Purpose of and Need for Action

United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest Service
Region 2
Nebraska National Forests
and Grasslands
July 2012
Final Environmental
Impact Statement
for Allotment Management Planning
in the McKelvie Geographic Area
(Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest)
Bessey Ranger District
Nebraska National Forests and Grasslands
Cherry County, Nebraska

Note to The Forest Service believes reviewers should be given notice of several court rulings related
Readers to public participation in the environmental review process. Reviewers have an obligation to
structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is
meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewers’ position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear
Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised
at the draft stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact
statement. City of Angoon v. Hodel (9 th Circuit, l986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F.
Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be
specific and should address the adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40
CFR 1503.3).
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where
applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation,
genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s
income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to
all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for
communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272
(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Final Environmental Impact Statement
for
Allotment Management Planning
in the McKelvie Geographic Area
Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest
Bessey Ranger District
Cherry County, Nebraska
Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service
Responsible Official: Tim Buskirk
Bessey Ranger District
P O Box 39
Halsey, NE 69142
For information, contact: Michael Croxen
Bessey Ranger District
P.O. Box 39
Halsey, NE 69142
Phone: 308-533-2257
Abstract: The Bessey Ranger District proposes to continue permitted livestock grazing on twenty-one
allotments in the McKelvie Geographic Area (GA) and to do so using adaptive management to meet or
make measurable progress toward desired conditions in a timely manner. This final environmental impact
statement evaluates the following three alternatives for managing livestock grazing in the McKelvie GA
and discloses the predicted effects. Chapter 2 contains complete descriptions of the alternatives. Chapter 3
discusses the effects of the alternatives on resources in project area.
Proposed action (alternative 3) – Livestock grazing with adaptive management.
Alternative 1 – No action/No livestock grazing. Under this alternative, domestic livestock grazing
would be discontinued on all twenty-one allotments.
Alternative 2 – No change/Current livestock grazing management. Under this alternative, livestock
grazing would continue on all allotments as currently prescribed in existing allotment management
plans (AMPs), and management would generally be as applied as it has been over the past three to five
years.
An evaluation of livestock grazing management was needed because the desired vegetation seral stage
and structure conditions are not being met in some areas on the GA. Between 2002 and 2006, vegetation
structure and seral stages were assessed in upland and valley communities (see appendix C, table 2).
Results indicated that structure levels and seral stages were below desired levels on some allotments.
There is also a need to review existing livestock management strategies and, if necessary, update them to
implement LRMP direction and meet the requirements of section 504 of Public Law 104-19 (Rescissions
Act, signed 7/27/95).

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 Purpose of and Need for Action .......................................................................................................1-1
Changes Between Draft and Final .........................................................................................................................1-1
Background ............................................................................................................................................................1-1
Purpose of and Need for Action .............................................................................................................................1-4
Proposed Action.....................................................................................................................................................1-5
Desired Condition ..................................................................................................................................................1-5
Existing Condition .................................................................................................................................................1-7
Decision Framework ...........................................................................................................................................1-11
Management Direction and Related Guidance ....................................................................................................1-12
Public Involvement ..............................................................................................................................................1-13
Other Related Efforts ...........................................................................................................................................1-14
CHAPTER 2 Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ..................................................................................2-1
Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................................2-1
Alternatives Considered in Detail ..........................................................................................................................2-1
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .............................................................................2-25
Monitoring ...........................................................................................................................................................2-26
Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................................................................2-27
CHAPTER 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ............................................................3-1
Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................................3-1
Rangeland Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................3-2
Forested Vegetation ...............................................................................................................................................3-5
Soil and Hydrology Resources ...............................................................................................................................3-7
Fire and Fuels Management ................................................................................................................................3-12
Steer Creek Proposed Research Natural Area ....................................................................................................3-14
Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................................................3-16
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Candidate, Sensitive, and Management Indicator Species........................3-23
Heritage Resources ..............................................................................................................................................3-45
Recreation Resources ..........................................................................................................................................3-47
Social and Economic Resources ..........................................................................................................................3-50
Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ......................................................................................................3-54
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ..................................................................................3-54
Cumulative Effects ...............................................................................................................................................3-54
Other Required Disclosures .................................................................................................................................3-54
CHAPTER 4 Consultation and Coordination ........................................................................................................4-1
Preparers and Contributors ...................................................................................................................................4-1
Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Contacted ............................................................................................4-1
INDEX
APPENDIX A – LRMP Direction
APPENDIX B – Allotment Summaries and Maps
APPENDIX C – Existing Seral Stage and Structure Data

