Shoshone National Forest; Wyoming; Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan, 16022-16024 [2017-06391]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
16022
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 61 / Friday, March 31, 2017 / Notices
John Richard ‘‘Rick’’ Lint, the
Forest Supervisor for the Francis Marion
National Forest, Southern Region,
signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for
the Revised Land Management Plan
(Forest Plan) for the Francis Marion
National Forest. The Final ROD
documents the rationale for approving
the Forest Plan and is consistent with
the Reviewing Officers’ responses to
objections and instructions.
SUMMARY:
The Revised Land Managmenent
Plan for the Francis Marion National
Forest will become effective 30 days
after the publication of this notice of
approval in the Federal Register (36
CFR 219.17(a)(1)). To view the final
ROD, final environmental impact
statement (FEIS), the revised land
management plan, and other related
documents, please visit the Francis
Marion National Forest Web site at:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/scnfs/
landmanagement/planning/
?cid=stelprdb5393142.
A legal notice of approval is also
being published in the Francis Marion
and Sumter National Forests newspaper
of record, The State. A copy of this legal
notice will be posted on the Web site
described above.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Further information about the revised
land management plan for the Francis
Marion Nation Forest can obtained by
contacting Mary Morrison, Forest
Planner, Francis Marion National Forest
at 803–561–4000. Individuals who use
telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339
between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
(Eastern time), Monday through Friday.
Written requests for information may be
sent to Francis Marion and Sumter
National Forests, Attn: FM Plan
Revision, 4931 Broad River Road,
Columbia, SC 29212.
The
Francis Marion National Forest covers
nearly 260,000 acres in Berkeley and
Charleston Counties, South Carolina.
The revised land management plan,
which was developed pursuant to the
2012 Forest Planning Rule (36 CFR 219),
will replace the land management plan
approved in 1996. This 2017 land
management plan establishes a strong
commitment to an all-lands approach
and emphasizes the restoration of
longleaf pine, maintaining habitats for
at-risk plants and animals, and
providing social opportunities and
economic benefits to both forest visitors
and local communities in coastal South
Carolina. The plan components were
developed using best available scientific
information and the consideration of
fiscal capability.
A draft record of decision, revised
land management plan and final
environmental impact statement were
released in August 2016, which was
subject to a pre-decisional objection
period. One objection was received and
the two Reviewing Officers responses to
the objection issues were signed by the
Associate Deputy Chief (as Reviewing
Officer for the Chief) and the Regional
Forester in December 2016. The
instructions from the Reviewing Officers
were incorporated into an updated
revised land management plan and final
environmental impact statement, and
these documents were released to the
public in January 2017. The changes
that were made as a result of the
objection resolution include providing
additional standards and direction to
the revised plan concerning the
management of at-risk species, and
clarifications on the evaluation of
ecological sustainability were added to
the final environmental impact
statement. The Final Record of Decision
to approve the revised land management
plan for the Francis Marion National
Forest has now been signed, and is
available at the Web site described
above.
Responsible Official
The responsible official for the
revision of the land management plan
for the Francis Marion National Forest
is John Richard ‘‘Rick’’ Lint, Forest
Supervisor, Francis Marion and Sumter
National Forests, 4931 Broad River
Road, Columbia, SC 29212.
Dated: March 15, 2017.
Jeanne M. Higgins,
Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
System.
[FR Doc. 2017–06387 Filed 3–30–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411–15–P
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Mar 30, 2017
Jkt 241001
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Shoshone National Forest; Wyoming;
Shoshone National Forest Land
Management Plan
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Rocky Mountain
Regional Forester intends to prepare a
Supplement to the Environmental
Impact Statement (SEIS) for the
Shoshone National Forest Revised Land
Management Plan. This notice briefly
describes the background, purpose and
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
need for action, what is being proposed,
and the nature of the decision to be
made. Also, the direction restricting
pack goat use contained in the May 6,
2015 Revised Forest Plan is hereby
retracted along with any references to
the 2009 Payette RADT and the 2012
and 2013 Shoshone RADTs.
DATES: The draft SEIS is expected in
April 2017 and the final SEIS is
expected in August 2017.
ADDRESSES: For further information,
mail correspondence to Casey
McQuiston, Resources Staff Officer,
Shoshone National Forest, 808 Meadow
Lane Ave., Cody, WY 82414. Or email
cmcquiston@fs.fed.us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Casey McQuiston, Resources Staff
Officer, Shoshone National Forest, 808
Meadow Lane Ave., Cody, WY 82414.
