[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10008-10010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3591]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Bar T Bar and Anderson Springs Allotment Management Plan EIS 
Southwestern Region, Arizona, Coconino County, Coconino National Forest

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Coconino National Forest is planning to prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement on a proposal to issue term grazing 
permits and develop allotment management plans for the next 10 years 
for the Bar T Bar and Anderson Springs Allotments, an area encompassing 
approximately 229,562 acres of National Forest System lands on the Blue 
Ridge and Mormon Lake Ranger Districts of the Coconino National Forest, 
Coconino County, Arizona. The purpose of the proposal is to analyze the 
effects of livestock grazing, coordinate livestock management with 
other resource needs, decrease canopy densities in pinyon-juniper and 
ponderosa pine vegetation types in historical grasslands, improve 
habitat conditions for pronghorn antelope, increase cool season plants, 
and to revise the allotment management plans (AMP's) for the Bar T Bar 
and Anderson Springs Allotments.

DATES: Comments in response to this Notice of Intent concerning the 
scope of the analysis should be received in writing on or before March 
15, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to USDA Forest Service, Coconino 
National Forest, Larry Sears, District Ranger, Mogollon Rim Center, HC 
31, Box 212, Happy Jack, AZ 86024. Electronic mail may be sent to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#593c312c3429312b3c20193f2a773f3c3d772c2a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="75101d0018051d07100c3513065b1310115b0006">[email protected]</span></a>. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 
additional information about electronic mailing.
    Responsible Official: Jim Golden, the Forest Supervisor of the 
Coconino National Forest, Supervisor's Office, 2323 E. Greenlaw Lane, 
Flagstaff AZ 86004, will decide what actions are most appropriate for 
Bar T Bar and Anderson Springs Allotment Management Plan EIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Humphrey, Project Leader, (520) 
477-2255.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forest Service proposes to revise the 
allotment management plans on the Bar T Bar and Anderson Springs 
Allotments on the Blue Ridge and Mormon Lake Ranger Districts.
    The environmental analysis process for these allotments was 
initiated on January 4, 1999. The Diablo Trust, an incorporated non-
profit land management collaborative team in the Flagstaff, Arizona 
area, developed the proposed action. The proposed action was adopted by 
the Forest Service to be taken through the National Environmental 
Policy Act procedures. An Interdisciplinary Team of Forest Service 
resource specialists was selected based on proposed management 
practices, current uses, and anticipated concerns with management of 
these allotments.
    The proposed action proposes to issue term grazing permits on the 
Bar T Bar and Anderson Springs Allotments. Permitted livestock numbers 
would be 18,050 Head Months on the Bar T Bar Allotment and 6,036 Head 
Month's on the Anderson Springs Allotment. This plan focuses on the use 
of plant recovery and timing of grazing and rest to achieve goals, 
rather than setting utilization limits. Planned livestock grazing would 
be used to meet management objectives and to provide for maximum 
flexibility to meet resource needs. Collaboration between the Forest 
Service, the Diablo Trust, the permittees, Arizona State Lands 
Department, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and Coconino County is 
emphasized in meeting desired conditions for the area. The livestock 
grazing strategy on the Bar T Bar Allotment would use a combination of 
rest rotation and deferred rotation grazing with a season of use from 
approximately May through October each year. The livestock grazing 
strategy on the Anderson Springs Allotment would be a combination of 
deferred rest-rotation and time-controlled grazing from approximately 
June through October each year.
    Grassland restoration and maintenance treatments are proposed on 
63,730 acres in pinyon-juniper woodland and ponderosa pine vegetation 
types using a variety of treatment methods. These treatments are 
proposed to restore and maintain native grasslands, increase plant 
cover and litter, improve soil conditions, provide for wildlife 
movements, and increase plant diversity, especially in cool season 
species. Approximately 61.6 miles of new fencing, 19.8 miles of fence 
removal, 3.74 miles of fence reconstruction, and 8.95 miles of fence 
replacement are proposed which would split large pastures, provide for 
improved livestock distribution, provide for increased pasture rest, 
and increase efficiency in livestock management. Five new stock ponds 
are proposed, as

[[Page 10009]]

