Helena National Forest, Lewis & Clark County, MT, Grazing Reauthorization for Marsh Creek and Tarhead Livestock Allotments, 44957-44958 [E8-17429]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 149 (Friday, August 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44957-44958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17429]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 149 / Friday, August 1, 2008 / 
Notices

[[Page 44957]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Helena National Forest, Lewis & Clark County, MT, Grazing 
Reauthorization for Marsh Creek and Tarhead Livestock Allotments

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS).

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

SUMMARY: The Helena National Forest is going to prepare an 
environmental impact statement for proposed reauthorization of 
livestock grazing on two allotments, Marsh Creek and Tarhead, in the 
Marsh, Tarhead, Trout and Weino Creek drainages, tributaries to Canyon 
Creek and the Missouri River. The purpose and need for action is to 
determine whether livestock grazing will continue to be authorized on 
these allotments and, if so, to authorize grazing in a manner that will 
continue to meet or move toward direction in the Forest Plan while 
meeting other resource objectives.

DATES: Comments concerning the proposed action must be received by 
August 29, 2008. The draft EIS is expected to be available to the 
public in November/December of 2008 and the final EIS is expected to be 
available to the public in March/April of 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Dea Nelson (Team Leader), 2880 
Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 59601, (phone--406.495.3705) or for further 
information, call Amber Kamps (District Ranger) or Shawn Heinert 
(Rangeland Management Specialist) at 406.362.4265.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Action

    Term grazing permits currently authorize cattle grazing on the 
Marsh Creek and Tarhead allotments which are located in the Helena 
National Forest. The Helena National Forest proposes to continue to 
authorize grazing on these allotments under a revised allotment 
management plan, according to direction and objectives of the Forest 
Plan and in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.
    A two-part decision is to be made for authorizing livestock 
grazing. First, it will be determined whether livestock grazing should 
be authorized on all, part, or none of the project area. Second, if the 
decision is to authorize some level of livestock grazing, then what 
management prescriptions will be applied (including standards, 
guidelines, grazing management, and monitoring) to ensure that desired 
condition objectives are met or that movement occurs toward those 
objectives.
    This analysis will meet the requirement described in Section 504 of 
Public Law 104-19 which directed the Forest Service to complete NEPA 
analysis on allotments. Public Law 104-19 was signed in law on July 27, 
1995 following the passing of the 1995 Rescission Bill.

Proposed Action

    The Helena National Forest proposes to authorize grazing of 
livestock on the Marsh Creek and Tarhead allotments using an adaptive 
management strategy that allows implementation of additional 
improvements, as needed to (1) protect localized areas of riparian 
impacts and (2) to better facilitate livestock movement between 
pastures. It is proposed to provide for a range of stocking options--
stocking rates, timing of grazing and duration of grazing--that would 
be adjusted based upon monitoring. The current stocking rate 
(authorized for 2007 and 2008) would be adjusted up or down depending 
upon the results of monitoring of utilization standards (stubble 
height) and evaluation of stream bank disturbance and other riparian 
conditions over a 3-5 year period. Specific utilization standards for 
key forage species needed to protect soil and water quality would be 
specified in the allotment management plan, as required by the Forest 
Plan (page II/22). Cattle distribution would be accomplished by a 
combination of salt and water placement and herding. Grazing would 
continue under a 2-pasture (Marsh Creek) or 3-pasture (Tarhead) 
deferred rotation as long as current utilization standards continue to 
be met. The overall authorized season of use would remain the same 
(July 1 to September 30). Stocking options, including the specific 
timing and duration of grazing in each pasture within the authorized 
season of use, would be based on monitoring of utilization standards in 
each pasture.
    Stocking rates would not exceed levels authorized in the 1961 
Allotment Management Plan: 269 AUMs for Marsh Creek Allotment, 277 AUMs 
for Tarhead Allotment. Experience over the past 45 years indicate that 
these levels provide a reasonable upper limit for stocking rates for 
purposes of this analysis. Grazing at the current level (approximately 
\2/3\ of the maximum level) would continue until trends in vegetative 
conditions (both upland and riparian) indicate the need for a downward 
adjustment to accelerate improvement. Or, if objectives for vegetative 
conditions are met, upward adjustments in stocking would be considered 
if monitoring indicates those conditions and trends can be maintained.
    On the Tarhead Allotment, a short section of upper Tar Head Creek, 
immediately adjacent to private land, would be fenced to restrict 
livestock access to stream banks. Riparian vegetation within the 
enclosure would continue to be monitored to evaluate recovery. To 
replace this source of livestock water, one off-stream water source 
(seep) would be developed. Riparian conditions at key sites on Trout 
and Weino Creeks would be monitored. It is expected that continued 
implementation of deferred grazing will result in improvement in 
conditions at these sites. However, if monitoring suggests that 
improvement is inadequate, off-site water source(s) would be developed 
and/or adjustments made in stocking rates.
    On the Marsh Creek Allotment, the livestock are currently trailed 
from one pasture to the other via an existing road across private land. 
Should this practice become unacceptable with the landowner, a \1/4\-
mile long stock driveway would need to be constructed on National 
Forest System lands requiring removal of trees from approximately 2 
acres. Additionally, a \1/4\-\1/2\ mile of drift fence would be 
constructed across the driveway to

[[Page 44958]]

confine livestock to the appropriate pasture.
    Our analysis will consider implementation of these options 
(development of additional water sources and construction of a stock 
driveway), as well as the upper limits for stocking, as part of the 
adaptive management strategy.

Possible Alternatives

    Possible alternatives, in addition to the proposed action, are No 
Action (current management) and No Livestock Grazing.

Responsible Official

    Kevin Riordan, Forest Supervisor, 2880 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 
59601.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The nature of the decision is two-part: 1. Whether livestock 
grazing should be authorized on all, part, or none of the project area. 
2. If the decision is to authorize some level of livestock grazing, 
then what management prescriptions will be applied (including 
standards, guidelines, grazing management, and monitoring) to ensure 
that desired condition objectives are met or that movement occurs 
toward those objectives.

Scoping Process

     Scoping Package (mailing)--August, 2008.
     NOI--August, 2008.
     Post on Web site--August, 2008.

Preliminary Issues

    Preliminary internal review, as well as public comments from 2007, 
indicates concerns with riparian conditions along relatively short 
(less than 1/4 mile), isolated stretches of streams on the Tarhead 
Allotment. Monitoring and follow-up action to adjust management to 
improve the recovery of these areas are the focus of the proposed 
action. Internal review has suggested the possible need in the future 
to provide an alternative to the current route used to trail livestock 
between pastures on the Marsh Creek allotment. Construction of a stock 
driveway is incorporated into the proposed action to address this 
possible future need.

Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides 
the development of the environmental impact statement. Comments are due 
by August 22, 2008.

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, 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 
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 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.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 
1909.15, Section 21)

    Dated: July 23, 2008.
Kevin T. Riordan,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E8-17429 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P