(307) 578–5134 or cmcquiston@
fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 6,
2015, the Rocky Mountain Regional
Forester signed the Record of Decision
(ROD) revising the Shoshone National
Forest Land Management Plan (LMP).
The May 6, 2015 Revised LMP
included standards and guidelines
restricting the use of recreational pack
goats, and domestic sheep and goat
grazing, where it was determined that
there was unacceptable risk of disease
transmission from the pack goats or
domestic sheep to bighorn sheep.
Bighorn sheep are a sensitive species on
the Shoshone National Forest.
In June 2015, the North American
Packgoat Association joined the Idaho
Wool Growers Association and filed a
Motion for Contempt with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho.
The plaintiffs alleged that the Forest
Service improperly relied on a report
that the Court had previously found to
be in violation of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) when the
Shoshone National Forest prepared its
2012 and 2013 Risk Assessment of
Disease Transmission (RADT) reports,
which the Shoshone relied upon for the
bighorn sheep analysis in the forest plan
revision effort. The Idaho District
Court’s 2009 decision prohibited the
Forest Service from relying on the
findings and conclusions of two Payette
reports that pertained to disease
transmission between domestic sheep
and bighorn sheep on the Payette
National Forest.
In February 2016, the District Court
granted plaintiff’s motion for contempt
finding that the Shoshone RADT reports
had relied on the findings and
conclusions in the Payette reports. On
July 9, 2016, the parties agreed to a
stipulated settlement.
E:\FR\FM\31MRN1.SGM
31MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 61 / Friday, March 31, 2017 / Notices
In accordance with the July 2016
Stipulated Settlement Agreement, the
direction restricting pack goat use
contained in the May 6, 2015 Revised
Forest Plan is hereby retracted along
with any references to the 2009 Payette
RADT and the 2012 and 2013 Shoshone
RADT reports.
The Regional Forester must now
consider whether the revised Forest
Plan should include direction regarding
management of domestic sheep and
goats to limit the potential for disease
transmission to bighorn sheep, and, if
so, whether there are differences in the
potential for disease transmission from
domestic sheep, domestic goats, or
packgoats, to wild bighorn sheep that
warrant different management
approaches.
The Regional Forester will prepare a
Supplement to the Environmental
Impact Statement (SEIS) and a new
RADT report consistent with the
National Environmental Policy Act and
all applicable laws and regulations
pertinent to the revision of the
Shoshone LMP. The SEIS will
document analysis of the potential for
disease transmission between domestic
sheep, domestic goats, and packgoats;
and wild bighorn sheep on the
Shoshone National Forest. The analysis
shall consider whether there are
differences in the potential for disease
transmission by domestic sheep,
domestic goats, and packgoats to wild
bighorn sheep.
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the federal action
being considered here is to determine
what, if any, use by domestic sheep,
domestic goats, or pack goats is
appropriate within the Shoshone
National Forest and what direction, if
any, should be included in the revised
LMP. The need for this action was
driven by the 2016 Stipulated
Settlement Agreement and will be
accomplished by analyzing the risk of
disease transmission from domestic
sheep and goats and pack goats to
bighorn sheep.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Proposed Action
The Shoshone National Forest
proposes to limit areas where domestic
sheep allotments are stocked and
restrict the use of domestic goats and
packgoats on the Shoshone National
Forest in order to reduce the risk of
disease transmission to bighorn sheep.
These restrictions would be
incorporated into the LMP through the
following plan components:
Desired Condition—Low risk of
disease transmission from domestic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Mar 30, 2017
Jkt 241001
sheep and/or goats within the Shoshone
national Forest.
SENS–Goal–03—Maintain low risk of
disease transmission from domestic
sheep and domestic goats to wild
bighorn sheep within core bighorn
sheep ranges.
SENS–Standard–05—Domestic sheep
and goat allotments shall not overlap
with core native bighorn sheep ranges.
SENS–Standard–06—Do not allow
recreational pack goat use in core native
bighorn sheep ranges.
SENS–Guideline–03—On bighorn
sheep crucial winter range, management
activities that disturb bighorn sheep
should be conducted outside the season
of use (December 1 through April 30), or
designed to reduce disturbance to
bighorn sheep when the activity is
necessary to sustain or improve bighorn
sheep crucial winter range conditions.
SENS–Guideline–06—Restrict
disturbances near concentrated bighorn
sheep lambing areas between April 1
and June 30 with a minimum distance
of 1 mile from the lambing site. Shortterm projects designed to improve
bighorn sheep habitat such as
prescribed burning may be exempt.
SENS–Guideline–12—Outfitter and
guide authorizations for recreational
goat packing in core bighorn sheep
ranges will not be issued.
