Southwestern Region; Coconino National Forest, Arizona; Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Windmill Range Allotment

SUMMARY: The Coconino National Forest of the Forest Service is planning

to prepare an environmental impact statement on proposals to change

cattle management on the 248,792 acre Windmill Allotment planning area.

DATES: This analysis has been ongoing and public participation has

occurred at various stages. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement

will be published in July of 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Mormon Lake Ranger Districts, 4373 S. Lake

Mary Road, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001, Reference: Windmill EIS.

[[Page 34685]]

EFFECTIVE DATE: Send comments to Mormon Lake Ranger District, 4373 S.

Lake Mary Road, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001, Reference: Windmill EIS.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Fred Trevey, Coconino Forest Supervisor.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

District Range Staff, Mike Hannemann, (520) 774-1147.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Windmill Allotment Management Plan was

updated in 1982 to address the distribution of livestock. In 1988 the

Allotment plan for the Winter Division was updated to change the

grazing system to improve the growth of cool-season Stipa grasses and

overall range conditions.

In 1994, the Peaks, Mormon Lake and Sedona Ranger Districts in

partnership with the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the Windmill

Ranch initiated a comprehensive analysis of the Windmill Allotment to

update the Allotment Management Plan. The Allotment was selected for

analysis to address:

Large, open meadows that are in poor condition indicating an

imbalance between plant growth and use of plants throughout the

meadows;

Riparian areas that are in less than preferable condition;

Management of threatened, endangered and sensitive species;

Administrative inefficiencies (three allotment plans versus one

plan);

Fragmentation indicating a need for landscape scale planning;

Livestock/elk conflicts.

In 1995, a 10 year grazing permit was issued for the Windmill

Allotment under the term of the Rescission Bill (Burns Amendment). This

permit included some interim mitigating measures including fencing

riparian and sensitive plant habitats, sweeping cattle from driveways

and shipping culled cows. As required by this legislation, the

Allotment was then rescheduled for comprehensive analysis within the 10

year period.

In 1996, the comprehensive analysis was continued. The core team

focused on gaining an understanding of relationships between forage

production, soils, tree densities, climate, past grazing, and the

dietary needs of cattle and elk. Further, the team focused on judging

where forage dietary needs and grazing use were out of balance with the

lands ability to produce forage with upward trends and designing

management actions to respond to problem areas. The following describes

the analysis in detail.

Specifically, the purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the

grazing use on the Windmill Allotment and to propose options for moving

toward resource improvement goals and objectives. Cattle grazing

alternatives (including no cattle grazing) are being considered. If a

cattle grazing alternative is selected, a new permit will be issued

along with a new Allotment Management Plan (AMP).

Tentative alternatives are: 1. Alternative A is designed to meet

all the current grazing management issues while maintaining a viable

ranching operation. This alternative uses permittee and range

conservationist knowledge to determine proper livestock numbers, graze

periods, graze rotations, and pasture splits. Total livestock numbers

are 1252 to 1257.

2. Alternative B is the no action alternative as required by the

National Environmental Policy Act regulations. Selection of this

alternative would mean that no grazing would occur on this allotment

for the next 10 years.

3. Alternative C is the management system currently in place. This

alternative permits a total of 1,252 to 1,257 cattle to graze year-

round on the Windmill Range Allotment.

4. Alternative D is designed to respond to grazing capacity and

proper use guideline issues. This alternative uses timberstand data

base and TES data to project total yearly forage production for each

pasture. Total livestock numbers are 635.

5. Alternative F is the same as Alternative A except for adjusting

the Luke Mountain pasture of the Foxboro Herd from a two-way pasture

split to a three-way pasture split. This third pasture reduces graze

periods in Little T-Six from 20 to 10 days and Highway Camp from 14-20

days to 10 days. Total livestock numbers are 1252 to 1257.

6. Alternative G is designed to better meet resource concerns of

poor and declining range conditions in parts of Munds-Pocket and

Foxboro Herd areas. This alternative improves on Alternative A in these

areas by reducing livestock numbers, adjusting graze periods and

additional pasture splits. Total livestock numbers are 1090 to 1125.

Items common to alternatives include fencing some riparian areas to

exclude livestock. The areas chosen for fencing are easily accessed by

cattle, are fairly large and have adjacent wet meadows and are

estimated to have high potential for improvement. Not all riparian

springs located on the Allotment are fenced. Those not chosen for

fencing are less accessible to cattle, are not associated with wet

meadows and are estimated to have high potential for improvement. Not

all riparian springs located on the Allotment are fenced. Those not

chosen for fencing are less accessible to cattle, are not associated

with wet meadows and are very small. Major creeks and rivers will not

have direct cattle access under any of the alternatives. Other items

common to all alternatives include tank re-location and/or waterlot

construction where tanks occur in dry meadows. Pastures that will not

be used in the 10 year management plan period are also identified.

Environmental analysis has been ongoing. It is anticipated that a

draft environmental impact statement will be published in July of 1997.

A ninety day comment period pursuant to 36 CFR 219.10(b) will be

provided for the public to make comments on the draft environmental

impact statement. A record of decision will be prepared and filed with

the final environmental impact statement. A ninety day appeal period

pursuant to 36 CFR 217.8(a) will be applicable. The ninety day comment

period on the draft environmental impact statement will begin when the

Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Availability appears in the

Federal Register.

To be 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 on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the

procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40

CFR 1503.3).

This is the second notice for this draft environmental impact

statement. The publication of the draft was changed from our original

estimate of February, 1997 to July, 1997.

Fred Trevey,

Coconino Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 97-16885 Filed 6-26-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M