[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 9, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17340-17341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-8630]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Bridger-Teton National Forest--Wyoming--Big Piney, Grey River and 
Jackson Ranger Districts; Sublette and Lincoln Counties, WY; 
Environmental Impact Statement for Wyoming Range Allotment Complex

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Wyoming Range Allotment Complex (composed of the Corral 
Creek, Mule Creek, Grizzly Creek, Pickle Pass, Upper Grayback/
Phosphate, North Horse, and Prospect Peak domestic sheep allotments) is 
located in Townships 34, 35, 36 and 37 North, Ranges 114, 115 and 116 
West; Sixth Principal Meridian. The majority of the area (65%) is 
located within Sublette County, with the remainder being in Lincoln 
County. The complex is located on three districts--Greys River, 
Jackson, and Big Piney. Big Piney Ranger District administers all the 
allotments except Pickle Pass, which is administered by the Greys River 
District.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
by May 11, 2003. The draft environmental impact statement is expected 
July 2003 and the final environmental impact statement is expected 
September 2003.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: District Ranger, Big Piney Ranger 
District, Box 218, Big Piney, Wyoming 83113. For further information, 
mail correspondence to [email protected] and on 
the subject line put only ``Wyoming Range Complex.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: District Ranger, Big Piney Ranger 
District, Box 218, Big Piney, Wyoming 83113 or phone (307) 276-3710.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Action

    The Purpose and Need is to make recommendations on interpretation 
and site specific application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines 
to determine whether or not to allow domestic livestock grazing on the 
allotment complex.
    To date, the Forest Service has identified four alternatives:

Alternative 1--Proposed Action

    The Forest Service proposes to determine on the allotment complex 
if livestock grazing of 5 sheep bands will continue to be authorized on 
the allotment complex. All vacant allotment and allotment boundary 
changes have been incorporated into the complex through the 
administrative process as defined in FSH 2209.13--Grazing Permit 
Administration Handbook, Chapter 90--Rangeland Management Decision 
Making, Interim Directive No.: 2209.13-2002-4 Section 96--Delineation 
of Grazing Allotments and Section 98--Allotment Management Changes.

Possible Alternative

Alternative 2--No Action--Continue With the Current Livestock 
Management

    The current management provides for grazing 5 bands of sheep on the 
allotment complex. All vacant allotment and allotment boundary changes 
have been incorporated into the complex through the administrative 
process as defined in FSH 2209.13--grazing permit administration 
handbook, chapter 90--rangeland management decision making, Interim 
Directive No.: 2209.13-2002-4 Sections 96--Delineation of Grazing 
Allotments and section 98--Allotment Management Changes.

Alternative 3--Separation Between Domestic Sheep Grazing Area and the 
Bighorn Sheep Core Area Boundary--Close Upper Grayback/Phosphate, 
Pickle Pass, Grizzly Creek and a Portion of Corral Creek Allotments to 
Domestic Sheep Grazing

    This alternative would close the Upper Grayback/Phosphate, Pickle 
Pass, Grizzly Creek and approximately \2/3\ of the Corral Creek 
allotments to domestic sheep grazing. The remaining area of Corral 
Creek allotment would be combined with the North Horse Creek Allotment 
and would remain open to domestic sheep grazing. This alternative 
provides separation from the bighorn sheep core native herd boundary 
and would include all the management actions described in the proposed 
action.

Alternative 4--No Livestock Grazing

    No domestic livestock would be allowed to graze on the allotment 
complex. We are required in 40 CFR 1502.14(d) and Forest Service 
Handbook 1909.15, 23.1 to consider the No Livestock Grazing alternative 
in detail and to use it as a ``baseline'' for comparing the effects of 
the other alternatives.

Responsible Officials

    Greg Clark, District Forest Ranger, Big Piney Ranger District, P.O. 
Box 218, Big Piney, Wyoming 83113. District Forest Ranger, Greys River 
Ranger District, P.O. Box 339, Afton, Wyoming 83110 Nancy Hall, 
District Forest Ranger, Jackson Ranger District, P.O. Box 1689, 
Jackson, Wyoming 83001.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The decision, which is based on this analysis, will be decide if 
livestock will be allowed to graze on the allotment complex, either 
through the implementation of the proposed action, or an alternative to 
the proposed action. The decision would include any mitigation measures 
needed in addition to those prescribed in the Forest Plan.

Scoping Process

    The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and assistance 
from individuals, organizations, tribal governments, and federal, 
state, and local agencies interested in or affected by this project. 
Comments submitted on the 1999 scoping effort, comments on the 
Environmental Assessment released in December of 2002, previous field 
trips, and any new comments will be used to prepare the Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Public participation will be 
solicited by notifying in person and/or by mail known interested and 
affected publics. News releases will be used to give the public general 
notice. Public participation activities would include requests for 
written comments. The first formal opportunity to comment is to respond 
to this notice of intent, which initiates the scoping process (40 CFR 
1501.7). Scoping includes: (1) Identifying potential issues, (2) 
narrowing the potential issues and identifying significant issues of 
those that have been covered by prior environmental review, (3) 
exploring alternatives in addition to No Action, and (4) identifying 
potential environmental effects of the proposed action and 
alternatives.

Preliminary Issues

    The Forest Service has identified the following potential issues. 
In addition, through the April 1999 scoping effort and comments 
received on the Environmental Assessment released in December 2002, 
issues have been

[[Page 17341]]

refined. Your input is especially valuable here. It will help us 
determine which of these merit detailed analysis. It will also help 
identify additional issues related to the proposed action that may not 
be listed here.
    Issue 1--Effects of grazing on vegetation.
    Issue 2--Effects of grazing on watershed condition and function.
    Issues 3--Effects of livestock on big horn sheep.
    Issue 3--Effects of grazing on the Colorado cutthroat trout 
habitat.

Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process that guides the 
development of the environmental impact statement.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review

    The Draft EIS (DEIS) is proposed to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public comment in the 
Spring of 2003. At that time, the EPA will publish a notice of 
availability for the DEIS in the Federal Register. The comment period 
on the DEIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA 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 
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. 
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: April 3, 2003.
Greg Clark,
District Forest Ranger.
[FR Doc. 03-8630 Filed 4-8-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M