Management Approach—A wildlife
program emphasis for bighorn sheep is
to reduce the risk of disease
transmission from domestic sheep and
goats to bighorn sheep. There is a
concern about the risk of disease
transmission to bighorn sheep from
domestic goats used for packing. To
minimize that risk, guidelines are
applied for domestic pack goats within
the Shoshone National Forest; domestic
sheep and goat grazing has been
removed from core native bighorn sheep
ranges. Authorizations for pack goat use
in core bighorn sheep ranges will not be
issued.
Possible Alternatives
Alternative 1, No Action: There would
be no change in domestic sheep
management and packgoat use would be
allowed on the Shoshone National
Forest.
Alternative 2, Proposed Action:
Domestic sheep and domestic goat
grazing would be allowed on the current
allotment allocated for sheep and goats.
Packgoat use would be prohibited from
core native bighorn sheep ranges.
Alternative 3: Domestic sheep and
domestic goat grazing would be allowed
on the current allotment allocated for
sheep and goats. Packgoat use would be
prohibited from core native bighorn
sheep ranges and approved through a
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16023
permit process once a scientifically
proven and viable mitigation is
developed and approved.
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
Cooperating Agency: Wyoming Game
and Fish Department.
Responsible Official
Brian Ferebee, Regional Forester,
Rocky Mountain Region, 740 Simms
Street, Golden, Colorado 80491.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
Based upon the effects of the
alternatives, the responsible official will
decide how to address the potential risk
of disease transmission from domestic
sheep and goats, and packgoats to
bighorn sheep.
Scoping Process
The Regional Forester will rely on the
previous scoping efforts conducted in
preparation for the Environmental
Impact Statement for the Shoshone
National Forest Plan Revision.
Preliminary Issues
There is potential for disease
transmission from domestic sheep,
domestic goats, and pack goats, to wild
bighorn sheep.
There are differences in the potential
for disease transmission by domestic
sheep, domestic goats or pack goats to
bighorn sheep.
There are minimal options for
reducing potential for contact and
disease transmission.
Contact between bighorn sheep and
domestic sheep, domestic goats, and
pack goats increases the risk of disease
transmission to bighorn sheep.
Early Notice of Importance of Public
Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review: A draft
supplemental environmental impact
statement will be prepared for comment.
The comment period on the draft
environmental impact statement will be
90 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
E:\FR\FM\31MRN1.SGM
31MRN1
16024
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 61 / Friday, March 31, 2017 / Notices
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 90day 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
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.
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.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22;
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section
21)
Dated: March 24, 2017.
Glenn P. Casamassa,
Associate Deptuy Chief, National Forest
System.
[FR Doc. 2017–06391 Filed 3–30–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Housing Service
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Notice of Request for Extension of a
Currently Approved Information
Collection
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed collection; comments
requested.
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces the Rural Housing
Service’s intention to request an
extension for a currently approved
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Mar 30, 2017
Jkt 241001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: 7 CFR 3575, subpart A,
Community Programs Guaranteed
Loans.
OMB Number: 0575–0137.
Expiration Date of Approval: August
31, 2017.
Type of Request: Extension of a
currently approved information
collection and recordkeeping
requirements.
Abstract: Private lenders make the
loans to public bodies and nonprofit
corporations for the purposes of
improving rural living standards and for
other purposes that create employment
opportunities in rural areas. Eligibility
for this program includes community
facilities located in cities, towns, or
unincorporated areas with a population
of up to 20,000 inhabitants.
The information collected is used by
the agency to manage, plan, evaluate,
and account for government resources.
The reports are required to ensure the
proper and judicious use of public
funds.
Estimate of Burden: Public reporting
burden for this collection of information
is estimated to average 18 hours per
response.
Respondents: Lending institutions.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
680.
Estimated Number of Responses per
Respondent: 6.
Estimated Number of Responses:
2,797.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on
Respondents: 12,401 hours.
Copies of this information collection
can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs,
Regulations and Paperwork
Management Branch, Support Services
Division at (202) 692–0040.
Comments
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
information collection in support of the
program.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be
received by May 30, 2017 to be assured
of consideration.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karla Peiffer, Asset Risk Management
Specialist, Rural Housing Service, STOP
0787, 1400 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–0788 (515) 284–
4729, or by email: karla.peiffer@
wdc.usda.gov.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of RHS, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
RHS’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information
including the validity of the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
methodology and assumptions used; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology. Comments may be sent to
Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and
Paperwork Management Branch,
Support Services Division, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Rural
Development, STOP 0742, 1400
Independence Ave. SW., Washington,
DC 20250–0742. All responses to this
notice will be summarized and included
in the request for OMB approval. All
comments will also become a matter of
public record.
