[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 210 (Monday, November 1, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63350-63352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24295]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Conservation and Management on the 
Nebraska National Forest and Associated Units

AGENCY: USDA Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) for black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) 
conservation and management on the Nebraska National Forest and 
associated units (NNF). The proposed action will tier to the Final EIS 
for the 2002 Revised Nebraska National Forest Land and Resource 
Management Plan (LRMP). The proposed action will utilize and adaptive 
management strategy to guide implementation of current LRMP direction 
for black-tailed prairie dogs (hereafter referred to as prairie dog) 
and additional new direction for reducing unwanted prairie dog 
colonization on agricultural lands adjoining National Forest System 
(NFS) lands. The proposed action is consistent with the commitment to 
be a good neighbor while continuing to conserve prairie dog and 
associated wildlife as prescribed in the LRMP. This action may require 
an amendment to the LRMP. The NNF includes the Buffalo Gap and Fort 
Pierre National Grasslands in South Dakota and the Oglala National 
Grassland, Nebraska National Forest and Samuel R. McKelvie National 
Forest in Nebraska.

DATES: Written comments must be received within 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register. The Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (DEIS) is expected January, 2005 and the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (FEIS) is expected June, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the proposed action must be sent to 
Donald J. Bright, Forest Supervisor, USDA Forest Service, 125 North 
Main, Chadron, Nebraska 69337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William M. Perry, Team Leader, USDA 
Forest Service, at POB 425, Wall, South Dakota, or call (605) 279-2125.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Action

    The LRMP provides general guidance and direction for conserving and 
managing black-tailed prairie dogs on NFS lands. This guidance and 
direction addresses use of rodenticides, landownership adjustment, 
vegetation management, livestock grazing, prairie dog shooting/hunting, 
and other management options to either expand or limit growth of 
prairie dog populations and colonies on NFS lands. A guideline under 
animal damage management in the LRMP (p. 1-21) directs the Forest 
Service to consult statewide prairie dog management plans for 
additional guidance on the appropriate response to complaints of 
unwanted prairie dog colonization on adjacent agricultural lands. The 
Record of Decision (ROD) for the LRMP stated that the Forest Service 
intended to implement state-wide prairie dog management plans to the 
extent allowable by law and policy in providing direction for the 
control of unwanted prairie dog colonization on adjacent lands through 
a LRMP amendment, if necessary.
    Since the July, 2002 ROD, several events have occurred that 
influence the management of prairie dogs and make this proposal timely:
    1. In the August 12, 2004, Federal Register, the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (FWS) evaluated the black-tailed prairie dog for 
protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). FWS found that a 
proposed rule to list the black-tailed prairie dog is not warranted, 
and the black-tailed prairie dog is no longer considered a candidate 
species for listing.

[[Page 63351]]

    2. The South Dakota prairie dog management plan is in the final 
stages of completion and awaiting approval. It is unlikely that the 
State of Nebraska will issue a statewide prairie dog management plan, 
at least in the foreseeable future.
    3. Extended drought conditions have increased prairie dog colony 
expansion, prairie dog movement, and unwanted colonization of adjacent 
lands.
    4. In response to lethal prairie dog control conducted by USDA 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in the fall of 2004, 
several conservation organizations expressed concern over the effects 
of lethal prairie dog control on the Conata Basin black-footed ferret 
population and other associated wildlife.

Proposed Action

    The Forest Service is proposing an adaptive management approach to 
guide implementation of current LRMP direction for prairie dogs and 
additional new direction for reducing unwanted prairie dog colonization 
on adjacent agricultural lands. This proposed action will apply to all 
NFS lands administered by NNF. This proposed action may require an 
amendment to the LRMP. This proposed action may adjust direction 
regarding the use of lethal and non-lethal control methods while 
continuing to make progress in meeting the conservation goals, 
objectives and direction in the LRMP for prairie dogs and associated 
wildlife. The Forest Service intends to develop criteria to determine 
when, where, and how adaptive management may be used.

