[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-22319]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 9, 1994]


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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 

Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Rio 
Grande National Forest; Rio Grande County, Mineral County, Saguache 
County, Conejos County, Alamosa County, Hinsdale County, San Juan 
County, and Archuleta County, CO

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 36 CFR 219.10(g), the Regional Forester for the 
Rocky Mountain Region gives revised notice of the agency's intent to 
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the revision of the 
Rio Grande National Forest and Land and Resource Management Plan 
(Forest Plan) to make specific changes described in the Analysis of the 
Management Situation (AMS). A notice of intent was originally published 
in the Federal Register on June 7, 1990. According to 36 CFR 219.10(g), 
Forest Plans are ordinarily revised on a 10-year cycle. The existing 
Rio Grande Forest Plan was approved on January 4, 1985.

DECISIONS TO BE MADE: The Rio Grande National Forest intends to 
reexamine the primary decisions made in the Forest Plan by addressing 
the issues identified as revision topics. The revision topics are those 
areas of the Forest Plan, identified through monitoring, evaluation, 
and public involvement, where a potential need for change was 
identified. The revision topics are:

1. Biological Diversity
2. Timber Suitability and Management
3. Wilderness, Unroaded, and Other Special Area Considerations
4. Recreation Opportunities and Travel Management
5. Oil and Gas Leasing

    The primary decisions made in the Forest Plan are:

Establishment of forest-wide multiple-use goals and objectives, 36 CFR 
219.11(b);
Establishment of forest-wide management requirements (standards and 
guidelines) to fulfill the requirements of 16 U.S.C. 1604 applying to 
future activities (resource integration requirements), 36 CFR 219.13 to 
219.27;
Establishment of management-area direction (management-area 
prescriptions) applying to future activities in that management area 
(resource integration and minimum, specific management requirements), 
36 CFR 219.11(c);
Designation of lands suited or not suited for timber production and 
other resource management activities, 36 CFR 219.14, 219.15, 219.20, 
and 219.21;
Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements, 36 CFR 
219.17(b)1;
Recommendations to Congress for the establishment of Wilderness, and
Recommendations regarding Wild and Scenic Rivers, and other special 
designations.

    No irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources (site-
specific actions) will be made as a result of this decision. Projects 
to implement the Forest Plan will involve site-specific environmental 
analysis and appropriate documentation.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: The Forest Service continues to invite comments and 
suggestions from Federal, State, and local agencies, Native American 
tribes, individuals, and organizations on the scope of the analysis to 
be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). In 
addition, the Forrest Service gives notice that it has begun a full 
environmental analysis and decision-making process for this proposal so 
that interested or affected people may know how they can participate in 
the environmental analysis and contribute to the final decision. Public 
meetings were held in November and December of 1993 to discuss 
alternatives and to define the range of alternatives to be considered. 
Forest Service officials described and explained the preliminary 
alternatives the agency has identified and the process of environmental 
analysis and disclosure. Written comments are encouraged. Additional 
meetings with individuals or groups may be arranged by contacting Ron 
Pugh, Forest Planner, 719-852-5941.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis or the 
alternatives may be sent in at any time.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Jim Webb, Forest Supervisor, Rio 
Grande National Forest, 1803 West Highway 160, Monte Vista Colorado, 
81144.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ron Pugh, Forest Planner, 719-852-5941.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The revision topics were identified through 
a process of examining the Forest Plan and determining what items may 
need to be changed. This process included a number of public meetings 
designed to get public input. Newsletters, seminars, and meetings with 
local government officials and interest groups have also aided in 
identifying the revision topics.
    The revision process includes the development of an Analysis of the 
Management Situation (AMS) (36 CFR 219.12(e)), which describes the need 
and opportunity to alter or retain portions of the existing Forest 
Plan. The AMS for the Rio Grande National Forest has been completed. 
The public was involved in identifying the need for changes to the 
Forest Plan. Copies of the AMS may be obtained by contacting Ron Pugh 
at 719-852-5941.
    The alternatives shown below are preliminary and continue to be 
developed. Some of the preliminary alternatives may not be analyzed in 
detail.

Alternative NA (No Action)

    Alternative NA is the No-Action alternative. No-Action means that 
the current management allocations, activities, and management 
direction of the existing Forest Plan (as amended) would continue. All 
alternatives, including Alternative NA, have some modifications to 
existing direction for clarification, updating to new technology, new 
definitions, etc. Due to additional lands becoming Wilderness with the 
passage of the 1993 Colorado Wilderness Bill and refinements in the 
timber inventory, the tentatively suitable timber land base has changed 
from 806,426 acres to 756,108 acres. This new total represents 
approximately 39% of the gross acreage of the Forest.

