[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64020-64022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24510]


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

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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3d5e5250505853494e104e524849554a584e49584f53105e525e52535453521050524f50525310515c56587d5b4e135b585913484e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4724282a2a222933346a342832332f302234332235296a24282428292e29286a2a28352a28296a2b262c2207213469212223693234">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Hannemann, Range Staff, or 
Katherine S[aacute]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

[[Page 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 semi-permanent 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

[[Page 64022]]

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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>