APPENDIX D – Drought Management Guidelines
APPENDIX E – Bibliography
APPENDIX F – Monitoring Plan for the Samuel R. McKelvie NF Grazing Allotments
APPENDIX G – Glossary
APPENDIX H – Comments and Responses
APPENDIX I – Water Conservation Practices Handbook Direction
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1-1. Project vicinity map. .............................................................................................................................. 1-3
Figure 1-2. Allotments in the project area. ............................................................................................................... 1-4
Figure 1-3. Examples of structural conditions for lowlands. .................................................................................... 1-6
Figure 1-4. Examples of structural conditions for uplands. ...................................................................................... 1-7
Table 1-1. Classification of rangelands on the McKelvie GA. ................................................................................. 1-2
Table 1-2. McKelvie GA objectives for desired plant species composition. ............................................................ 1-5
Table 1-3. McKelvie GA desired vegetative structure diversity objectives. ............................................................ 1-5
Table 1-4. McKelvie GA desired conditions. ........................................................................................................... 1-6
Table 1-5. Comparison of existing and desired conditions for structure and seral stage by allotment. .................... 1-8
Table 1-6. Percent of each management area in the project area. ........................................................................... 1-13
Table 2-1. Summary of permitted and current livestock management (alternative 2) and current conditions. ........ 2-2
Table 2-2. Design criteria applicable to all McKelvie GA allotments. ................................................................... 2-21
Table 2-3. Summary of the effects of the three alternatives. .................................................................................. 2-27
Table 2-4. Comparison of allotment statistics under alternatives 2 and 3. ............................................................. 2-31
Table 3-1. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in the cumulative
effects analysis for the McKelvie Geographic Area AMP. .............................................................................. 3-1
Table 3-2. McKelvie GA objectives for desired seral stage (plant species composition) in the sandy
lowland ecological sites. .................................................................................................................................. 3-3
Table 3-3. McKelvie GA desired vegetation structure objectives. ........................................................................... 3-3
Table 3-4. Acres and percent of sensitive soils in each allotment in the McKelvie GA. .......................................... 3-8
Table 3-5. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from alternative 1 on characteristics of the proposed
Steer Creek RNA. .......................................................................................................................................... 3-17
Table 3-6. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from alternative 2 on characteristics of the proposed
Steer Creek RNA. .......................................................................................................................................... 3-18
Table 3-7. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from alternative 3 on characteristics of the proposed
Steer Creek RNA. .......................................................................................................................................... 3-21
Table 3-8. Federally listed species for Cherry County, Nebraska. ......................................................................... 3-23
Table 3-9. Region 2 sensitive species considered in this analysis. ......................................................................... 3-27
Table 3-10 Approximate chronology for the project area. ...................................................................................... 3-45
Table 3-11. Hunter days and number of prairie grouse harvested on the McKelvie GA, 2000 through 2009. ....... 3-48
Table 3-12. Cherry County travel economic impacts. ............................................................................................. 3-51

Chapter
Purpose of
and Need for
Action
Changes Between Draft and Final
Background
Purpose of and Need for Action
Proposed Action
Desired Condition
Existing Condition
Decision Framework
Management Direction and Related
Guidance
Public Involvement
Other Related Efforts

