie dog colonies and the diversity of wildlife species found in them certainly represent a major biological community on the national grasslands in the project area, and the black-tailed prairie dog, itself, was identified in the LRMP as the management indicator species for the community.

In order to meet MIS objectives set forth in the LRMP, the width and certain management requirements within the boundary management zone were adjusted.

The ESA under section 7(a)(1) requires that Federal Agencies utilize their authorities for the conservation of federally listed species. The black-footed ferret minimum threshold for Conata Basin is maintaining a 200 ferret family rating on

Federal lands capable of supporting at least 100 breeding adults. Alternative 3 provides a strong probability that these thresholds can be met even if low prairie dog densities are experienced due to low precipitation periods (drought) across the entire Conata Basin ferret area.

The U.S. Forest Service and Nebraska National Forest specifically, support the States of

South Dakota and Nebraska being proactive and developing their own prairie dog conservation plans. We have provided such letters of support to both States. Currently

Nebraska is working towards a State prairie dog management plan. Components of the

South Dakota prairie dog conservation plan have been incorporated to the extent possible through this Amendment, while meeting the overall multiple use objectives established in the LRMP.

We recognize the profit-orientated objectives on private lands, especially on agricultural private lands. National Forests and Grasslands have different objectives than most private lands. Multiple-use of Federal lands, with a variety of laws and regulations, expectations and outcomes, has guided us to another end point. We are still in strong agreement to be good neighbors and to limit our activities so they don’t impact another person’s property. On National Grasslands our management is determined through full and open public processes and review, which we have completed here.

OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Alternative 1 is our current management following current LRMP direction for prairie dog conservation and management that relies primarily on non-lethal management tools, such as landownership adjustment, vegetation management, and live-trapping and relocation of prairie dogs. My rational for not selecting Alternative 1 is this alternative shows an increase in prairie dog acreage across the planning area, especially during the recent drought, and we have found that our current management does not address an immediate relief for adjoining landowners in most boundary encroachment areas.

Alternative 2 expands the use of rodenticide, along with non-lethal management tools, to reduce and manage prairie dog populations along national grassland boundaries. Under this alternative, rodenticide and limited shooting can be authorized in boundary management zones that are up to 1-mile wide along national grassland boundaries. All rodenticide use in these zones would be in response to complaints after on-site evaluations. My rationale for not selecting Alternative 2 is as follows:

This alternative raises viability concerns for the prairie dog and burrowing owl on the Fort Pierre and Oglala Geographic Areas. If you assume that all prairie dog colonies within these zones would eventually be treated with rodenticide because of encroachment issues, prairie dog populations on the Buffalo Gap (outside

Conata Basin), Oglala, and Fort Pierre National Grasslands would be severely reduced or extirpated (1,200 acres, 80 acres and 0 acres respectively). Adverse determinations for the burrowing owl and black-tailed prairie dog on the Fort

Pierre and Oglala National Grasslands are documented in the Biological

Evaluation (Appendix E of the DEIS). Both of these species are designated

“sensitive” by Region 2 of the Forest Service. Under USDA Departmental

Regulation 9500-4, National Forest Management Act regulations (36 CFR Part

219) and Forest Service Manual 2670, the Forest Service is to provide habitat on the national grasslands and forests for viable populations of all existing native wildlife species. As prescribed in Forest Service Manual 2670, it is also the policy of the Forest Service to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive species.

It’s important to point out that the adverse biological determinations for black-tailed prairie dog and the burrowing owl were based on concerns regarding the viability of local populations of these species on the Fort Pierre and Oglala

National Grasslands. The adverse determinations were not based on concerns over a loss of species viability (rangewide) or a trend towards federal listing for either of the species. It is highly unlikely that the potential loss of 1,340 and

2,140 acres of prairie dog colonies on the Fort Pierre and Oglala National

Grasslands, respectively, would result in a loss of species viability or a trend towards federal listing for either species.

The National Forest Management Act regulations (36 CFR Part 219.19) also identify the need to select “management indicator species” to help estimate the effects of management activities on other species of major biological communities. Black-tailed prairie dog colonies and the diversity of wildlife species found in them certainly represent a major biological community on the national grasslands in the project area, and the black-tailed prairie dog, itself, was identified in the LRMP as the management indicator species for the community.

In order to meet MIS objectives set forth in the LRMP, the width and certain management requirements within the boundary management zone were adjusted.