Dated: March 24, 2017.
Joyce Allen,
Acting Administrator Rural Housing Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–06338 Filed 3–30–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P
BROADCASTING BOARD OF
GOVERNORS
Government in The Sunshine Act
Meeting Notice
Thursday, April 6, 2017,
1:00 p.m. EDT.
PLACE: Cohen Building, Room 3321,
330 Independence Ave. SW.,
Washington, DC 20237.
SUBJECT: Notice of Meeting of the
Broadcasting Board of Governors.
SUMMARY: The Broadcasting Board of
Governors (Board) will be meeting at the
time and location listed above. The
Board will vote on a consent agenda
consisting of the minutes of its
November 30, 2016 meeting, a
resolution honoring Voice of America’s
(VOA) 75th anniversary, a resolution
honoring VOA’s Russian Service 70th
anniversary, a resolution honoring
VOA’s Somali Service 10th anniversary,
a resolution honoring Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty’s Afghan Service
15th anniversary, and a resolution
honoring Middle East Broadcasting
Networks’ Radio Sawa 15th anniversary.
The Board will receive a report from the
Chief Executive Officer and Director of
BBG.
This meeting will be available for
public observation via streamed
webcast, both live and on-demand, on
the agency’s public Web site at
www.bbg.gov. Information regarding this
meeting, including any updates or
adjustments to its starting time, can also
DATE AND TIME:
E:\FR\FM\31MRN1.SGM
31MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 61 (Friday, March 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16022-16024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06391]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Shoshone National Forest; Wyoming; Shoshone National Forest Land
Management Plan
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Rocky Mountain Regional Forester intends to prepare a
Supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the
Shoshone National Forest Revised Land Management Plan. This notice
briefly describes the background, purpose and need for action, what is
being proposed, and the nature of the decision to be made. Also, the
direction restricting pack goat use contained in the May 6, 2015
Revised Forest Plan is hereby retracted along with any references to
the 2009 Payette RADT and the 2012 and 2013 Shoshone RADTs.
DATES: The draft SEIS is expected in April 2017 and the final SEIS is
expected in August 2017.
ADDRESSES: For further information, mail correspondence to Casey
McQuiston, Resources Staff Officer, Shoshone National Forest, 808
Meadow Lane Ave., Cody, WY 82414. Or email cmcquiston@fs.fed.us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Casey McQuiston, Resources Staff
Officer, Shoshone National Forest, 808 Meadow Lane Ave., Cody, WY
82414. (307) 578-5134 or cmcquiston@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 6, 2015, the Rocky Mountain Regional
Forester signed the Record of Decision (ROD) revising the Shoshone
National Forest Land Management Plan (LMP).
The May 6, 2015 Revised LMP included standards and guidelines
restricting the use of recreational pack goats, and domestic sheep and
goat grazing, where it was determined that there was unacceptable risk
of disease transmission from the pack goats or domestic sheep to
bighorn sheep. Bighorn sheep are a sensitive species on the Shoshone
National Forest.
In June 2015, the North American Packgoat Association joined the
Idaho Wool Growers Association and filed a Motion for Contempt with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. The plaintiffs alleged
that the Forest Service improperly relied on a report that the Court
had previously found to be in violation of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) when the Shoshone National Forest prepared its
2012 and 2013 Risk Assessment of Disease Transmission (RADT) reports,
which the Shoshone relied upon for the bighorn sheep analysis in the
forest plan revision effort. The Idaho District Court's 2009 decision
prohibited the Forest Service from relying on the findings and
conclusions of two Payette reports that pertained to disease
transmission between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep on the Payette
National Forest.
In February 2016, the District Court granted plaintiff's motion for
contempt finding that the Shoshone RADT reports had relied on the
findings and conclusions in the Payette reports. On July 9, 2016, the
parties agreed to a stipulated settlement.
[[Page 16023]]
In accordance with the July 2016 Stipulated Settlement Agreement,
the direction restricting pack goat use contained in the May 6, 2015
Revised Forest Plan is hereby retracted along with any references to
the 2009 Payette RADT and the 2012 and 2013 Shoshone RADT reports.
The Regional Forester must now consider whether the revised Forest
Plan should include direction regarding management of domestic sheep
and goats to limit the potential for disease transmission to bighorn
sheep, and, if so, whether there are differences in the potential for
disease transmission from domestic sheep, domestic goats, or packgoats,
to wild bighorn sheep that warrant different management approaches.