CHAPTER 1
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-1
for Allotment Management Planning in the McKelvie GA
Changes Between Draft and Final __________________
A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was published in February 2010. The proposed action
was modified (see following table) based on comments received during the comment period.
Action Draft EIS Final EIS
Allotments with changes in livestock management in the
first year. Livestock management changes include; stocking
rates, rotations, grazing dates and season of use.
Allotments with no change the first year but possible
changes the second or subsequent years pending outcome
of monitoring.
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action
10 15
11 6
Miles of fence 0 13.5
Number of new water developments 0 3
Background ____________________________________
The Bessey Ranger District has prepared this environmental impact statement (EIS) in compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations.
Supporting documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, is on file in the
project planning record at the Bessey Ranger District in Halsey, Nebraska.
This EIS is not a decision document. It discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental
impacts of implementing the proposed action and alternatives to that action. The Forest Service decision
is stated and explained in a separate record of decision (ROD).
The EIS focuses on national forest system (NFS) lands administered by the Bessey Ranger District. It
evaluates livestock grazing on the Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest which is encompassed by the
McKelvie GA. It does not evaluate livestock grazing activities on other allotments, other ranger districts,
or other national forests. It does evaluate cumulative actions associated with livestock grazing effects on
both the NFS lands and, to the degree feasible, on the adjacent or associated private lands.
The McKelvie GA encompasses about 116,000 acres of NFS lands in the north-central portion of
Nebraska’s 12-million-acre Sandhills region. Livestock grazing is just one of many activities that occur
on the Bessey Ranger District. Livestock grazing permits are issued for a ten-year period on specific
portions of the project area. The project area consists of twenty-one active cattle grazing allotments in the
project area. Currently, there are 41,142 animal unit months (AUMs) of livestock grazing authorized
within the project area. Allotments in the project area cover approximately 112,000 acres.
Management on each allotment is implemented through issuance of the term grazing permits and the
associated allotment-specific allotment management plan (AMP) based on the selected alternative
identified in the ROD. The AMP is the implementation document by which the Forest Service
communicates to the permittee and others the management objectives and planned actions to accomplish

1-2 Bessey Ranger District
Nebraska National Forests and Grasslands
those objectives. The allotments currently under permit in the analysis area are operating under AMPs
developed ten to fifteen years ago and are being proposed for revision. The new project-level NEPA
analysis and decision, and the associated AMPs, will guide permitted livestock grazing management and
associated activities within the project area until the need is identified to revisit the NEPA process.
In adaptive management, decisions are made as part of an ongoing process. Adaptive management
involves planning, implementing, monitoring, evaluating, and incorporating new knowledge into
management approaches based on scientific findings and the needs of society. Results are used to modify
future management methods. Adaptive options must be covered by NEPA analysis and disclosure. If
these options are adequately discussed in the project level FEIS and ROD, they may then be implemented
as needed without further NEPA. Options that are not evaluated and disclosed in this FEIS/ROD would
likely need further review to determine if additional NEPA is warranted.
Rangelands in the project area are divided into three classifications: capable, suitable, and primary (see
following table). Capable rangeland is defined as “the potential of an area of land to produce resources,
supply goods and services and allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at
given levels of management intensity. Capability depends on current conditions and site conditions such
as climate, slope, landform, soils and geology, as well as the application of management practices such as
silviculture or protection from fire, insects, and disease” (LRMP appendix G – Glossary).
Table 1-1. Classification of rangelands on the McKelvie GA.
Total Capable Suitable Primary
116,060 acres 114,190 acres 112,470 acres 112,470 acres
Suitable rangeland is defined as “the appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices
to a particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental
consequences and the alternative uses forgone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual
or combined management practices” (LRMP appendix G – Glossary).
The definition for primary rangeland is “areas that animals prefer to use and over which they will graze
when management is limited. The area on which overuse will occur before secondary range is used when
animals are allowed to shift for themselves.” All of the suitable rangelands on the McKelvie GA are
considered to be primary rangeland.
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

