[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 5, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24132-24134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-11198]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Southwestern Region; Authorization of Livestock Grazing
Activities on the Sacramento Grazing Allotment, Sacramento Ranger
District, Lincoln National Forest, Otero County, NM
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact
statement on a proposal to authorize livestock grazing activities on
the Sacramento Grazing Allotment. The project area encompasses over
111,000 acres of National Forest lands on the Sacramento Ranger
District of the Lincoln National Forest. The Sacramento Grazing
Allotment comprises approximately 25% of the range district. The
project has generated controversy on three main points; effects to
threatened and endangered animal and plant species, concern for
degraded riparian areas, and forage competition between wildlife and
livestock.
DATES: The agency invites written comments and suggestions on the scope
of the analysis. In addition, the agency will give notice for the full
environmental analysis once it nears completion so that interested and
affected people may participate and contribute to a final decision.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received in
writing by June 15, 1999.
A Draft Enviromental Impact Statement should be available for
public comment in July, 1999. After considering the comments received
on the proposed action, the analysis document will be modified to
include any changes that result. Once updated, the Final Environmental
Impact Statement should be available to the public in September 1999.
[[Page 24133]]
ADDRESSES: Comments concerning the proposal and scope of the analysis
should be received in writing by June 15, 1999. Send written comments
and suggestions concerning the management of this area to Rick Newmon
or Mark Cadwallader, Sacramento Ranger District, P.O. Box 288,
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, 88317.
Responsible Offical
The District Ranger will decide whether or not to authorize
domestic livestock grazing on the Sacramento Allotment which will
include adding appropriate forest plan standards and guidelines to Part
3 of the Term Grazing Permit. If grazing is authorized, the District
Ranger will decide on the permitted number of animals and season of
use, range facilities to be constructed, allowable utilization
standards, required monitoring and mitigation measures (best management
practices, BMPs). In addition, the District Ranger will establish a
forage allocation for livestock and wildlife for the Sacramento
Allotment. This allocation will prescribe a percentage of the total
available forage that wil be reserved for wildlife species.
for additional information contact: Questions about the proposed
project and scope of analysis should be directed to Rick Newmon or Mark
Cadwallader at (505-682-2551).
supplementary information: The Forest Service is planning to authorize
livestock grazing activities on the Sacramento Grazing Allotment.
Background
The current Sacramento Allotment is the result of the combination
of 10 historical allotments. In the late 1970's, the High Nogal Ranch
Inc. acquired the grazing permits on the allotments mentioned above.
The control of livestock management on these small allotments by one
business interest offered an opportunity to combine them into one large
allotment. Combining the allotments provided an opportunity to improve
resource management as well as administrative and economic efficiency.
The allotments were combined and the current Sacramento Grazing
Allotment was formed. And environmental analysis and an allotment
management plan (AMP) were approved in 1979 for the newly consolidated
allotment. The AMP prescribed an intensive rotation grazing system be
implemented along with a very extensive range improvement development
program. Full livestock numbers were run on the allotment, under
direction of the new AMP, for about two years. In 1983, the permittee
filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy left the implementation of the AMP
only partially completed. Between 1983 and 1989, the allotment saw
periods of very light use to total non-use by livestock.
In 1989, the current permittees acquired the grazing permit for the
Sacramento Allotment. The new permittees acquired only the grazing
permit and did not acquire the private lands which were an integral
part of the livestock operation when the original combination took
place. In addition, the long period of non-use on the allotment
resulted in deterioration of many of the existing range improvements.
With many of the range improvements no longer functional and changes in
private land base available to the current permittees, the existing AMP
had become essentially unmanageable.
After acquisition of the grazing permit, the current permittees
gradually began to stock the allotment to full permitted numbers. When
full numbers were run on the permit in 1991, forage utilization began
to exceed acceptable levels. Excessive forage utilization has been a
concern since 1991.
Existing Condition
The Sacramento Allotment contains over 36 miles of perennial
streams. Riparian inventory data indicates that less than 10% of the
riparian zones associated with these perennial waters are in
satisfactory condition, based on the Region 3 standards and guidelines
for riparian areas. The Sacramento Allotment contains about half of all
the riparian resources on the Sacramento Ranger District. The livestock
management decisions made on this allotment will be an important factor
in determining the potential for riparian improvement on the entire
district.
The Sacramento Allotment is home to several threatened and
endangered plant and animal species. They include the Sacramento
Mountain thistle, Sacramento prickly poppy, Mexican spotted owl,
peregrine falcon, and the bald eagle. The current forage utilization
levels are not conducive to moving range condition rating towards good
to excellent range condition as specified in various specie recovery
plans.
Forgage competition between elk and livestock has developed into a
resource concern. The excessive forage use currently occurring on the
allotment is the combined result of forage use by the current elk
population and currently permitted livestock numbers.
Objectives
Implement a maximum forage use level or minimum stubble height
requirement that will lead to long-term improvement in rangeland
ecosystems and riparian habitats.
Bring permitted livestock numbers in line with estimated carrying
capacity.
Develop a grazing management strategy which identifies the
structural and range improvements required to implement that strategy.
Establish an allocation of available forage between livestock and
wildlife.
Permit livestock grazing as a tool to meet vegetative management
objectives as set forth in the Lincoln National Forest's Land and
Resource Management Plan (pp. 34-36 and pp. 86-101).
Continue to permit commercial livestock use on the Sacramento
Allotment to a level that contributes to the local custom and culture
and the local economy while sustaining healthy ecosystems.
Desired Future Condition
Forest plan standards and guidelines for riparian areas are being
met.
Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species habitat is improving
and recovery objectives are being met.
Areas of unsatisfactory Range condition are on an upward trend
toward satisfactory or better range condition.
The allocation of forage between livestock and wildlife species has
been implemented. This allocation is continually monitored and actions
are taken to maintain a viable elk population that is in balance
maintain with the available forage produced on the allotment.
Recreational uses and esthetic values have been enhanced through
the improved management of rangeland ecosystems.
Authorization is needed on this allotment because:
--Where consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives
there is Congressional intent to allow grazing on suitable lands.
(Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 1964,
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, National Forest Management Act
of 1976).
--The Sacramento Allotment contain lands identified as suitable for
domestic livestock grazing in the Lincoln National Forest Plan and
continued domestic livestock grazing is consistent with the goals,
objectives, standards, and guidelines of the forest plan.
--It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified
livestock operators from lands suitable for grazing
[[Page 24134]]
consistent with land management plans (FSM 2203.1).
--It is Forest Service policy to continue contributions to the
economic and social well being of people by providing opportunities for
economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities that
depend on range resources for their livelihood (FSM 2202.1).
--By regulation, forage producing lands will be managed for
livestock grazing where consistent with land management plans (36 CFR
222.2(c)).
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. NYDC, 435 U.S.
519.553 (1973). 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
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: April 23, 1999.
Jose M. Martinez,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 99-11198 Filed 5-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M