How Revision Topics Are Affected

    1. Biological Diversity: The management of ecosystems is only 
partially addressed in the existing Forest Plan. The evolving 
principles of ecosystems management would be applied within the context 
of the existing Forest Plan.
    2. Timber Suitability and Management: Lands currently identified as 
suitable (using the revised tentatively suitable land base) would be 
scheduled for timber harvest within the context of the evolving 
principles of ecosystem management.
    3. Wilderness, Unroaded, and Other Special Area Considerations: No 
additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System would be 
recommended. Land allocations in the current Forest Plan would apply to 
the undeveloped areas on the Forest.
    4. Recreation Opportunities and Travel Management: Current 
management direction would apply. The Forest would be managed to 
provide existing levels of primitive and semi-primitive nonmotorized 
recreation. The current policy limiting motorized uses to designated 
roads and trails would not change.
    5. Oil and Gas Leasing: The Rio Grande Forest would respond to 
lease requests rather than initiating actions. All legally available 
lands would be available for leasing.

Alternative A

    Some people think that the best way to perpetuate ecosystems and 
forest health is with a ``light touch'' * * * little or no logging, no 
new road construction, significantly reducing the miles of existing 
roads, etc.

How Revision Topics Are Affected

    1. Biological Diversity: The designated Wilderness, areas 
recommended for Wilderness designation, and other undeveloped areas 
would result in few changes to the composition, structure, and pattern 
of vegetation over the short term. Over the long term it is possible 
that large fires, insect epidemics, or other natural disturbances could 
result in significant changes to the composition, structure, and 
pattern of forest vegetation.
    2. Timber Suitability and Management: There are no suitable, 
scheduled timber lands identified in this alternative. Production of 
timber will result only from treatment of the forest to achieve 
objectives such as wildlife habitat improvement of recreation 
improvements.
    3. Wilderness, Unroaded, and Other Special Area Considerations: All 
unroaded areas would be recommended for Wilderness designation. These 
areas would be managed primarily to allow natural processes to occur 
with little human influence.
    4. Recreation Opportunities and Travel Management: Primary emphasis 
will be on primitive and semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation 
opportunities. Some backcountry motorized recreation opportunities will 
be provided. However, the travel management emphasis will be on 
reducing the miles of open roads.
    5. Oil and Gas Leasing: All Forest lands would be administratively 
unavailable for oil and gas leasing.

Alternative B

    Some people feel that the best way to insure economic stability is 
through higher levels of timber harvest and the perpetuation of other 
programs that provide monetary returns at the local and national level.

How Revision Topics Are Affected

    1. Biological Diversity: Vegetative composition, structure, and 
pattern in those areas of the Forest not designated Wilderness or 
managed as backcountry will be influenced by a relatively high level of 
logging.
    2. Timber Suitability and Management: This alternative provides the 
largest amount of land suitable and scheduled for timber production.
    3. Wilderness, Unroaded, and Other Special Area Considerations: 
There are no recommendations for Wilderness designation in this 
alternative. Some unroaded areas will be managed to provide backcountry 
motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities.
    4. Recreation Opportunities and Travel Management: This alternative 
will emphasize multi-season, multi-use recreation programs. Recreation 
will equally emphasize the various recreation programs which include 
motorized and nonmotorized recreation, outfitter guides, special uses, 
and any programs that promote out-of-state tourism.
    5. Oil and Gas Leasing: This alternative would authorize leasing on 
all legally available lands.

Alternative C

    Many people feel that the Forest Service can operate more 
efficiently if resource management programs would be structured so that 
they pay for themselves. Some funding mechanisms will be hypothesized 
that are not currently allowed by law.
    Allocations in this alternative would be exactly the same as 
alternative D, except that the programs would be self-supporting.

How the Revision Topics Are Affected

    The effects to revision topics are the same as those for 
Alternative D.

Alternative D

    This alternative emphasizes a multiple-use approach that is 
designed to maintain or improve the economy and quality of life in and 
around the San Luis Valley. There is an emphasis on recreation 
development using partnerships and cooperative agreements.