Figure 1-1. Project vicinity map.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-3
for Allotment Management Planning in the McKelvie GA
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1-4 Bessey Ranger District
Nebraska National Forests and Grasslands
Figure 1-2. Allotments in the project area.
Purpose of and Need for Action ___________________
The purpose of this project is to determine if livestock grazing will continue to be authorized on all, none,
or portions, of the twenty-one allotments in the McKelvie GA, and if livestock grazing is to continue,
how to best maintain or achieve desired conditions and meet objectives as described in the 2001 Land and
Resource Management Plan, Nebraska National Forest and Associated Units, Rocky Mountain Region
(LRMP). See appendix A for a list of LRMP objectives addressed under this proposal.
The action is needed because the desired structural conditions are not being met. Between 2002 and 2006,
landscape vegetation structure in upland and valley communities was measured using the Robel pole (see
appendix C, table 2). Results indicated that structure levels were below desired levels.
There is also a need to review existing livestock management strategies and, if necessary, update them to
implement LRMP direction and meet the requirements of section 504 of Public Law 104-19 (Rescissions
Act, signed 7/27/95). The LRMP states that livestock grazing may occur as one of the multiple uses on
the NNFG, consistent with standards and guidelines. Livestock grazing is currently occurring on the
analysis area under the direction of existing AMPs and through direction provided in annual operating
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-5
for Allotment Management Planning in the McKelvie GA
instructions (AOIs). The results of this analysis may require issuing or modifying term grazing permits
and AMPs.
Proposed Action ________________________________
The Bessey Ranger District proposes continuing to permit livestock grazing on twenty-one allotments in
the McKelvie GA using an adaptive management process which will help meet LRMP direction and meet
or move toward desired conditions identified in the LRMP and the project level NEPA analysis. Desired
conditions will relate to resource conditions and trends for factors such as upland bird habitat, grassland
seral stage and structure, recreational values, soil protection, and so forth, as appropriate to the specific
site. Chapter 2 includes a more detailed description of the proposed action and alternatives. Appendix B
lists proposed management, including objectives, management requirements, improvements, and
monitoring/evaluation, for each allotment.
Desired Condition _______________________________
For this project, desired and existing vegetation conditions were evaluated for two distinct topographic
features of the Sandhills – hills or uplands and valleys or lowlands. In the discussions throughout this EIS,
these terms are generally interchangeable. For some of the existing and desired condition discussions of
desired plant species composition, valleys or lowlands include sandy lowlands.
Desired conditions are on-the-ground resource conditions which management is working to attain in a
defined time frame. These conditions are the desired result if management goals are fully achieved.
Desired conditions, and objectives to meet those desired conditions, are derived from LRMP and other
higher level planning decisions and are brought down to the project level through this document.
Objectives in the LRMP are concise, time-specific statements of measurable, planned results that respond
to pre-established goals. An objective forms the basis for further planning to define the precise steps to
be taken and resources to be used in achieving identified goals.
LRMP objectives pertinent to livestock grazing on the McKelvie GA are displayed in tables 1-2 and 1-3.
Desired conditions for specific community types are listed in table 1-4. Figures 1-3 and 1-4 show
examples of areas that are meeting desired structural conditions and areas that are not.
Table 1-2. McKelvie GA objectives for desired plant species composition.
Ecological Condition Target Level
Late Seral (high seral) 30-50%
Late Intermediate (high intermediate) 30-50%
Early Intermediate (low intermediate) 1-20%
Early Seral (low seral) 1-20%
Table 1-3. McKelvie GA desired vegetative structure diversity objectives.
Structure Target Level
High 40-60%
Moderate 40-60%
Low 0-5%
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

