[Federal Register: January 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3234-3236]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17ja08-27]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
San Juan National Forest; Columbine Ranger District; Colorado;
Hermosa Landscape Grazing Analysis
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The San Juan National Forest proposes to continue to authorize
livestock grazing on all or portions of the Missionary Ridge-Lakes
Landscape in a manner that moves resource conditions toward desired on-
the-ground conditions and is consistent with Forest Plan standards and
guidelines. The analysis area encompasses approximately 119,000 acres
on 12 active cattle allotments: Bear Creek, Coon Creek, Elkhorn, Graham
Creek, Haflin Creek, Jack Creek, Lemon, Lion Creek, Red Creek, Stevens/
Shearer, Vallecito, and Waldner Allotments. The area is located north
of Durango and Bayfield, Colorado; from the Animas Valley on the west
to just past the La Plata County line on the east; in T35N and T36N,
R5-9W, N.M.P.M. and is within the Columbine Ranger District, San Juan
National Forest, Colorado.
The proposed action is designed to increase the flexibility of
livestock grazing systems through adaptive management, which will allow
quicker and more effective response to problems areas when they are
revealed. Problems will be revealed through the use of short and long
term monitoring. Application of adaptive management practices should
result in healthier soil, watershed, and vegetative conditions.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received
on or before February 19, 2008. The draft environmental impact
statement is expected in June 2008 and the final environmental impact
statement is expected in September 2008.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Cam Hooley, Environmental
Coordinator, Columbine Public Lands, POB 439, 367 South Pearl Street,
Bayfield, CO 81122; e-mail chooley@fs.fed.us.
[[Page 3235]]
For further information, mail correspondence to Rowdy Wood,
Rangeland Management Specialist, Columbine Public Lands, POB 439, 367
South Pearl Street, Bayfield, CO 81122; e-mail rwood03@fs.fed.us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rowdy Wood, Rangeland Management
Specialist, Columbine Public Lands, 970-884-1416.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of this project is to reauthorize grazing on all or
portions of the Hermosa Landscape in such a manner that will move
resource conditions toward desired conditions and be consistent with
Forest Plan standards and guidelines. There is a need to move some
existing conditions towards desired conditions. Livestock grazing has
been identified in the Forest Plan as an appropriate use of the Forest
and falls under the multiple-use mandate of the Forest Service. This
action is needed at this time because in the early 1990's, the courts
determined that livestock grazing permits should not be re-issued
without a NEPA analysis. This put many livestock operations at risk
until such time as these analyses could be completed. In response,
Congress passed the Rescissions Act of 1995, which provided for
continuation of permit issuance if the only reason they could not be
issued was lack of a NEPA analysis. The Act directed the Forest Service
to develop and adhere to a schedule for completion of the analyses.
This project analysis is being undertaken as part of the schedule that
was developed for the San Juan National Forest.
Proposed Action
The proposed action is to continue to permit livestock grazing by
incorporating adaptive management strategies across the Hermosa
Landscape. Adaptive Management is defined as the process of making use
of monitoring information to determine if management changes are
needed, and if so, what changes, and to what degree. An adaptive
management strategy would define the desired resource conditions,
monitoring requirements, resource triggers or thresholds, and actions
to be taken if triggers are reached. Site-specific actions to move the
existing ground conditions toward desired conditions could also be
identified.
Possible Alternatives
The following alternatives have been preliminarily identified: No
Action Alternative. The proposed project as described above would not
occur. Grazing would not be reauthorized on these allotments.
Traditional Management Alternative (No change from current). This
alternative is based on analyzing a specific number of livestock and
specific grazing dates in specific pastures. This has been the
conventional approach to grazing analysis. Adaptive Management
Alternative (Proposed Action). Described above. This alternative is
based on meeting certain resource conditions using a variety of
``tools'', or actions, to reach or maintain those conditions.
Responsible Official
Pauline E. Ellis, Columbine District Ranger/Field Office Manager,
POB 439, 367 South Pearl Street, Bayfield, CO, 81122.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the
proposed action and the other alternatives in order to make the
following decisions: Will livestock grazing will proceed as proposed,
as modified, or not at all, on all or part of the Missionary Ridge-
Lakes landscape? If livestock grazing proceeds: Where will on-the-
ground activities occur, and what types of associated activities will
occur? What mitigation measures and monitoring requirements will the
Forest Service apply to the project? If Adaptive Management is chosen,
how will monitoring be used to guide when adaptive options will be
activated?
Scoping Process
Scoping is initiated with the publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. A news release will be issued and scoping letters
will be mailed to affected individuals during January 2008, and the
project has been posted in the San Juan National Forest Quarterly
Schedule of Proposed Actions since January 2008. A meeting with the
current term grazing permit holders in the project landscape was held
on March 15, 2007, and another will be held on January 25, 2008 at 2:30
p.m. the Lavena McCoy Public Library in Bayfield, Colorado.
Preliminary Issues
During internal review and analysis of monitoring data, the
Columbine District/Field Office has already identified the following
concerns or issues with the proposal: Livestock can affect plant
community species composition and vigor; Livestock can impact riparian
areas and watershed conditions; Livestock can impact wildlife habitat,
including habitat for special status species such as Canada lynx and
Colorado River cutthroat trout; Livestock can conflict with recreation
in developed campgrounds and trailheads.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides
the development of the environmental impact statement. Comments
regarding the scope of issues to be analyzed in the Environmental
Impact Statement are requested, and should be relevant to the nature of
the decision to be made.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be
prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental
impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental
Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal
Register.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of
draft environmental impact statements must structure their
participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is
meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,
553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the
draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised
until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may
be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d
1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490
F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings,
it is very important that those interested in this proposed action
participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that comments
and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when
it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final
environmental impact statement.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft
environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is
also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the
draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft
environmental impact statement or the merits of the
[[Page 3236]]
alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may
wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who
comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal
and will be available for public inspection.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, Section 21)
Dated: January 9, 2008.
Pauline E. Ellis,
District Ranger/Field Office Manager.
[FR Doc. E8-749 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P