How the Revision Topics Are Affected

    1. Biological Diversity: Vegetative composition, structure, and 
pattern in those areas of the Forest not designated Wilderness or 
managed as backcountry will be influenced by a moderate level of 
logging.
    2. Timber Management and Suitability: This alternative provides a 
relatively high amount of land that is suitable and scheduled for 
timber production.
    3. Wilderness, Unroaded and Other Special Area Considerations: 
There are no recommendations for Wilderness designation in this 
alternative. A significant number of unroaded areas will be managed to 
provide backcountry motorized and nonmotorized recreation 
opportunities.
    4. Recreation Opportunities and Travel Management: This alternative 
will emphasize multi-season, multi-use recreation programs. Recreation 
will equally emphasize the various recreation programs which include 
motorized and nonmotorized recreation, outfitter guides, special uses, 
and any programs that promote or support out-of-state tourism.
    5. Oil and Gas Leasing: Some suitable lands will be leased with 
standard lease terms and supplemental stipulations. The discretionary 
no-lease stipulation may be used where surface-leasing activity is not 
wanted.

Alternative E

    Many people feel that the best way to manage the Forest is through 
an even distribution of multiple resource uses that are managed within 
the capabilities of the Forest's ecosystems. Only areas that have been 
developed in the past will be considered for activities such as timber 
harvest and recreation developments. Emphasis is placed on the Rio 
Grande National Forest Recreation Strategy.

How Revision Topics Are Affected

    1. Biological Diversity: Vegetative composition, structure, and 
pattern in those areas of the Forest previously developed will be 
influenced by a modest level of logging. There will be significant 
amounts of the Forest in backcountry nonmotorized and motorized 
management prescriptions where ecosystems are expected to function with 
only minimal disturbances.
    2. Timber Management and Suitability: Lands suitable for timber 
production are limited to those areas of the Forest where logging has 
taken place in the past.
    3. Wilderness, Unroaded, and Other Special Area Considerations: 
Selected unroaded areas will be recommended for Wilderness designation. 
The majority of the remaining unroaded areas will be managed under 
backcountry nonmotorized and motorized prescriptions.
    4. Recreation Opportunities and Travel Management: This alternative 
will emphasize multi-season, multi-use recreation programs.
    5. Oil and Gas Leasing: Areas having special recreation values 
would have a discretionary no-lease stipulation applied. These areas 
might include backcountry areas, eligible Wild Rivers, certain Special 
Interest Areas, Scenic Byways, and dispersed recreation areas.

Alternative F

    This alternative emphasizes the protection of biodiversity and 
whole ecosystems using the concept of island biogeography and 
conservation reserves. Human uses are allowed as long as they are 
compatible with protecting biological diversity.

How Revision Topics Are Affected

    1. Biological Diversity: This alternative was designed as an 
attempt to provide a high level of emphasis on protecting whole 
ecosystems. In this context, ecosystems primarily consider biological 
and physical attributes, and de-emphasize the social and economic 
attributes of ecosystems.
    2. Timber Management and Suitability: Lands suitable for timber 
production are limited to those areas of the Forest allocated to the 
General Forest and Intermingled Rangelands management prescription.
    3. Wilderness, Unroaded, and Other Special Area Considerations: 
Selected unroaded areas will be recommended for Wilderness designation. 
The majority of the undeveloped areas will be managed as ``core 
reserves.'' All unroaded areas will remain unroaded.
    4. Recreation Opportunities and Travel Management: The primary 
emphasis will be on nonmotorized recreation. Recreation is allowed but 
not emphasized in core reserve areas. No motorized uses are allowed in 
the core reserve areas.
    5. Oil and Gas Leasing: Only those Forest lands that have high 
potential for oil and gas resources would be analyzed under this 
alternative.

The Draft EIS

    The responsible official for approving the Forest Plan revision is 
Elizabeth Estill, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, USDA Forest 
Service, 740 Simms Street, P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, Colorado 80225. 
The Forest Supervisor, Rio Grand National Forest, is delegated 
responsibility for preparing the environmental impact statement.
    The Draft EIS and proposed Revised Forest Plan should be available 
for public review in March 1995. After a minimum comment period of 90 
days, the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Revised Forest Plan 
should be completed by March 1996.
    The 90 day public comment period on the Draft EIS will commence on 
the day the Environmental Protection Agency publishes a ``Notice of 
Availability'' in the Federal Register.
    It is very important that those interested in this proposed action 
participate during the comment period. To be the most helpful, comments 
on the Draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful 
if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the Draft EIS or the 
merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the Draft EIS. 
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 when addressing these points. 
Please note that comments you make on the Draft EIS will be regarded as 
public information.
    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). Environmental objections that could have raised at the 
draft environmental impact 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 Circuit, 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 comment period so that substantive 
comments 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.

    Dated: September 1, 1994.
Elizabeth Estill,
Regional Forester.
[FR Doc. 94-22319 Filed 9-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M