1-6 Bessey Ranger District
Nebraska National Forests and Grasslands
Table 1-4. McKelvie GA desired conditions.
Community type Desired Condition
Hills/Valleys The desired condition is to perpetuate diverse and healthy Sandhills prairie
communities, representing both cool season and warm season species such
as needle-and-thread, porcupinegrass, little bluestem, sand bluestem, prairie
sandreed, blue grama, hairy grama, and Indiangrass. Shrub patches will be
managed to perpetuate multiple layers and age classes of herbaceous plants
and shrubs. Species included in the patches are chokecherry, snowberry,
and American plum.
To provide habitat for viable populations of all wildlife species, a mixture of
vegetation composition and structure will be provided. Herbaceous structure
(grasses and forbs) plays a very important role in determining habitat
suitability for various species.
Grass of moderate height and density will provide adequate habitat for many
birds, mammals, and other classes of wildlife. Over a significant area, high,
dense cover will be left after the grazing season for birds that require higher
structure and nest on the ground early in the spring, such as sharp-tailed
grouse, prairie chickens, and some species of ducks.
Tall, dense grass cover will also improve the hunting experience by acting as
hiding cover for sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chickens. Game birds find
security in such cover and will be less apt to flush beyond shooting range.
Upland bird hunting is an important and growing activity in this geographic
area. A significant percent of the area should display these conditions, in
which bird hunters will perceive their efforts can be successful.
Streams and riparian areas The streams and riparian areas are in, or trending towards, properly
functioning condition, which allows them to recover quickly from floods and
support diverse native plants and animals. Long-term soil productivity and
properly functioning water cycles are maintained. Properly functioning water
cycles are characterized by high infiltration rates, low soil compaction, and
minimal overland flows.
Tree plantations The tree plantations will be maintained for their recreational, aesthetic, wildlife
and historic values. They will be managed to exhibit open park-like
characteristics with multi-age stands of regenerating ponderosa and jack pine
where possible. Historic Eastern red cedar stands will be maintained with
some areas being thinned to open up the canopy. Eastern red cedar numbers
will be reduced in open pine stands and where they are spreading into native
grasslands.
Figure 1-3. Examples of structural conditions for lowlands.
Lowlands: need less of this. Lowlands: need more of this.
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

Figure 1-4. Examples of structural conditions for uplands.
Uplands: need less of this.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-7
for Allotment Management Planning in the McKelvie GA
Existing Condition ______________________________
Ecological condition is determined by comparing the existing vegetative composition to a known
potential or historic climax plant community (HCPC). Ecological condition can be represented by seral
stage. Seral stage represents where a plant community is in relation to a state of equilibrium.
Each allotment received a field assessment in August 2007 (Reece 2008) to determine ecological
condition of the sandy lowlands sites (appendix C, table 1). The visual obstruction method (Robel et al.
1970) was used to measure the density of herbaceous residual cover in the spring of 2002 through 2006
(USDA Forest Service 2002) (see appendix C, table 2). Nesting cover suitability for sharp-tailed grouse
and greater prairie chicken was evaluated based on the descriptions of quality nesting habitat provided in
appendix H of the LRMP. The average visual obstruction reading (VOR) or residual cover in the general
vicinity of sharp-tailed grouse nest sites in the Sandhills most often exceeds three inches. However,
quality nesting cover for nest sites in the spring are usually provided by maintaining average VORs of
two inches or more in the hills. Quality nesting habitat conditions across 25% or more of an area are
generally needed to maintain sharp-tailed grouse populations over time.
Quantitative information on the height and density of residual cover at prairie chicken nests in the
Sandhills is limited. It seems reasonable to assume that quality nesting habitat descriptions for greater
prairie chicken in mixed grass prairie are similar to nesting habitat in the more rhizomatous vegetation in
Sandhill valleys. In mixed grass prairie, average VORs at greater prairie chicken nests generally exceed
six inches. Average VORs of three inches or more across the Sandhill lowlands and valleys typically
provide suitable cover for nest sites. A range of 30-50% of the habitat around display grounds or across
potential greater prairie chicken habitat should be managed as quality nesting cover to maintain
populations. References to support these descriptions are listed in appendix H of the LRMP.
A photo guide was developed using the 2002 – 2006 VOR data and photographs. This guide was used in
the spring of 2010 and 2011 to evaluate the structure conditions in each allotment (appendix C, tables 3
and 4). At each point, the photo guide was used to evaluate and score the structure and a photograph was
taken to document the conditions at each point.
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action
Uplands: need more of this.

