[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30085]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 7, 1994]


                                                   VOL. 59, NO. 234

                                        Wednesday, December 7, 1994

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

 

Upper Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Strategy, 
Northern and Intermountain Regions

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[D-990-05-1610-00-UCRB]

Upper Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Strategy, States of 
Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada

AGENCIES: Forest Service, USDA; Bureau of Land Management, USDI.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 
(EIS) and conduct planning activity which may amend Forest Service 
Regional Guides and will amend Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management land use plans.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
propose to develop a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based strategy for 
management of the lands under their jurisdiction in the Upper Columbia 
River Basin (UCRB) in Idaho, Montana, Utah, Nevada, Wyoming, and a 
small part of Washington that is administered by Region 1 of the Forest 
Service. This strategy will modify existing land use plans. The 
modification will include a coordinated ecosystem management strategy 
for National Forest System and BLM public lands. This strategy will be 
consistent with the ``Framework for Ecosystem Management in the 
Interior Columbia River Basin'' that is being completed by the 
Scientific Integration Team of the Eastside Ecosystem Management 
Project. The EIS that will accompany this strategy will use the 
information from the ``Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management 
in the Interior Columbia River Basin'' and information received from 
the public as a basis for issue determination and for evaluating 
alternative strategies. Additional information may be collected as 
necessary.
    The strategy will be adopted in the form of decisions about desired 
ranges of future conditions for ecosystems, and related standards and 
guidelines for management of National Forest System and BLM public 
lands on all or parts of the UCRB. The EIS will consider alternative 
strategies for management of National Forest System and BLM-
administered lands and their effects in the entire UCRB. At a minimum:
    A. The strategy will include direction which will protect and 
enhance aquatic ecosystems within the range of threatened or endangered 
anadromous fish through amendments to Forest Plans and Resource 
Management Plans. This direction will supersede any interim direction 
resulting from the Environmental Assessment for the Implementation of 
Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in 
Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California 
(commonly referred to as ``PACFISH'').
    B. The strategy also will include other necessary guidance 
applicable to the Basin as a whole, or to broad subregions within the 
basin. This guidance will address forest ecosystem health; rangeland 
ecosystem health; aquatic and riparian ecosystem health; integration of 
social and economic considerations; population viability; and the long-
term sustainability of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. 
The guidance also will be developed by examining other issues 
identified by the public through the scoping process. This guidance 
will be adopted as amendments to the Forest Service Regional Guides for 
Regions 1 and 4 and/or amendments to Forest Service and BLM land use 
plans.
    C. The third part of the strategy may identify changes to the ways 
current plans are implemented or budgets developed, that can improve 
capability to achieve ecosystem management objectives. The strategy may 
also help establish priorities for revising forest plans and developing 
or amending resource management plans. This part of the strategy does 
not require environmental analysis, but may be addressed within the 
scope of this EIS.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing by 30 days following the date of the last scoping meeting to 
receive full consideration in the development of alternatives. Dates of 
those meetings will be published in local and regional newspapers.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments concerning this proposal to Stephen P. 
Mealey, Project Manager, 304 North 8th St., Room 253, Boise Idaho 
83702.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Wyke or Cindy Deacon Williams, 
EIS Team Co-leaders, 304 North 8th St., Room 253, Boise, Idaho 83702, 
phone (208) 334-1770.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this action is to develop and 
analyze a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based strategy for management 
of lands administered by the United States Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior 
(USDI) Bureau of Land Management that are in the UCRB in Idaho, 
Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada and that portion of Washington 
administered by the Forest Service's Northern Region. The strategy will 
focus on ecosystem health, including its forest, rangeland, and 
aquatic/riparian, landscape, and social/economic components, with 
