[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60489-60490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20781]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Mountain City Ranger District, 
Mountain City Ranger District Rangeland Management Project; 
Environmental Statements; Notice of Intent

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Mountain City Ranger District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe 
National Forest will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on 
a proposal to authorize continued livestock grazing on National Forest 
System (NFS) lands within the boundaries administered by the Ranger 
District. The Project Area is located in Elko County, Nevada.

DATES: In order to be most effective, comments concerning the scope of 
the proposed analysis should be received within 30 days from the date 
that this Notice of Intent (NOI) is published in the Federal Register. 
The draft EIS is expected to be completed in March 2006, and the final 
EIS is expected to be completed in September 2006.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: District Ranger, Mountain City 
Ranger District, 2035 Last Chance Road, Elko, NV 89801.
    Electronic comments may be sent via e-mail to: [email protected].
    Please put ``Grazing EIS'' in the subject line of e-mail 
transmissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Douglas Clarke, Project Coordinator, 
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, 2035 Last Chance Road, Elko, NV 
89801, Telephone: 775-778-6127.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of and Need for Action

    The Mountain City Ranger District Rangeland Management Project is 
an opportunity to provide for livestock grazing that is managed in a 
manner that will maintain areas that are currently ecologically 
satisfactory, according to Forest Plan direction (desired functioning 
conditions), or that will improve specific areas identified through 
this analysis or in the future as ecologically unsatisfactory (less 
than functioning condition).
    Given the focus on this need, the purpose of the project is to 
bring current improper livestock grazing practices into alignment with 
the requirements of wildlife and other natural resources where needed 
in the Project Area. Also included in this project is the need to be 
able to apply the use of adaptive management when managing livestock 
and the affected natural resources. Currently, term grazing permits 
provide for little flexibility or ability to change management when 
monitoring shows a need or opportunity for change.
    In the time since the Forest Plan goals were identified in 1986, 
wildlife science, range science, and natural resource management 
science have continued to evolve. More is known now about the 
relationship between species and the environments in which they live, 
resulting in changes in management direction for specific species over 
the last decade. Range scientists within both the Forest Service and 
the academic community have also conducted research and published 
scientific papers regarding the influences that livestock grazing has 
on the environment. In many areas across the American West, the results 
of this research have been applied in the design and implementation of 
effective adaptive management strategies. Much of this current science 
and knowledge should now be incorporated into grazing management within 
the Project Area.
    The primary emphasis will be an ecological based approach rather 
than livestock administration. However, the emphasis will also include 
reponding to improper livestock management.
    In addition to the need to incorporate new or updated research into 
existing grazing management strategies, the Mountain City Ranger 
District has gathered an extensive collection of historic and current 
photographs taken from the same places in different decades throughout 
the District. These photographs, known as ``repeat photo sets'' show 
that, in general, rangeland ecological conditions throughout the 
District have improved from the early 1900's to now, or maintained 
themselves at an acceptable level for the most part. In many instances 
there is a pronounced improvement from the 1960's and 1970's until now, 
which is a timeframe when many of the grazing management improvements 
in place today (rotational or improved grazing systems, infrastructure 
improvements such as division fences and water developments, and 
improved herding or animal husbandry practices) were originally 
implemented. The information gleaned from advances in science since the 
original Forest Plan was implemented, the inferences to ecological 
condition available from the repeat photo sets, and existing site-
specific information were used to develop the proposed action for this 
analysis. The proposed action is designed to be able to specifically 
address, either currently if known during the course of this analysis, 
or identified through future monitoring or subsequent advances in 
knowledge about ecological relationships, the impacts from improper 
grazing practices.

Proposed Action

    The Mountain City Ranger District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National 
Forest is proposing to authorize continued livestock grazing on grazing 
allotments within the District under updated grazing management 
direction. The proposal encompasses approximately 490,500 acres of NFS 
lands in Elko County, Nevada. This updated management direction would 
be incorporated into all livestock grazing permits and associated 
allotment management plans as needed. This direction would guide 
livestock grazing management within the Project Area during the coming 
decade, or until amendments are warranted based on changed condition or 
monitoring results.

Other Possible Alternatives

    In addition to the Proposed Action detailed above, we have 
tentatively identified two (2) additional alternatives that will be 
analyzed in the EIS:
    (1) No Action Alternative: A continuation of the current grazing 
management without updated direction.
    (2) No Grazing Alternative: New grazing permits would not be issued 
when existing permits expired.

Responsible Official

    The responsible official is: Forest Supervisor, Humboldt-Toiyabe 
National Forest, 1200 Franklin Way, Sparks, NV 89431.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    Based on the environmental analysis presented in the EIS, the 
Forest Supervisor will decide whether or not to continue grazing on the 
allotments within the Project Area in accordance with the standards in 
the Proposed Action or as modified by mitigation

[[Page 60490]]

measures and monitoring requirements identified during the course of 
the analysis.

Scoping Process

    The Forest Service will mail information to interested and/or 
affected parties. Public involvement will be ongoing throughout the 
analysis process, and public input will be specifically requested at 
certain times. There are currently no scoping meetings planned.

Preliminary Issues

    The following are some potential issues identified through internal 
Forest Service scoping based on experience with similar projects. We 
are asking you to help us further refine the existing issues as wells 
as identify other issues or concerns relevant to the Proposed Action. 
This list is not considered all-inclusive; rather, it should be viewed 
as a starting point:
     Improper livestock grazing has the potential to affect the 
following resources as identified by internal scoping:
     Water quality in streams throughout the District;
     Habitat for Lahontan Cutthroat trout, a federally-listed 
species found in the Humboldt River Basin;
     Heritage resources within the Project Area;
     Vegetation, including riparian plant communities and aspen 
stands, which may result in a decline in the long-term productivity of 
the land base;
     Wildlife habitat for several species, including mule deer, 
pygmy rabbits, spotted frogs, northern goshawk, and sage grouse.

Comment Requested

    This NOI initiates the scoping process which will guide the 
development of the EIS. The public is invited to submit comments 
stating your concerns and issues that are relevant to the proposed 
project. These comments will be used to help establish the scope of 
study and analysis for the EIS.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review

    A draft EIS will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the 
draft EIS will be 45 days from the date that the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the notice of availability (NOA) in 
the Federal Register.
    The Forest Service believes that, 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 EISs 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 have been raised at the draft EIS 
stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final EIS 
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 consider them and respond to them 
in a meaningful manner within the final EIS.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns regarding the Proposed Action, comments on the draft EIS 
should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if the comments 
refer to specific pages, sections, or chapters of the draft document. 
Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits 
of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the document. Reviewers 
may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 
Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 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 of 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: October 12, 2005.
Edward C. Monnig,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05-20781 Filed 10-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P