Helena National Forest, Lewis & Clark County, MT, Grazing Reauthorization for Marsh Creek and Tarhead Livestock Allotments, 44957-44958 [E8-17429]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44957
Notices
Federal Register
Vol. 73, No. 149
Friday, August 1, 2008
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.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Helena National Forest, Lewis & Clark
County, MT, Grazing Reauthorization
for Marsh Creek and Tarhead
Livestock Allotments
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:39 Jul 31, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
44958
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 149 / Friday, August 1, 2008 / Notices
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
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:39 Jul 31, 2008
Jkt 214001
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)
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
The Manti-La Sal National Forest,
Sanpete Ranger District, Utah, Sunroc
Gypsum Surface Mine Plan of
Operation
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: Sunroc Corporation has
submitted a Plan of Operations (the
Plan) proposing continued gypsum
surface mining operations in the
Chicken Creek East and Chicken Creek
West mines and proposes opening
another pit on it’s existing adjacent
claims. The location of the mine is in
Juab County, Utah, approximately 2
miles east of the town of Levan in
portions of Section(s) 33 and 34, T14S,
R1E, and Section 4, T15S, R1E, SLB&M.
In response, the Manti LaSal National
Forest is preparing an Environmental
Impact Statement to analyze the
environmental effect of the proposed
Plan and determine whether to approve
the Plan as proposed or to require
additional mitigation measures to
protect the environment.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope
of the analysis must be received by 30
days after the publication of the NOI.
The draft environmental impact
statement is expected November, 2008
and the final environmental impact
statement is expected January, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
Rod Player, Acting Forest Supervisor,
Manti LaSal National Forest, 599 West
Price River Drive, Price, Utah 84501.
For further information, mail
correspondence to Tom Lloyd, Team
Leader, by mail: Box 310, Ferron, Utah
84523.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
Tom Lloyd, Team Leader by mail: Box
310, Ferron, Utah, 84523. The Plan of
Operation is available for public review
(36 CFR 228.6) at the District Ranger’s
Office, 540 North Main, Ephraim, Utah
84627–1117.
Purpose and Need for Action
Sunroc Corporation has submitted a
Plan of Operations for continued mining
in the Chicken Creek East and Chicken
Creek West mines and proposed mining
in the Upper Chicken Creek West area.
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
]]>Agencies
[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