1-8 Bessey Ranger District
Nebraska National Forests and Grasslands
Rangeland condition can also be expressed in terms of its seral stage. See the LRMP chapter 2 for a
description of the seral stages for the McKelvie GA.
Table 1-5. Comparison of existing and desired conditions for structure and seral stage by allotment.
Allotment Existing Condition Desired Condition
Antelope 2011
Lowlands were 25% low / 75%
moderate / 0% high structure
Uplands were 86% low / 14%
moderate / 0% high structure.
2010
Lowlands and uplands were 100% in
low structure.
2007
On 121 acres of sandy lowlands
0% in Late Seral
45% Late Intermediate Seral
42% Early Intermediate Seral
13% Early Seral.
Cormorant 2011
Lowlands were 20% low / 20%
moderate / 60% high structure
Uplands were 12% low / 50%
moderate / 38% high structure.
2010
Lowlands were 20% low / 20%
moderate / 60% high structure
Uplands were 25% moderate / 75%
high structure.
2007
On 390 acres of sandy lowlands
2% in Late Seral
57% Late Intermediate Seral
36% Early Intermediate Seral
5% Early Seral.
Diamond Bar 2011
Lowlands were 50% low / 50%
moderate / 0% high structure
Uplands were 0% low / 44%
moderate / 56% high structure.
2010
Lowlands were 46% low / 46%
moderate / 8% high structure
Uplands were 10% low / 50%
moderate / 40% high structure
2007
On the 861 acres of sandy lowlands
0% in Late Seral
33% Late Intermediate Seral
46% Early Intermediate Seral,
21% Early Seral
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action
Less low structure and more high structure
in the lowlands.
Less low structure and more moderate and
high structure in the uplands.
Less early intermediate seral conditions
and more late seral conditions.
Less low structure and more moderate
structure in the lowlands.
Less low structure and more high structure
in the uplands.
Less early intermediate seral conditions
and more late seral conditions in the sandy
lowlands.
Less low structure and more high structure
in the lowlands.
Uplands are meeting LRMP direction for
vegetation structure.
Less early intermediate seral conditions
and more late seral conditions in the sandy
lowlands.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-9
for Allotment Management Planning in the McKelvie GA
Allotment Existing Condition Desired Condition
Eagle
Point/Lone
Tree
2011
Lowlands were 22% low / 78%
moderate / 0% high structure
Uplands were 0% low / 46%
moderate / 54% high structure.
2010
Lowlands were 63% low / 38%
moderate / 0% high structure
Uplands were 0% low / 38%
moderate / 63% high structure.
2007
On 543 acres of sandy lowlands:
18% in Late Seral
39% Late Intermediate Seral
43% Early Intermediate Seral
1% Early Seral conditions.
Jennet 2010
Lowlands were 25% low / 38%
moderate / 38% high structure.
Uplands were 100% moderate
structure.
2007
Sandy lowlands
22% Late Intermediate Seral.
Other seral stages consistent with GA
objectives.
Mallard 2011
Lowlands were 100% low structure
Uplands were 0% low / 33%
moderate / 67% high structure
2010
Lowlands were 100% low structure
Uplands were 0% low / 25%
moderate / 75% high structure
2007
On the 260 acres of sandy lowlands
0% in Late Seral
0% Late Intermediate Seral
64% Early Intermediate Seral
36% Early Seral conditions.
Powderhorn 2010
Lowlands were 0% low / 33%
moderate / 67% high structure
Uplands were 10% low / 30%
moderate / 60% high structure
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action
Less low and moderate structure and more
high structure in the lowlands.
Uplands are meeting LRMP direction for
vegetation structure.
Less early intermediate seral conditions
and more late seral conditions in the sandy
lowlands.
Less low structure and more moderate and
high structure in the lowlands.
More high structure in the uplands.
More late intermediate seral conditions.
30-50% is the desired condition for late
intermediate seral stage. 22% is
acceptable if the trend is stable or upward.
Less low structure and more moderate and
high structure in the lowlands.
Upland vegetation structure is meeting
LRMP direction.
Less early intermediate and early seral
conditions and more late intermediate and
late seral conditions.
Existing conditions for lowlands and
uplands are close enough to desired
conditions.