The ESA under section 7(a)(1) requires that Federal Agencies utilize their authorities for the conservation of federally listed species. The black-footed ferret minimum threshold for Conata Basin is maintaining a 200 ferret family rating on

Federal lands capable of supporting at least 100 breeding adults. Alternative 3 provides a strong probability that these thresholds can be met even if low prairie dog densities are experienced due to low precipitation periods (drought) across the entire Conata Basin ferret area.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

We have met one-on-one and/or attended meetings with various government agencies, elected officials, State and County officials, environmental representatives, and private landowners. I have considered all the comments, issues and discussions made during this participation process. However, it should be recognized that participation in this process does not automatically equal full agreement by the Forest Service and those other entities.

Comments submitted are considered with many other factors and together are seriously evaluated to provide basis for my decision(s).

A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a DEIS was published in the Federal Register on

November 1, 2004. On November 5, 2004, letters were sent to over 2,000 parties, including Federal, state, and local agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; landowners in the vicinity of the project; local libraries, media; and other stakeholders in the region who had indicated an interest in the project. This outreach informed them of the NOI and the 30-day comment period (see

Chapter 4, 4.2, Distribution List). Since then, Forest Service officials have met or contacted various individuals, groups, tribes, state agencies, local agencies, and other federal agencies with an interest in prairie dog conservation and management on NFS lands. This includes officials from USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the State of South Dakota, both cooperating agencies as indicated in the Federal

Register in a December 10, 2004, correction to the earlier Notice of Intent. The State of

Nebraska elected not to formally participate as a “cooperating agency” but still has the opportunity to fully participate and provide recommendations and comments.

The Draft EIS was filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on February nd

, 2005, and a Notice of Availability that the DEIS was available for review and comment was published on March 4, 2005. The same day, letters were sent to appropriate federal, state, and local agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes;

newspapers; public libraries; media; and other interested parties informing them of the

DEIS and comment period. The comment period on the Draft EIS closed on April 18 th

2005. Over 14,000 comment letters and emails were received from federal, state, and local agencies, as well as interested organizations, and individuals. The content of the letters and emails was analyzed to systematically identify substantive comments for which a written response was needed. The written comments and responses to them are included in Chapter 5 of the FEIS.

Commentors on the Draft EIS expressed concerns that were grouped into 10 categories, plus a miscellaneous category. The greatest number of comments related to the (1) analysis already conducted, or yet needed, to support a decision. Other focused topics included: (2) boundary management zones, or “buffers,” (3) black-footed ferrets, (4) economics, (5) grazing, (6) law, regulation and policy, (7) private land issues, (8) resource damage, (9) rodenticide use, and (10) shooting.

Communications Plan--A communication plan was drafted in November, 2004 that identified key stakeholders and assigned Forest staff to make personal contacts with each to discuss the purpose and need for the EIS and possible alternatives. Key stakeholders included South Dakota and Nebraska elected officials at the federal and state levels as well as locally elected officials (county commissioners) in those counties containing lands within the project area. In addition, Forest staff personally contacted the directors of the Departments of Agriculture in each state and the Game, Fish and Parks (SD) and

Game and Parks Commission (NE).

Personal contacts with the Oglala Sioux and Lower Brule Tribal chairpersons were assigned to the appropriate Buffalo Gap and Fort Pierre National Grassland rangers, while district staff individually contacted grazing permittees. A representative of the parties to the lawsuit to stop rodenticide use in the fall of 2004 was also identified and contacted individually.

The States of South Dakota and Nebraska recently completed public involvement programs addressing prairie dog conservation and management across each state.

Comments from both efforts have been analyzed and documented, and Forest Service officials have also reviewed this information to better understand the issues, from a statewide perspective. The Nebraska and South Dakota public involvement information is available for review at the Forest Supervisor’s Office in Chadron, Nebraska.

The State of South Dakota, as a cooperating agency, represented the individuals and counties that participated in their process. This occurred through the State developing a state prairie dog conservation plan, with full public involvement and legislation. Other ways also included numerous field and office collaborative sessions both one-on-one and with other individuals, agencies and groups.

The Fall River County (South Dakota) Commission submitted “The Fall River County

Prairie Dog Conservation Act for National Grasslands” and requested that the Forest

Service consider the Act as an alternative. The Act specified a one-mile prairie dog free zone and limitations on prairie dog colony acreages on national grasslands. Two items occurred with respect to this request. Fall River County submitted their alternative to the

State during their legislative process and as part of the State public involvement process.

The…