Preliminary Issues

    The Forest Service has considerable experience conserving and 
managing prairie dogs and related issues on NFS lands. As a minimum, 
the following issues are anticipated:
    <bullet> Unwanted prairie dog colonization on adjacent lands and 
effects on landowners;
    <bullet> Conservation of black-tailed prairie dogs, a management 
indicator species and Region 2 sensitive species;
    <bullet> The importance of prairie dogs and these public lands, 
especially the Conata Basin/Badlands Ferret Reintroduction Area, to the 
recovery of the endangered black-footed ferret;
    <bullet> Effects on other wildlife species associated with prairie 
dogs;
    <bullet> Effects on livestock grazing permittees;
    <bullet> Humane treatment of prairie dogs and other associated 
wildlife;
    <bullet> Costs and effectiveness of management strategies.

Alternatives

    Possible alternatives for the conservation and management of 
prairie dogs while reducing their movement from NFS lands and unwanted 
colonization of adjacent lands may include but are not limited to the 
following:
    <bullet> Continue implementation of current LRMP direction for 
prairie dogs on a case-by-case basis. Only non-lethal strategies would 
be used in response to unwanted prairie dog colonization on adjacent 
agricultural lands (no action alternative);
    <bullet> Continue implementation of current LRMP direction for 
prairie dogs and develop a LRMP amendment and implementation plan that 
are in full accordance with state prairie dog management plans or 
recommendations. This may require an amendment to the LRMP;
    <bullet> Use an adaptive management strategy to guide 
implementation of prairie dog conservation and management direction in 
the current LRMP and additional new direction for reducing unwanted 
prairie dog colonization on adjacent agricultural lands. This will 
include appropriate management recommendations from the States of South 
Dakota and Nebraska, and this may require an amendment to the LRMP.

Responsible Official

    Donald J. Bright, Forest Supervisor, USDA Forest Service, 125 North 
Main Street, Chadron, Nebraska 69337.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is not a decision 
document. The purpose of the DEIS is to disclose the direct, indirect, 
and cumulative effects of a proposed action and other alternative 
actions that are analyzed. After allowing the public an opportunity to 
comment on the specific activities described in the alternatives, the 
Forest Service reviews the proposed action, other alternatives, and the 
environmental consequences in order to make the following decisions:
    1. Determine whether an implementation plan is needed to guide 
management aimed at reducing conflicts resulting from prairie dog 
movement from NFS lands onto adjacent private lands;
    2. If an implementation plan is needed, determine when, where, and 
how management tools will be applied and monitored;
    3. Determine whether an amendment to the LRMP is needed to adjust 
the guidance for prairie dog management.

Scoping Process

    The Forest Service will be consulting with federal, state, local 
agencies, tribes, and other individuals or organizations that may be 
interested in or affected by the proposal. Other federal and state 
agencies will have cooperating agency status.

Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides 
the development of the environmental impact statement. Comments should 
focus on the nature of the action proposed and should be relevant to 
the decision under consideration. Comments received from the public 
will be evaluated for significant issues and used to assist in the 
development of additional alternatives.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review

    A DEIS will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the 
draft environmental impact statement will be at least 45 days from the 
date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of 
availability in the Federal Register. The length of the comment period 
will be determined by the ``significance'' of a potential LRMP 
amendment. The purpose and need for the proposed action is to reduce 
prairie dog movement from NFS lands and unwanted colonization of 
adjacent lands. We believe that this issue can be addressed without 
deviating from the present goals and objectives in the LRMP.
    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 
DEIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final 
environmental impact statement (FEIS) 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 comment period so that

[[Page 63352]]

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 FEIS.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the DEIS 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 DEIS 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: October 22, 2004.
Donald J. Bright,
Forest Supervisor, Nebraska National Forest.
[FR Doc. 04-24295 Filed 10-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M