1-10 Bessey Ranger District
Nebraska National Forests and Grasslands
Allotment Existing Condition Desired Condition
Powderhorn,
cont.
Ranger
Station
2007
Powderhorn North, 996 acres sandy
lowlands
3% in Late Seral
62% Late Intermediate Seral
35% Early Intermediate Seral
0% Early Seral conditions.
Powderhorn South, 347 acres sandy
lowlands
28% in Late Seral
65% Late Intermediate Seral
6% Early Intermediate Seral
1% Early Seral conditions.
2007
On the 213 acres of sandy lowlands
0% in Late Seral
69% Late Intermediate Seral
31% Early Intermediate Seral
0% Early Seral
River 2007
On the 45 acres of sandy lowlands
30% in Late Seral
32% Late Intermediate Seral
20% Early Intermediate Seral
18% Early Seral
Sandlake 2011
Lowlands were 0% low / 86%
moderate / 14% high structure.
Uplands were 0% low / 50%
moderate / 50% high structure
2010
Lowlands were 44% low / 56%
moderate / 0% high structure
Uplands were 25% low / 25%
moderate / 50% high structure
2007
On the 222 acres of sandy lowlands
0% in Late Seral
33% Late Intermediate Seral
49% Early Intermediate Seral
18% Early Seral
South Falls 2010
Lowlands were 14% low / 43%
moderate / 43% high structure
Uplands were 4% low / 54%
moderate / 43% high structure
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action
Powderhorn North – Less early
intermediate seral and more late seral
Powderhorn South – Less late
intermediate seral conditions.
More late seral conditions in the sandy
lowlands.
The allotment is meeting LRMP direction
for plant species composition.
Less moderate structure and more high
structure in the lowlands.
Upland conditions are meeting LRMP
direction for structure.
Less early intermediate seral and more
late seral conditions.
Existing conditions for lowlands and
uplands are the same as desired
conditions.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-11
for Allotment Management Planning in the McKelvie GA
Allotment Existing Condition Desired Condition
South Falls,
cont.
2007
On the 176 acres of sandy lowlands
0% in Late Seral
70% Late Intermediate Seral
22% Early Intermediate Seral
8% Early Seral
Steer Creek 2010
Lowlands were 40% low / 20%
moderate / 40% high structure
Uplands were 0% low / 67%
moderate / 33% high structure
2007
On the 474 acres of sandy lowlands
6% in Late Seral
45% Late Intermediate Seral
34% Early Intermediate Seral
15% Early Seral
Andrews
Ewart
Hinton
Hockenbary No recent data available.
There is 1992 monitoring information for
Joseph
these allotments on file in the project
McClaran record.
Rio Vista
Scholtes
Snake
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action
Less late intermediate seral and more late
seral conditions in the sandy lowlands
Less low structure and more moderate and
high structure in the lowlands.
Less moderate and more high structure in
the uplands.
Less early intermediate seral and more
late seral conditions.
See tables 1-2 and 1-3 above for LRMP
seral stage and structure objectives.
Decision Framework _____________________________
The Bessey district ranger is the responsible official for this proposal. The decisions to be made for this
proposal are as follows:
Will livestock grazing continue to be authorized on all, none, or a portion, of the twenty-one allotments
in the McKelvie geographic area?
If livestock grazing is authorized, what is the acceptable range of livestock kind, class, number, and
season of use to be permitted?
What grazing systems and management practices may be implemented?
What range improvements are needed to implement the decision?
What type and frequency of monitoring will be conducted and how will that monitoring be used to
provide feedback to adjust management?

