[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 12 (Thursday, January 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3234-3236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-749]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


San Juan National Forest; Columbine Ranger District; Colorado; 
Hermosa Landscape Grazing Analysis

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The San Juan National Forest proposes to continue to authorize 
livestock grazing on all or portions of the Missionary Ridge-Lakes 
Landscape in a manner that moves resource conditions toward desired on-
the-ground conditions and is consistent with Forest Plan standards and 
guidelines. The analysis area encompasses approximately 119,000 acres 
on 12 active cattle allotments: Bear Creek, Coon Creek, Elkhorn, Graham 
Creek, Haflin Creek, Jack Creek, Lemon, Lion Creek, Red Creek, Stevens/
Shearer, Vallecito, and Waldner Allotments. The area is located north 
of Durango and Bayfield, Colorado; from the Animas Valley on the west 
to just past the La Plata County line on the east; in T35N and T36N, 
R5-9W, N.M.P.M. and is within the Columbine Ranger District, San Juan 
National Forest, Colorado.
    The proposed action is designed to increase the flexibility of 
livestock grazing systems through adaptive management, which will allow 
quicker and more effective response to problems areas when they are 
revealed. Problems will be revealed through the use of short and long 
term monitoring. Application of adaptive management practices should 
result in healthier soil, watershed, and vegetative conditions.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
on or before February 19, 2008. The draft environmental impact 
statement is expected in June 2008 and the final environmental impact 
statement is expected in September 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Cam Hooley, Environmental 
Coordinator, Columbine Public Lands, POB 439, 367 South Pearl Street, 
Bayfield, CO 81122; e-mail [email protected].

[[Page 3235]]

    For further information, mail correspondence to Rowdy Wood, 
Rangeland Management Specialist, Columbine Public Lands, POB 439, 367 
South Pearl Street, Bayfield, CO 81122; e-mail [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rowdy Wood, Rangeland Management 
Specialist, Columbine Public Lands, 970-884-1416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose of this project is to reauthorize grazing on all or 
portions of the Hermosa Landscape in such a manner that will move 
resource conditions toward desired conditions and be consistent with 
Forest Plan standards and guidelines. There is a need to move some 
existing conditions towards desired conditions. Livestock grazing has 
been identified in the Forest Plan as an appropriate use of the Forest 
and falls under the multiple-use mandate of the Forest Service. This 
action is needed at this time because in the early 1990's, the courts 
determined that livestock grazing permits should not be re-issued 
without a NEPA analysis. This put many livestock operations at risk 
until such time as these analyses could be completed. In response, 
Congress passed the Rescissions Act of 1995, which provided for 
continuation of permit issuance if the only reason they could not be 
issued was lack of a NEPA analysis. The Act directed the Forest Service 
to develop and adhere to a schedule for completion of the analyses. 
This project analysis is being undertaken as part of the schedule that 
was developed for the San Juan National Forest.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action is to continue to permit livestock grazing by 
incorporating adaptive management strategies across the Hermosa 
Landscape. Adaptive Management is defined as the process of making use 
of monitoring information to determine if management changes are 
needed, and if so, what changes, and to what degree. An adaptive 
management strategy would define the desired resource conditions, 
monitoring requirements, resource triggers or thresholds, and actions 
to be taken if triggers are reached. Site-specific actions to move the 
existing ground conditions toward desired conditions could also be 
identified.

Possible Alternatives

    The following alternatives have been preliminarily identified: No 
Action Alternative. The proposed project as described above would not 
occur. Grazing would not be reauthorized on these allotments. 
Traditional Management Alternative (No change from current). This 
alternative is based on analyzing a specific number of livestock and 
specific grazing dates in specific pastures. This has been the 
conventional approach to grazing analysis. Adaptive Management 
Alternative (Proposed Action). Described above. This alternative is 
based on meeting certain resource conditions using a variety of 
``tools'', or actions, to reach or maintain those conditions.

Responsible Official

    Pauline E. Ellis, Columbine District Ranger/Field Office Manager, 
POB 439, 367 South Pearl Street, Bayfield, CO, 81122.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the 
proposed action and the other alternatives in order to make the 
following decisions: Will livestock grazing will proceed as proposed, 
as modified, or not at all, on all or part of the Missionary Ridge-
Lakes landscape? If livestock grazing proceeds: Where will on-the-
ground activities occur, and what types of associated activities will 
occur? What mitigation measures and monitoring requirements will the 
Forest Service apply to the project? If Adaptive Management is chosen, 
how will monitoring be used to guide when adaptive options will be 
activated?

Scoping Process

    Scoping is initiated with the publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. A news release will be issued and scoping letters 
will be mailed to affected individuals during January 2008, and the 
project has been posted in the San Juan National Forest Quarterly 
Schedule of Proposed Actions since January 2008. A meeting with the 
current term grazing permit holders in the project landscape was held 
on March 15, 2007, and another will be held on January 25, 2008 at 2:30 
p.m. the Lavena McCoy Public Library in Bayfield, Colorado.

Preliminary Issues

    During internal review and analysis of monitoring data, the 
Columbine District/Field Office has already identified the following 
concerns or issues with the proposal: Livestock can affect plant 
community species composition and vigor; Livestock can impact riparian 
areas and watershed conditions; Livestock can impact wildlife habitat, 
including habitat for special status species such as Canada lynx and 
Colorado River cutthroat trout; Livestock can conflict with recreation 
in developed campgrounds and trailheads.

Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides 
the development of the environmental impact statement. Comments 
regarding the scope of issues to be analyzed in the Environmental 
Impact Statement are requested, and should be relevant to the nature of 
the decision to be made.
    Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be 
prepared for comment. 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. 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 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

[[Page 3236]]

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: January 9, 2008.
Pauline E. Ellis,
District Ranger/Field Office Manager.
[FR Doc. E8-749 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P