The Regional Forester will prepare a Supplement to the
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and a new RADT report consistent
with the National Environmental Policy Act and all applicable laws and
regulations pertinent to the revision of the Shoshone LMP. The SEIS
will document analysis of the potential for disease transmission
between domestic sheep, domestic goats, and packgoats; and wild bighorn
sheep on the Shoshone National Forest. The analysis shall consider
whether there are differences in the potential for disease transmission
by domestic sheep, domestic goats, and packgoats to wild bighorn sheep.
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the federal action being considered here is to
determine what, if any, use by domestic sheep, domestic goats, or pack
goats is appropriate within the Shoshone National Forest and what
direction, if any, should be included in the revised LMP. The need for
this action was driven by the 2016 Stipulated Settlement Agreement and
will be accomplished by analyzing the risk of disease transmission from
domestic sheep and goats and pack goats to bighorn sheep.
Proposed Action
The Shoshone National Forest proposes to limit areas where domestic
sheep allotments are stocked and restrict the use of domestic goats and
packgoats on the Shoshone National Forest in order to reduce the risk
of disease transmission to bighorn sheep. These restrictions would be
incorporated into the LMP through the following plan components:
Desired Condition--Low risk of disease transmission from domestic
sheep and/or goats within the Shoshone national Forest.
SENS-Goal-03--Maintain low risk of disease transmission from
domestic sheep and domestic goats to wild bighorn sheep within core
bighorn sheep ranges.
SENS-Standard-05--Domestic sheep and goat allotments shall not
overlap with core native bighorn sheep ranges.
SENS-Standard-06--Do not allow recreational pack goat use in core
native bighorn sheep ranges.
SENS-Guideline-03--On bighorn sheep crucial winter range,
management activities that disturb bighorn sheep should be conducted
outside the season of use (December 1 through April 30), or designed to
reduce disturbance to bighorn sheep when the activity is necessary to
sustain or improve bighorn sheep crucial winter range conditions.
SENS-Guideline-06--Restrict disturbances near concentrated bighorn
sheep lambing areas between April 1 and June 30 with a minimum distance
of 1 mile from the lambing site. Short-term projects designed to
improve bighorn sheep habitat such as prescribed burning may be exempt.
SENS-Guideline-12--Outfitter and guide authorizations for
recreational goat packing in core bighorn sheep ranges will not be
issued.
Management Approach--A wildlife program emphasis for bighorn sheep
is to reduce the risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep and
goats to bighorn sheep. There is a concern about the risk of disease
transmission to bighorn sheep from domestic goats used for packing. To
minimize that risk, guidelines are applied for domestic pack goats
within the Shoshone National Forest; domestic sheep and goat grazing
has been removed from core native bighorn sheep ranges. Authorizations
for pack goat use in core bighorn sheep ranges will not be issued.
Possible Alternatives
Alternative 1, No Action: There would be no change in domestic
sheep management and packgoat use would be allowed on the Shoshone
National Forest.
Alternative 2, Proposed Action: Domestic sheep and domestic goat
grazing would be allowed on the current allotment allocated for sheep
and goats. Packgoat use would be prohibited from core native bighorn
sheep ranges.
Alternative 3: Domestic sheep and domestic goat grazing would be
allowed on the current allotment allocated for sheep and goats.
Packgoat use would be prohibited from core native bighorn sheep ranges
and approved through a permit process once a scientifically proven and
viable mitigation is developed and approved.
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
Cooperating Agency: Wyoming Game and Fish Department.
Responsible Official
Brian Ferebee, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, 740 Simms
Street, Golden, Colorado 80491.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible
official will decide how to address the potential risk of disease
transmission from domestic sheep and goats, and packgoats to bighorn
sheep.
Scoping Process
The Regional Forester will rely on the previous scoping efforts
conducted in preparation for the Environmental Impact Statement for the
Shoshone National Forest Plan Revision.
Preliminary Issues
There is potential for disease transmission from domestic sheep,
domestic goats, and pack goats, to wild bighorn sheep.
There are differences in the potential for disease transmission by
domestic sheep, domestic goats or pack goats to bighorn sheep.
There are minimal options for reducing potential for contact and
disease transmission.
Contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep, domestic goats,
and pack goats increases the risk of disease transmission to bighorn
sheep.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review: A draft supplemental environmental impact
statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft
environmental impact statement will be 90 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
[[Page 16024]]
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 90-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 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.
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.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, Section 21)
Dated: March 24, 2017.
Glenn P. Casamassa,
Associate Deptuy Chief, National Forest System.
[FR Doc. 2017-06391 Filed 3-30-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
