[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 31, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-21480]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 31, 1994]


                                                   VOL. 59, NO. 168

                                         Wednesday, August 31, 1994

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

 

Grazing Strategies for Dinkey Creek Allotment; Kings River Ranger 
District, Sierra National Forest

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 
(EIS) for the development of an allotment management plan and 
authorization of continued grazing on the Dinkey Allotment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The action to be evaluated by this EIS is the development of 
an allotment management plan and authorization for cattle grazing on 
the Dinkey Creek Allotment (Sierra National Forest, Clovis, CA) that 
will be consistent with the standard and guidleines in the Forest Land 
and Resource Management Plan.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to the Forest Supervisor, 
Sierra National Forest, Supervisor's Office, 1600 Tollhouse Road, 
Clovis, CA 93611-0532.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Elliott, Assistant Land 
Management Planner, Sierra National Forest, 1600 Tollhouse Road, 
Clovis, CA 93611-0532. Phone (209) 297-0706 extension 4881. FAX (209) 
294-4809.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This EIS will evaluate various grazing 
strategies of which one will be selected as the direction contained in 
the Allotment Management Plan. A Term Grazing Permit must be issued by 
the Forest Service before implementation of the proposed action. 
Development of the various alternatives will be in conjunction with the 
local community, cattle permittees, special interest groups, State Fish 
and Game Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other 
interested publics. The EIS will also address the socioeconomic effects 
of the different strategies on the current permittee. As required by 
NEPA, the Forest will also anlayze the ``no action'' alternative as a 
baseline for estimating the impacts of the various other alternatives.
    The following information including tentative issues and 
alternatives have been identified through internal (FS) scoping.

1. Proposed Action Statement

    The Forest Service proposed to develop an Allotment Management Plan 
(AMP) and authorize continued grazing on the Dinkey Creek Allotment. 
The AMP will guide livestock management for approximately a 10-year 
period.

2. Purpose and Need

    The purpose and need is to develop a management plan and provide 
authorization for cattle grazing on the Dinkey Creek Allotment that 
will be consistent with the standards and guidelines in the Sierra 
Forest Plan. The management plan and permit authorization will help in 
achieving the goals and future conditions prescribed for the area in 
the Forest Plan.

3. Issues Identified by FS Interdisciplinary Team

    a. What are the effects of riparian damage and streambank 
destruction by livestock on water quality and the aquatic environment, 
and how can those effects be addressed by alternative grazing 
strategies?
    Localized riparian damage and destruction of streambanks by 
livestock may impair water quality through increased sedimentation 
(embedded gravel) and higher water temperatures. This could affect 
aquatic insects, fish, amphibian and reptile productivity.
    b. What are the effects of livestock grazing mitigations on the 
economic feasibilty of the permittee's operation, and how can those 
effects be addressed by alternative grazing strategies?
    Costs of mitigating environmental concerns related to various 
resources such as water quality, aquatic habitat, deer habitat, 
sensitive species habitat, riparian habitat and historic/cultural 
sites, etc. may cause the permittee's operation to no longer be 
economically feasible.
    c. What are the effects of livestock grazing on key deer habitat, 
and how can those effects be addressed by alternative grazing 
strategies?
    Deer/livestock conflicts, including inadequate amount of meadow-
edge fawn hiding cover in deer summer range and deer forage needs.
    d. What are effects of livestock grazing on key willow flycatcher 
habitat, and how can those effects be addressed by alternative grazing 
strategies?
    Willow flycatcher may be impacted by livestock due to nest 
destruction and heavy browsing of willows.
    e. What are the effects of livestock grazing on the historic, 
cultural and archaeological resources of the area, and how can grazing 
management either protect and/or enhance those resources?
    Social conflict between historical way of life of the cowboy, 
including preservation and maintenance of historical facilities, and 
the protection of cultural sites from livestock damage such as 
trampling and trailing through sites.
    f. What are the effects of livestock grazing on Bolander's clover 
and Invesia unguiculata and how can those effects be addressed by 
alternative grazing strategies?
    Bolander's clover may occur in the allotment and cattle grazing may 
impact the species. Ivesia unguiculata is present in some meadows and 
may occur in other meadows with the allotment and could be impacted by 
livestock grazing.
    g. What are the effects of livestock grazing on the recreational 
experience (hiking, OHV routes, campsites, etc.), and how can those 
effects be addressed by alternative grazing strategies?
    Localized recreation conflicts may occur on hiking trails, OHV 
routes, meadow-edge shade areas, and campsites due to interaction of 
people and livestock (cattle excrement--cowpies, flies, ticks and 
aesthetics).

4. Tentative Alternatives

    No action--grazing would continue at current levels.
    (1) Deer and willow flycatcher protection and management--Reduce 
cattle grazing effects on key deer and willow flycatcher habitat by 
changing season of use and number of cattle.
    (2) Intensive range management--Control cattle utilization and 
provide additional return of organic matter to the riparian and meadow 
system by using a rest rotation strategy.
    (2A) Intensive range management with riparian area mitigation--Same 
grazing strategy as Alternative 2 except it adjusts cattle numbers and/
or season of use to protect riparian areas.
    (3) Riparian and wildlife protection by short-term rest--Minimum 
level management strategy. A non-use period for entire allotment.
    (4) Intensive herding with emphasis on specialized monitoring 
training for permittees--Emphasizes a greater partnership role and 
Forest Service and Permittee by having the permittee conduct monitoring 
of cattle utilization.
    (5) Long term rest--No grazing would be allowed for five years, 
long term rest (5 years) of the allotment. Other uses would continue.

Public Involvement

    The public will be invited to participate in the scoping process, 
review of the draft environmental impact statement and two public 
meetings. Initial comments are now being excepted through September 26 
from those who wish to participate. The first public meeting will be 
September 7, 1994, 7PM at the Clovis Memorial Building located at the 
corner of 5th and Hughs Streets in Clovis, California. The second 
meeting will depend on the progress of the analysis and will be 
announced at a latter date in the Fresno Bee newspaper.
    Estimated release of the draft environmental impact statement for 
public comment will be on April of 1995. 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. After the comment period ends, the comments will 
be analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in preparing the final 
EIS. As a result, the final environmental impact statement should be 
ready for release in September of 1995.
    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, 
(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 Heritage, 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 30 day comment period (ending on the 
26th of September) so that substantive 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 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.

    Dated: August 25, 1994.
James L. Boynton,
Forest Supervisor, Sierra National Forest.
[FR Doc. 94-21480 Filed 8-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M