[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1301-1302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-399]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Buck Springs Range Analysis EIS; Southwestern Region, Arizona, 
Coconino County, Coconino National Forests

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Coconino National Forest is planning to prepare an 
environmental impact statement on a proposal to manage livestock 
grazing use on the Buck Springs Range Allotment during the next 10 
years.

DATES: Comments in response to this Notice of Intent concerning the 
scope of the analysis should be received in writing on or before 
February 7, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to USDA Forest Service, Coconino 
National Forest, Blue Ridge Ranger Station, HC 31, Box 300, Happy Jack, 
AZ 86024. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected].

[[Page 1302]]


RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: The Forest Supervisor of the Coconino National 
Forest, Supervisor's Office 2323 E. Greenlaw Lane, Flagstaff AZ 86004, 
will decide what actions are most appropriate for managing the Buck 
Springs Range Allotment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Taylor, Interdisciplinary Team 
Leader, Blue Ridge Ranger District, (520) 477-2255.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposal will issue a grazing permit for 
634 cow/calf pairs and 8 horses. Annual Operating Plan would adjust the 
number of livestock allowed per year to resource conditions. The 
grazing strategy would be a deferred rotation system, with season of 
use running from about May 15 to October 15. Fencing, livestock 
trailing, water improvements, cattleguards, and riders would be used to 
manage the distribution of livestock and forage utilization, to avoid 
livestock grazing in some meadows and riparian areas, and to increase 
livestock control in sensitive areas. Approximately 22 miles of fence 
would be constructed, to split three pastures, exclude six meadows, and 
protect two springs. Dense thickets of small trees that currently 
impede the gathering of livestock would be precommercially thinned on 
1500 acres to improve livestock movement, increase the understory 
diversity, reduce the risk of wildfire, and improve tree growth and 
vigor.
    Preliminary issues include the effects of grazing on the 
environment, especially headwater meadows, and effects on species 
protected under the Endangered Species Act, specifically the Little 
Colorado spinedace and the Mexican spotted owl.
    The environmental analysis process for the Buck Springs Range 
Allotment was initiated on June 25, 1998. An Interdisciplinary Team of 
Forest Service resource specialists, and representatives from the 
Arizona Game and Fish Department, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona 
Department of Environmental Quality, and the allotment permittee, 
developed a guiding document for watershed recovery before undertaking 
an analysis of the allotment. They described the many factors affecting 
watershed conditions within the allotment, including elk and livestock 
grazing, recreation, transportation system, and introduced aquatic 
species. In a cooperative effort, the agencies making up the team 
developed the East Clear Creek Watershed Recovery Strategy for the 
Little Colorado Spinedace and Other Riparian Species to address many of 
those factors. Using the document to guide actions proposed for the 
Buck Springs Range Allotment, the Team developed objectives and 
proposed management practices for the allotment.
    The resulting Proposed Action was mailed to 209 individuals, 
organizations and cooperating resource agencies for review and comment 
in April 1999. From comments received, the Team developed statements to 
capture the substantive issues and developed 6 additional alternatives 
other than the proposed action. If you commented during this scoping 
period, these comments are already incorporated into the analysis. Some 
of these alternatives differ in grazing strategies, utilization levels, 
permitted numbers of livestock, pastures utilized, and improvements 
required, and are briefly described as follows:
     Proposed action as discussed above.
     No graze for a 10-year period.
     Continue current grazing management (no action).
     Continue deferred rotation and rely heavily on herding to 
affect distribution of livestock and to protect sensitive riparian and 
headwater meadow habitats.
     Continue deferred rotation and emphasize the use of 
northern tier of pastures, with most southern pastures that include 
headwater meadows removed from the grazing land base.
     Implement a rest-rotation strategy, where one-half of the 
allotment is grazed each year. Distribution of livestock and use of 
sensitive drainages are addressed primarily through range improvements.
     Implement a rest-rotation strategy on the northern tier of 
pastures. Southern pastures with headwater meadows are removed from the 
grazing land base.
    It is anticipated that environmental analysis and preparation of 
the draft and final environmental impact statements will take about six 
months. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement can be expected March 
of 2001 and the Final EIS in summer. The comment period on the draft 
environmental impact statement extends 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. To be the most 
helpful, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be 
as specific as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement 
or the merits of the alternatives discussed (see Council of 
Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural 
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3).
    In addition, Federal court decisions have established that 
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 reviewers' position and 
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp v. NRDC, 435 US 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, 9th 
Circuit, (1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 
1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). The reason for this is to ensure that 
substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest 
Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider 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: December 18, 2000.
Jim Golden,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 01-399 Filed 1-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M