64020 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2004 / Notices 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The Responsible Official will 

determine whether or not to proceed 

with the proposed project activities. 

Scoping Process 

Comments will be accepted during 

the 30-day scoping period as described 

in this notice of intent. To assist in 

commenting, a scoping letter providing 

more detailed information on the project 

proposal has been prepared and is 

available to interested parties. Contact 

Tracy Hollingshead, Sula District 

Ranger at the address listed in this 

notice of intent if you would like to 

receive a copy. 

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: 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, 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: October 28, 2004. 

David T. Bull, 

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 04–24508 Filed 11–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

Pickett Lake and Padre Canyon 

Allotments, Coconino National Forest; 

Coconino County, AZ

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service will 

prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) to disclose the 

environmental effects of authorizing 

cattle grazing on the Picket Lake and 

Padre Canyon Allotments.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis should be received 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this Notice of Intent in the Federal 

Register. The draft EIS is expected to be 

published in December 2004 and the 

final EIS is expected in February 2005.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Terri Marceron, Mormon Lake District 

Ranger, 4373 South Lake Mary Road, 

Flagstaff, Arizona 86001, Fax: (928) 

214–2460, e-mail: commentssouthwestern-coconino-mormonlake@fs.fed.us.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Hannemann, Range Staff, or 

Katherine Sa ́nchez Meador, Range 

Specialist, Peaks Ranger District, 5075 N 

Highway 89, Flagstaff, Arizona 86004, 

(928) 526–0866.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Pickett Lake and Padre Canyon 

Allotments are adjacent cattle grazing 

allotments located approximately nine 

miles southeast of Flagstaff, Arizona. 

The Pickett Lake and Padre Canyon 

Allotments consist of 34,814 and 20,993 

acres, respectively. The current Pickett 

Lake Allotment permit is of 758 cattle 

from June 1 to October 31. The current 

Padre Canyon Allotment permit is for 87 

cattle from June 1 to October 31. Both 

Pickett Lake and Padre Canyon grazing 

permits are issued to the same 

permittee. This joint ownership makes 

management coordination between the 

two allotments possible. 

Grazing has occurred continuously on 

the Pickett Lake and Padre Canyon 

Allotments since the mid-1880s. Since 

that time, the Forest Service has 

reduced cattle numbers and controlled 

cattle grazing periods more strictly. 

Cattle grazing management has 

improved over time with the 

construction of fences and waters by the 

Forest Service and permittees. Over the 

last ten years, cattle numbers on the 

Pickett Lake Allotment have varied from 

a high of 758 cattle in 1994 to a low of 

300 cattle in 2002. Over the last ten 

years, cattle numbers on the Padre 

Canyon Allotment have varied from a 

high of 87 in 1995 to non-use in 1996, 

2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004. 

The Pickett Lake and Padre Canyon 

Allotments are scheduled for 

environmental analysis of grazing use 

on the Coconino National Forest, as 

required by the Burns Amendment 

(1995). This project was initiated in 

December 2000 as an EIS and the 

Proposed Action included cattle 

grazing, pinyon and juniper treatments, 

and broadcast burning. After initial 

public scoping and comment, the Forest 

Service decided to narrow the scope of 

the project to analyze only cattle grazing 

under an environmental assessment 

(EA). A revised Proposed Action was 

presented for public scoping in August 

2002 and a draft EA published in July 

2003. On September 14, 2004, a notice 

to withdraw the NOI for the EIS was 

published in the Federal Register

(volume 69, number 177, page 55403), 

because it was imminent that a Decision 

Notice and FONSI were to be signed.

Based on the controversy over the 

effects of cattle grazing on pronghorn 

habitat on the Anderson Mesa portion of 

these allocation, the responsible official 

has decided to initiate this analysis as 

an EIS. This project is being completed 

in order to ensure cattle grazing on the 

Pickett Lake and Padre Canyon 

Allotments is consistent with goals, 

objectives, as well as the standards and 

guidelines of the Coconino National 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2004 / Notices 64021

Forest Plan (1987, as amended). The 

Proposed Action for the EIS is primarily 

based upon the preferred Alternative 

from the unreleased final EA, 

Alternative E. This alternative was 

created after comments on the draft EA 

were analyzed. The publication of this 

NOI begins the NEPA process and 

initiates a 30 day scoping period. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The purpose of this project is to 

continue cattle grazing on the Pickett 

Lake and Padre Canyon Allotments. 

There is a need to maintain and/or 

improve rangeland conditions, and to 

maintain and protect seasonal and semipermanent wetlands which includes 

those wetlands with emergent 

vegetation on the two allotments. There 

is also a need to maintain the 

permittee’s access to their water right 

and consider current water claims 

within the allotments. 

Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would authorize 

grazing on the Pickett Lake and Padre 

Canyon allotments while reducing 

overall cattle use, reducing cattle graze 

periods, and increasing pasture rest 

periods. Grazing rotations would be 

adjusted so cattle do not graze in 

seasonal and semi-permanent wetlands 

containing emergent vegetation from 

June 1 to July 15. No cattle grazing 

would occur on these allotments at all 

between May 1 and May 31. 

Cattle use on the Pickett Lake 

Allotment would be reduced 14% by 

combining the management of these two 

allotments and shortening the grazing 

season (currently June 1 to October 31) 

from June 1 to September 30. Combining 

the allotments would reduce the pasture 

graze periods above the rim from five to 

three months above the Anderson Mesa 

Rim and from five months to one month 

below the rim. 

The Proposed Action would establish 

a 35% utilization limit by cattle and/or 

elk during cattle grazing season. When 

pasture use approaches 35% by cattle 

and/or elk, cattle would move to the 

next pasture in the rotation. If elk use 

exceeds 35% in a pasture before cattle 

enter a pasture, cattle would skip this 

pasture and move to the next pasture in 

the rotation. 

Up to 1.5 miles of fence, in sections, 

would be constructed in the Elliot 

Driveway pasture to keep cattle from 

moving down the Anderson Mesa Rim, 

and for a small holding pasture in the 

western corner of the Elliot Driveway 

pasture. Four miles of pipeline 

(connected to a well on private land) 

and five drinkers would be constructed 

to improve water distribution below the 

Anderson Mesa Rim. Exclosure fences 

would be built to protect the hardstem 

bulrush and surrounding upland buffer 

at Post and Perry Lakes, with a lane to 

the stock tank water right at Perry Lake. 

Exclosure fences would also be built 

around the emergent vegetation and 

surrounding upland buffer at Ducknest 

and Indian Tank Lakes, with a lane to 

the stock tank water in Indian Tank 

Lake. Two short road segments within 

or near Post and Perry Lakes would be 

closed. 

The Proposed Action also includes an 

adaptive management option to fence 

Boot, Breezy, West Breezy and Indian 

Lakes, with a lane to the stock tank 

waters in Boot and Indian Lakes. To 

maintain rangeland condition, or for 

increased flexibility in pasture rotations, 

the emergent vegetation and the 

surrounding upland buffer would be 

fenced at these four wetlands. Fencing 

would be completed as funding 

becomes available. These wetlands 

would likely be fenced within three 

years. Up to 20% use by cattle on 

emergent and woody vegetation at Boot 

and Billy Back Springs would be 

allowed. If use, by cattle, exceeds this a 

fence would be constructed by the 

permittee to exclude cattle use at these 

two springs.

Possible Alternatives 

In addition to the Proposed Action, 

three other alternatives have been 

developed for preliminary analysis. One 

alternative (Current Management) will 

consider the effects of continuing the 

current cattle grazing management 

system on the two allotments. Another 

alternative (No Action/No Grazing) will 

consider the effects of closing Pickett 

Lake and Padre Canyon Allotments to 

cattle grazing for a ten-year period. 

Another alternative (Reduction in 

Utilization) will study the effects of 

reducing the cattle and/or elk utilization 

standard (during the cattle grazing 

season) to 20% on both allotments. The 

cattle numbers would also be reduced 

by 15% in this alternative. The 

development of any other alternatives 

will be completed following public 

response to scoping and published in 

the draft EIS. 

Responsible Official 

The responsible official for this 

project is the Mormon Lake District 

Ranger. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

Based upon the effects of the different 

alternatives, the responsible official will 

either decide to implement the 

Proposed Action, another action 

alternative, combinations of 

components from several alternatives, or 

to not reauthorize grazing for a ten-year 

period on the allotments at this time. 

Scoping Process 

Scoping is an ongoing process 

throughout the planning process. This 

Notice of Intent serves as the scoping 

process under NEPA, which will guide 

development of the EIS. A copy of this 

Notice of Intent will be mailed to those 

people and organizations on The 

Coconino National Forest’s mailing list 

that have indicated a specific interest in 

the Pickett Lake and Padre Canyon 

Allotments or grazing management in 

general. A press release announcing the 

filing of this Notice of Intent will be sent 

to local newspapers and media. The 

public will be notified of any meetings 

regarding this proposal by mailings and 

press releases sent to the local 

newspaper and media. No meetings are 

planned at this time. 

Preliminary Issues 

During development of the draft EA, 

two issues were identified. The first 

issue involves wetlands and how the 

proposed cattle grazing system and 

utilization levels affect seasonal and 

semi-permanent wetlands habitat for 

ground-nesting birds and riparian 

vegetative health within wetlands. The 

second issue is concerned with the 

proposed utilization level of 35%, 

which may inhibit grass plants’ growth, 

reduce vertical height, and remove too 

many seed heads. A 35% utilization 

level may also lessen plants’ ability to 

grow to maturity, build necessary root 

mass, or propagate. the Proposed Action 

and a Reduction in Utilization 

Alternative have been developed to 

address these issues.

