[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 31, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-21480] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: August 31, 1994] VOL. 59, NO. 168 Wednesday, August 31, 1994 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Grazing Strategies for Dinkey Creek Allotment; Kings River Ranger District, Sierra National Forest AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the development of an allotment management plan and authorization of continued grazing on the Dinkey Allotment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The action to be evaluated by this EIS is the development of an allotment management plan and authorization for cattle grazing on the Dinkey Creek Allotment (Sierra National Forest, Clovis, CA) that will be consistent with the standard and guidleines in the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to the Forest Supervisor, Sierra National Forest, Supervisor's Office, 1600 Tollhouse Road, Clovis, CA 93611-0532. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Elliott, Assistant Land Management Planner, Sierra National Forest, 1600 Tollhouse Road, Clovis, CA 93611-0532. Phone (209) 297-0706 extension 4881. FAX (209) 294-4809. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This EIS will evaluate various grazing strategies of which one will be selected as the direction contained in the Allotment Management Plan. A Term Grazing Permit must be issued by the Forest Service before implementation of the proposed action. Development of the various alternatives will be in conjunction with the local community, cattle permittees, special interest groups, State Fish and Game Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other interested publics. The EIS will also address the socioeconomic effects of the different strategies on the current permittee. As required by NEPA, the Forest will also anlayze the ``no action'' alternative as a baseline for estimating the impacts of the various other alternatives. The following information including tentative issues and alternatives have been identified through internal (FS) scoping. 1. Proposed Action Statement The Forest Service proposed to develop an Allotment Management Plan (AMP) and authorize continued grazing on the Dinkey Creek Allotment. The AMP will guide livestock management for approximately a 10-year period. 2. Purpose and Need The purpose and need is to develop a management plan and provide authorization for cattle grazing on the Dinkey Creek Allotment that will be consistent with the standards and guidelines in the Sierra Forest Plan. The management plan and permit authorization will help in achieving the goals and future conditions prescribed for the area in the Forest Plan. 3. Issues Identified by FS Interdisciplinary Team a. What are the effects of riparian damage and streambank destruction by livestock on water quality and the aquatic environment, and how can those effects be addressed by alternative grazing strategies? Localized riparian damage and destruction of streambanks by livestock may impair water quality through increased sedimentation (embedded gravel) and higher water temperatures. This could affect aquatic insects, fish, amphibian and reptile productivity. b. What are the effects of livestock grazing mitigations on the economic feasibilty of the permittee's operation, and how can those effects be addressed by alternative grazing strategies? Costs of mitigating environmental concerns related to various resources such as water quality, aquatic habitat, deer habitat, sensitive species habitat, riparian habitat and historic/cultural sites, etc. may cause the permittee's operation to no longer be economically feasible. c. What are the effects of livestock grazing on key deer habitat, and how can those effects be addressed by alternative grazing strategies? Deer/livestock conflicts, including inadequate amount of meadow- edge fawn hiding cover in deer summer range and deer forage needs. d. What are effects of livestock grazing on key willow flycatcher habitat, and how can those effects be addressed by alternative grazing strategies? Willow flycatcher may be impacted by livestock due to nest destruction and heavy browsing of willows. e. What are the effects of livestock grazing on the historic, cultural and archaeological resources of the area, and how can grazing management either protect and/or enhance those resources? Social conflict between historical way of life of the cowboy, including preservation and maintenance of historical facilities, and the protection of cultural sites from livestock damage such as trampling and trailing through sites. f. What are the effects of livestock grazing on Bolander's clover and Invesia unguiculata and how can those effects be addressed by alternative grazing strategies? Bolander's clover may occur in the allotment and cattle grazing may impact the species. Ivesia unguiculata is present in some meadows and may occur in other meadows with the allotment and could be impacted by livestock grazing. g. What are the effects of livestock grazing on the recreational experience (hiking, OHV routes, campsites, etc.), and how can those effects be addressed by alternative grazing strategies? Localized recreation conflicts may occur on hiking trails, OHV routes, meadow-edge shade areas, and campsites due to interaction of people and livestock (cattle excrement--cowpies, flies, ticks and aesthetics). 4. Tentative Alternatives No action--grazing would continue at current levels. (1) Deer and willow flycatcher protection and management--Reduce cattle grazing effects on key deer and willow flycatcher habitat by changing season of use and number of cattle. (2) Intensive range management--Control cattle utilization and provide additional return of organic matter to the riparian and meadow system by using a rest rotation strategy. (2A) Intensive range management with riparian area mitigation--Same grazing strategy as Alternative 2 except it adjusts cattle numbers and/ or season of use to protect riparian areas. (3) Riparian and wildlife protection by short-term rest--Minimum level management strategy. A non-use period for entire allotment. (4) Intensive herding with emphasis on specialized monitoring training for permittees--Emphasizes a greater partnership role and Forest Service and Permittee by having the permittee conduct monitoring of cattle utilization. (5) Long term rest--No grazing would be allowed for five years, long term rest (5 years) of the allotment. Other uses would continue. Public Involvement The public will be invited to participate in the scoping process, review of the draft environmental impact statement and two public meetings. Initial comments are now being excepted through September 26 from those who wish to participate. The first public meeting will be September 7, 1994, 7PM at the Clovis Memorial Building located at the corner of 5th and Hughs Streets in Clovis, California. The second meeting will depend on the progress of the analysis and will be announced at a latter date in the Fresno Bee newspaper. Estimated release of the draft environmental impact statement for public comment will be on April of 1995. 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. After the comment period ends, the comments will be analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in preparing the final EIS. As a result, the final environmental impact statement should be ready for release in September of 1995. 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, (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 Heritage, 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 30 day comment period (ending on the 26th of September) 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. Dated: August 25, 1994. James L. Boynton, Forest Supervisor, Sierra National Forest. [FR Doc. 94-21480 Filed 8-30-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M