well as reconstriction of two existing water developments. Existing 
fences would be upgraded to wildlife specifications. Approximately 19.0 
miles of road maintenance and reconstruction is proposed.
    During the public comment period on the Proposed Action, issues 
were raised that resulted in the development of additional alternatives 
to the Proposed Action. The alternatives differ in the type of grazing 
strategy used, utilization levels, permitted numbers of livestock, 
location and type of vegetation treatments, amount and type of 
structural improvements, and levels of monitoring proposed. The 
alternatives are briefly described below.
    <bullet> No Action (Continue Current Management)--The current 
livestock grazing strategy and permitted numbers would continue for the 
next ten years. A new 10-year term grazing permit would be issued for 
both allotments and a new allotment management plan would be written. 
No new actions would be planned.
    <bullet> No Grazing--No livestock grazing would be allowed for the 
next 10-year period. Term Grazing Permits would not be issued for 
either allotment. No new actions would be planned.
    <bullet> Proposed Action--The actions proposed above would be 
implemented.
    <bullet> Rest Rotation Grazing Strategy with Least Fencing--The 
current livestock grazing strategy on the Anderson Springs Allotment 
would be changed to a rest-rotation system. Permitted livestock numbers 
would be reduced on both allotments and maximum allowable utilization 
levels would be reduced. No new fencing would be constructed on the 
Anderson Springs Allotment, and new fencing proposed on the Bar T Bar 
Allotment would be reduced to half that of the proposed action. A 
riparian pasture would be constructed around Soldier Annex Lake. Five 
study plots would be constructed to provide information about pronghorn 
antelope habitat. No road maintenance is proposed. Vegetation 
treatments would be modified, with approximately 50,615 acres of 
grassland restoration and maintenance proposed. Water developments 
would remain the same as proposed in the Proposed Action.
    <bullet> Modified Proposed Action (Remapping)--The proposed action 
would be implemented as described above, with the following exceptions. 
Mapping changes resulted in a reduction in the proposed vegetation 
treatments to approximately 50,615 acres. A riparian pasture would be 
constructed around Soldier Annex Lake. Five pronghorn antelope study 
plots would be constructed. The livestock grazing strategy would be the 
same as proposed in the Proposed Action, with the same permitted 
livestock numbers. A range of maximum utilization levels would be set 
for both allotments. Fences, water developments, and road and trail 
maintenance would be the same as in the Proposed Action.

Decision To Be Made

    The Coconino National Forest Supervisor is the Deciding Official 
for this project. He will decide what actions are most appropriate for 
managing the Bar T Bar and Anderson Springs Allotments for the next 10 
years. The Forest Supervisor may select any of the management 
alternatives presented, or may select a management alternative that is 
different or includes portions of these alternatives. If a livestock 
grazing alternative is selected, the Forest Supervisor's decision will 
include the maximum permitted number of livestock for these allotments, 
the grazing strategy to use, and the number and type of range 
structural and non-structural improvements. He will also approve the 
monitoring plan and authorize a 10-year Term Permit for livestock 
grazing on this allotment.

Preliminary Issues

    Issues identified previous scoping efforts included effects of the 
proposed action on habitat for pronghorn antelope on Anderson Mesa, 
concern with livestock numbers on both allotments, the use of time-
controlled grazing in some areas on the Anderson Springs Allotment, and 
the economics of implementing the Proposed Action.

Public Involvement, Rationale, and Public Meetings

    In April 1999, a scoping letter summarizing the proposed action was 
sent out to a mailing list of approximately 700 interested individuals. 
This letter invited public comment for a period of 30 days. The 
Proposed Action was also made available through the Diablo Trust's 
website and copies of the proposed action and scoping letter were 
placed at several locations in the Flagstaff area, as well as at the 
Blue Ridge District Office and Happy Jack Visitor Center. Additional 
public comments were received after the initial comment period and have 
been accepted throughout the analysis period. An open house was held on 
April 21, 1999 to familiarize the public with the Proposed Action and 
to solicit public comments. comments received during this scoping 
period have already been incorporated into the analysis.
    While public participation in this analysis is welcome at any time, 
comments received within 30 days of the publication of this notice will 
be especially useful in the preparation of the draft and final EIS.

Electronic Access and Filing Addresses

    Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#04616c7169746c76617d4462772a6261602a7177"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="12777a677f627a60776b5274613c7477763c6761">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Bar T Bar and Anderson 
Springs Allotment Management Plan EIS on the subject line. Please 
include your name and physical mailing address with your comments so 
documents pertaining to this project may be mailed to you.

Estimated Dates for Filing

    The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review in March 
2001. At that time, EPA will publish a Notice of Availability of the 
draft EIS in the Federal Register. The comment period on the draft EIS 
will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the Notice of 
Availability. It is very important that those interested in the 
management of this area participate at that time.
    The final EIS is scheduled to be completed by July 2001. In the 
final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to comments and 
responses received during the comment period that pertain to the 
environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS and applicable 
laws, regulations, and policies considered in making a decision 
regarding the proposal.

The Reviewers Obligation To Comment

    The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers 
notice at this early stage 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 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. 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

[[Page 10010]]

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.
    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. To be the most 
helpful, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be 
as specific as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement 
or the merits of the alternatives discussed (see Council of 
Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural 
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3).
    In addition, Federal court decisions have established that 
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 reviewers' position and 
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 US 519, 
553 (1978), Environmental objections that could have been raised at the 
draft stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of the 
final environmental impact statement. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 9th 
Circuit, 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. 
Supp.1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). The reason for this is to ensure that 
substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest 
Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider 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.

    Dated: February 7, 2001.
Karyl Georgio,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 01-3591 Filed 2-12-01; 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>