Comments Requested 

A draft EIS will be prepared for 

comments. The comment period on the 

draft EIS 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 a draft EIS 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 EIS stage but that are 

not raised until after completion of the 

final EIS may be waived or dismissed by 

64022 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2004 / Notices 

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 EIS. 

To assist the Forest Service in 

identifying and considering issues and 

concerns on the proposed action, 

comments on the draft EIS 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 EIS 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. 

Comments submitted anonymously will 

be accepted and considered; however, 

those who submit anonymous 

comments will not have standing to 

appeal the subsequent decision under 

36 CFR part 215. Additionally, pursuant 

to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may 

request the agency to withhold a 

submission from the public record by 

showing how the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) permits such 

confidentiality. 

Persons requesting such 

confidentiality should be aware that, 

under the FOIA, confidentiality may be 

granted in only very limited 

circumstances, such as to protect trade 

secrets. The Forest Service will inform 

the requester of the agency’s decision 

regarding the request for confidentiality, 

and if the request is denied, the agency 

will return the submission and notify 

the requester that the comments may be 

resubmitted with or without name and 

address within a specified number of 

days.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 

21.)

Dated: October 28, 2004. 

Joseph P. Stringer, 

Deputy Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 04–24510 Filed 11–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

Noxious Weed Project; Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest, Box Elder, Cache, 

Davis, Duchesne, Morgan, Rich, Salt 

lake, Summit, Tooele, Wasatch, Weber 

Counties, Utah and Uinta County, WY

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: The Forest Supervisor of the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest (WCNF) 

gives notice of the agency’s intent to 

prepare an environmental impact 

statement on a proposal to eradicate 

(elimination), control (reducing the 

population over time), and contain 

(preventing the population from 

spreading) known infestations and 

future potential invasions of noxious 

weed populations on the Forest.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be received in 

writing by November 23, 2004. A draft 

environmental impact statement is 

expected to be published in April 2006, 

with public comment on the draft 

material requested for a period of 45 

days, and completion of a final 

environmental impact statement is 

expected in October, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to. 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 8236 

Federal Building, 125 S. State St., Salt 

Lake City, Utach 84138, ATTN: Noxious 

Weeds.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Duncan, Team Leader, (801) 236–

3415.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The purpose of this proposal is to 

move forward in achieving the desired 

conditions, goals, and objectives of the 

2003 Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Revised Forest Plan. Specifically the 

purpose of this proposal is to eliminate 

new invaders (weed species not 

previously reported in an area) before 

they become established, prevent or 

limit the spread of established weeds 

into areas containing little or no 

infestation while meeting multiple use 

objectives, and contain and reduce 

known and potential weed seed sources 

throughout the WCNF. 

The need for this proposal is evident 

by reviewing maps of known 

infestations of noxious weeds within the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The 

number of infestations and species is 

growing yearly. Results of uncontrolled 

weed spread are well documented. 

Without treatment, weeds increase 

about 14% a year under national 

conditions. The spread of weeds can 

primarily be attributed to human 

activities associated with vehicles and 

roads, trails, contaminated livestock 

feed, contaminated seed, and ineffective 

revegetation practices on disturbed 

lands. Wind, water, birds, wildlife, and 

livestock also contribute to week spread. 

According to the recent scientific 

assessment of the Interior Columbia 

River Basin, invading weeds can alter 

ecosystem processes, including 

productivity, decomposition, hydrology, 

nutrient cycling, and natural 

disturbance patterns such as frequency 

and intensity of wild fires. Changing 

these processes can lead to 

displacement of native plant species, 

eventually impacting wildlife and plant 

habitat, recreational opportunities, 

natural hydrologic processes, and scenic 

beauty.

Proposed Action 

A number of steps would be followed 

under this Proposed Action to 

determine and implement the most 

appropriate treatment method for each 

weed infestation site. They include the 

following: detection of the weed, 

prioritization of the site for weed 

treatment, determination if sensitive 

environmental receptors are present, 

determination of the appropriate 

treatment method for the weed, and 

monitoring the treatment/restoration 

site to determine if follow-up or 

alternative treatment is warranted. 

The following priorities will be 

followed for treating sites. Priority I—

Potential or New Invaders: Noxious 

weeds that are known from only a few, 

small sites (less than about 10) on the 

Forest would be highest priority for 

treatment. These are species for whom 

eradication is most likely, and whose 

elimination is likely to be most costeffective in the long term. Priority II—

Satellite Infestations: Small, satellite 

infestations, particularly on the edges of 

the local range of a noxious weed 

species, would be next highest priority 

for treatment. Treating these satellite 

infestations is likely to be most effective 

in halting the spread of noxious weeds 

into weed-free areas. Priority III—

Established Infestations: Relatively large 

established populations are managed by 

a containment strategy. Treatment 

efforts may focus on working in from