Southwestern Region; Authorization of Livestock Grazing Activities on the Sacramento Grazing Allotment, Sacramento Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, Otero County, NM

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Southwestern Region; Authorization of Livestock Grazing

Activities on the Sacramento Grazing Allotment, Sacramento Ranger

District, Lincoln National Forest, Otero County, NM

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact

statement on a proposal to authorize livestock grazing activities on

the Sacramento Grazing Allotment. The project area encompasses over

111,000 acres of National Forest lands on the Sacramento Ranger

District of the Lincoln National Forest. The Sacramento Grazing

Allotment comprises approximately 25% of the range district. The

project has generated controversy on three main points; effects to

threatened and endangered animal and plant species, concern for

degraded riparian areas, and forage competition between wildlife and

livestock.

DATES: The agency invites written comments and suggestions on the scope

of the analysis. In addition, the agency will give notice for the full

environmental analysis once it nears completion so that interested and

affected people may participate and contribute to a final decision.

Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received in

writing by June 15, 1999.

A Draft Enviromental Impact Statement should be available for

public comment in July, 1999. After considering the comments received

on the proposed action, the analysis document will be modified to

include any changes that result. Once updated, the Final Environmental

Impact Statement should be available to the public in September 1999.

[[Page 24133]]

ADDRESSES: Comments concerning the proposal and scope of the analysis

should be received in writing by June 15, 1999. Send written comments

and suggestions concerning the management of this area to Rick Newmon

or Mark Cadwallader, Sacramento Ranger District, P.O. Box 288,

Cloudcroft, New Mexico, 88317.

Responsible Offical

The District Ranger will decide whether or not to authorize

domestic livestock grazing on the Sacramento Allotment which will

include adding appropriate forest plan standards and guidelines to Part

3 of the Term Grazing Permit. If grazing is authorized, the District

Ranger will decide on the permitted number of animals and season of

use, range facilities to be constructed, allowable utilization

standards, required monitoring and mitigation measures (best management

practices, BMPs). In addition, the District Ranger will establish a

forage allocation for livestock and wildlife for the Sacramento

Allotment. This allocation will prescribe a percentage of the total

available forage that wil be reserved for wildlife species.

for additional information contact: Questions about the proposed

project and scope of analysis should be directed to Rick Newmon or Mark

Cadwallader at (505-682-2551).

supplementary information: The Forest Service is planning to authorize

livestock grazing activities on the Sacramento Grazing Allotment.

Background

The current Sacramento Allotment is the result of the combination

of 10 historical allotments. In the late 1970's, the High Nogal Ranch

Inc. acquired the grazing permits on the allotments mentioned above.

The control of livestock management on these small allotments by one

business interest offered an opportunity to combine them into one large

allotment. Combining the allotments provided an opportunity to improve

resource management as well as administrative and economic efficiency.

The allotments were combined and the current Sacramento Grazing

Allotment was formed. And environmental analysis and an allotment

management plan (AMP) were approved in 1979 for the newly consolidated

allotment. The AMP prescribed an intensive rotation grazing system be

implemented along with a very extensive range improvement development

program. Full livestock numbers were run on the allotment, under

direction of the new AMP, for about two years. In 1983, the permittee

filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy left the implementation of the AMP

only partially completed. Between 1983 and 1989, the allotment saw

periods of very light use to total non-use by livestock.

In 1989, the current permittees acquired the grazing permit for the

Sacramento Allotment. The new permittees acquired only the grazing

permit and did not acquire the private lands which were an integral

part of the livestock operation when the original combination took

place. In addition, the long period of non-use on the allotment

resulted in deterioration of many of the existing range improvements.

With many of the range improvements no longer functional and changes in

private land base available to the current permittees, the existing AMP

had become essentially unmanageable.

After acquisition of the grazing permit, the current permittees

gradually began to stock the allotment to full permitted numbers. When

full numbers were run on the permit in 1991, forage utilization began

to exceed acceptable levels. Excessive forage utilization has been a

concern since 1991.

Existing Condition

The Sacramento Allotment contains over 36 miles of perennial

streams. Riparian inventory data indicates that less than 10% of the

riparian zones associated with these perennial waters are in

satisfactory condition, based on the Region 3 standards and guidelines

for riparian areas. The Sacramento Allotment contains about half of all

the riparian resources on the Sacramento Ranger District. The livestock

management decisions made on this allotment will be an important factor

in determining the potential for riparian improvement on the entire

district.

The Sacramento Allotment is home to several threatened and

endangered plant and animal species. They include the Sacramento

Mountain thistle, Sacramento prickly poppy, Mexican spotted owl,

peregrine falcon, and the bald eagle. The current forage utilization

levels are not conducive to moving range condition rating towards good

to excellent range condition as specified in various specie recovery

plans.

Forgage competition between elk and livestock has developed into a

resource concern. The excessive forage use currently occurring on the

allotment is the combined result of forage use by the current elk

population and currently permitted livestock numbers.

Objectives

Implement a maximum forage use level or minimum stubble height

requirement that will lead to long-term improvement in rangeland

ecosystems and riparian habitats.

Bring permitted livestock numbers in line with estimated carrying

capacity.

Develop a grazing management strategy which identifies the

structural and range improvements required to implement that strategy.

Establish an allocation of available forage between livestock and

wildlife.

Permit livestock grazing as a tool to meet vegetative management

objectives as set forth in the Lincoln National Forest's Land and

Resource Management Plan (pp. 34-36 and pp. 86-101).

Continue to permit commercial livestock use on the Sacramento

Allotment to a level that contributes to the local custom and culture

and the local economy while sustaining healthy ecosystems.

Desired Future Condition

Forest plan standards and guidelines for riparian areas are being

met.

Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species habitat is improving

and recovery objectives are being met.

Areas of unsatisfactory Range condition are on an upward trend

toward satisfactory or better range condition.

The allocation of forage between livestock and wildlife species has

been implemented. This allocation is continually monitored and actions

are taken to maintain a viable elk population that is in balance

maintain with the available forage produced on the allotment.

Recreational uses and esthetic values have been enhanced through

the improved management of rangeland ecosystems.

Authorization is needed on this allotment because:

--Where consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives

there is Congressional intent to allow grazing on suitable lands.

(Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 1964,

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, National Forest Management Act

of 1976).

--The Sacramento Allotment contain lands identified as suitable for

domestic livestock grazing in the Lincoln National Forest Plan and

continued domestic livestock grazing is consistent with the goals,

objectives, standards, and guidelines of the forest plan.

--It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified

livestock operators from lands suitable for grazing

[[Page 24134]]

consistent with land management plans (FSM 2203.1).

--It is Forest Service policy to continue contributions to the

economic and social well being of people by providing opportunities for

economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities that

depend on range resources for their livelihood (FSM 2202.1).

--By regulation, forage producing lands will be managed for

livestock grazing where consistent with land management plans (36 CFR

222.2(c)).

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. NYDC, 435 U.S.

519.553 (1973). 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

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: April 23, 1999.

Jose M. Martinez,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 99-11198 Filed 5-4-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M