1-12 Bessey Ranger District
Nebraska National Forests and Grasslands
Management Direction and Related Guidance _______
It is Forest Service policy to conduct its operations in a manner that ensures the protection of public
health, safety, and the environment through compliance with all applicable federal and state laws,
regulations, orders, and other requirements. This EIS considers whether actions described under its
alternatives would result in a violation of any federal, state, or local laws or requirements (40 CFR
§1508.27) or would require a permit, license, or other entitlement (40 CFR §1502.25).
This FEIS is tiered to the FEIS and ROD for the LRMP. By tiering this project to those documents, it is
expected that all applicable requirements will be met. All alternatives (presented in chapter 2) comply
with these documents as well, unless specifically noted otherwise. The LRMP provides guidance for all
management activities; establishes management standards and guidelines; and describes resource
management practices, levels of resource production, people-carrying capacities, and the availability and
suitability of lands for resource management. Additionally, the LRMP provides the framework to guide
the daily resource management operations of the Nebraska National Forests and Grasslands (NNFG), and
subsequent land and resource management decisions made during project planning. The National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) requires that resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments
issued for the use and occupancy of federal lands be consistent with the forest plan. Site-specific project
decisions must also be consistent with the forest plan, unless the forest plan is modified by amendment.
This project is designed to meet the LRMP’s goals, objectives, and desired conditions.
The LRMP contains three chapters that describe management direction for the NNFG: chapter 1 –
forestwide direction, chapter 2 – geographic area direction, and chapter 3 – management area direction.
Appendix A contains a list of the LRMP direction that applies to this project.
The direction in LRMP chapter 1 is organized into goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines that apply
to the entire NNFG. LRMP chapter 2 contains management direction that is too specific to apply across
the entire NNFG. For example, the objectives for plant composition (seral stage) and structure discussed
previously under Desired Condition are specific to the McKelvie GA. LRMP chapter 3 contains
management direction for more discrete areas called management areas. Each management area has
certain emphasis that will direct management activities on that piece of land.
Approximately ninety percent of the McKelvie GA is in MA 6.1 (see table below). This management area
is primarily a rangeland ecosystem managed to meet a variety of ecological conditions and human needs.
Livestock grazing is a desired condition and livestock grazing improvements (fences, water
developments) may be prevalent.
The focus for MA 3.64 is maintaining or enhancing suitable habitat for specific plant and wildlife species,
guilds, and communities. Livestock grazing is allowed under the forestwide standards and guidelines in
LRMP chapter 1 (see appendix A).
Of special note are MA 2.1 and MA 2.2. These management areas have unique features or unusual
characteristics and are managed to maintain those aspects. Other management activities are not allowed if
they jeopardize the characteristics that caused the areas to be designated as special interest areas (SIAs) or
research natural areas (RNAs).
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

Table 1-6. Percent of each management area in the project area.
Management Area
Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-13
for Allotment Management Planning in the McKelvie GA
Livestock Grazing
Allowed
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action
Percentage within
Project Areas
MA 6.1 Rangeland with Broad Resource Emphasis Y 90.5%
MA 3.64 Special Plant and Animal Habitat Y 3.9%
MA 2.1 Special Interest Area
Bessey/McKelvie Tree Plantations SIA
Mallard Exclosure SIA
MA 2.2 Research Natural Area
Steer Creek RNA
Y
Y
N
2.5%
Y 2.3%
MA 4.2 Dispersed Recreation High Use Y 1.0%
MA 8.6 Administrative Site N

1-14 Bessey Ranger District
Nebraska National Forests and Grasslands
Draft EIS: The DEIS was released for public review and comment in February 2010. The comment
period closed on September 1, 2010 after several extensions. The forest received comments from
approximately 10 individuals, agencies, and organizations. The ID team identified 115 individual
comments from the letters and email received.
Comments were separated into themes by resource topics and assigned to the appropriate specialist or
specialists for initial review and response. The district ranger contacted commentors with substantive
comments to discuss their concerns. Final responses to the comments were reviewed and edited by the ID
team and the responsible official. The final EIS chapters and appendices were modified in response to
some comments. Comments and responses are displayed in appendix H.
Other Related Efforts ____________________________
Prescribed burning – The grassland ecosystems evolved with fire, and this disturbance regime is an
important part of the ecosystem. The LRMP directs implementation of prescribed burns on a minimum
of 500 acres per decade. Structural range improvements such as water sources and fences will need to
be protected during these treatments. Livestock rotations may need to be adjusted to accommodate
these treatments.
Travel management and recreational use – The Forest Service manages for multiple uses including
recreational activities. Some recreation, including off-road vehicle (ORV) use, has detrimental impacts
on rangeland resources through gates being left open, soil erosion, vegetation disturbance or loss, cattle
being chased or shot, and improvements being tampered with. The 2010 Travel Management Plan for
the Nebraska National Forest, Buffalo Gap National Grassland, Oglala National Grassland, and
Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest EIS is currently being implemented and describes recreational
use.
Steer Creek Research Natural Area (RNA) – A management plan will be developed for the Steer Creek
RNA. Until that time, LRMP direction for the RNA is as follows: “Vegetation composition will be
managed with an emphasis on late seral conditions and high structure.”
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action