emphasis on population viability and the sustainability of threatened, 
endangered, and sensitive species.
    The EIS team will prepare a proposed action that responds to 
problems described in the statement of purpose and need. Formal scoping 
meetings will follow the development of the proposed action. The 
purpose and need statement and proposed action will serve to focus 
formal scoping meetings by giving the public a better understanding of 
the agencies' early thoughts about, or initial approximations of, what 
the UCRB ecosystem strategy might be. The theme of the proposed action 
will be the restoration of ecological resiliency in forest, rangeland, 
and aquatic/riparian ecosystems within the UCRB. (Aldo Leopold, in his 
essay The Land Ethic, defines the health of the land as ``the capacity 
of the land for self-renewal.'' We speak of ecological resiliency as 
the capacity of an ecosystem, including its physical, biological and 
human components, for self-renewal. We do not imply that all human 
wants will be satisfied by a resilient ecosystem.) Alternatives to the 
proposed action will be developed largely in response to public 
comments on the proposed action in formal scoping meetings.
    This EIS will address all BLM lands within the Columbia River Basin 
east of Oregon and Washington and all National Forest System lands in 
the Columbia River Basin within the agency's Northern and Intermountain 
administrative Regions. (This includes National Forest System and BLM 
public lands in all of Idaho except the southeast corner that drains 
into the Great Basin. It also includes the portion of the Panhandle 
National Forest in Washington, that portion of Montana west of the 
Continental Divide, a small portion of west-central Wyoming, the north-
west corner of Utah, and the northeastern corner of Nevada.) The 
selected alternative may result in amendment to the Forest Service 
Regional Guides for the Northern and Intermountain Regions and 
amendment of the land use plans for the Forest Service and Bureau of 
Land Management as follows:
    Forest Service: Boise, Bridger-Teton, Caribou, Challis, Humboldt, 
Payette, Salmon, Sawtooth, and Targhee National Forests in the 
Intermountain Region; and Panhandle, Clearwater, Nez Perce, Kootenai, 
Lolo, Flathead, Helena, Deerlodge, and Bitterroot National Forests in 
the Northern Region.
    Bureau of Land Management: Boise, Burley, Idaho Falls, Salmon, 
Shoshone, and Coeur d'Alene Districts in Idaho; Butte District in 
Montana; Rock Springs District in Wyoming; Salt Lake District in Utah; 
and Elko and Winnemucca Districts in Nevada.
    The BLM Challis Resource Area (Salmon District), Bennett Hills 
Resource Area (Shoshone District), and Owyhee Resource Area (Boise 
District) now are preparing Resource Management Plans (RMPs) that are 
expected to incorporate ecosystem management strategies. Similarly, the 
Targhee National Forest is revising its forest plan, and the Clearwater 
National Forest expects to revise its forest plan. The schedule for the 
Clearwater forest plan revision process will be announced at the time a 
notice of intent for that purpose is published. These five planning 
efforts will continue. The Challis, Bennett Hills, and Owyhee RMPs are 
expected to be completed in 1995. The Targhee forest plan revision is 
expected to be complete in 1996, and the Clearwater forest plan 
revision is expected to be completed sometime after the completion of 
the UCRB EIS. To the extent possible, those planning efforts will be 
coordinated with development of the UCRB ecosystem management strategy. 
The UCRB EIS may lead to a Record of Decision that amends one or more 
of those five plans following completion of on-going planning efforts. 
If the UCRB EIS is completed prior to completion of any of these five 
on-going efforts, adjustments may be made to on-going efforts to ensure 
consistency with the UCRB ecosystem management strategy.
    BLM lands subject to potential plan amendments through the UCRB 
effort total approximately 14 million acres in five states. The 
National Forest System lands subject to potential plan amendment total 
approximately 31.5 million acres.
    Concurrent with this EIS, a basin-wide assessment known as the 
``Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior 
Columbia River Basin'' is under development. (The ``interior Columbia 
River Basin'' has been defined as the lands in the continental United 
States tributary to the Columbia River east of the crest of the Cascade 
Mountain Range.) This Scientific Assessment will cover broad 
ecosystems, and describe social, economic, and biophysical processes 
and functions. The natural resources within this broad geographic area 
have been altered over time by many factors including drought, fire 
suppression, global climate change, livestock grazing, mining, timber 
harvest, urbanization, and water uses. The results of the Scientific 
Assessment will be used, in part, to analyze the effects of past 
management and present management under current land use plans as a 
baseline to help determine the need to change management direction, and 
to determine the effects of different approaches to ecosystem 
management.
    The EIS will analyze a number of alternatives. One will be no 
action, defined as current land use plan direction without modification 
of any decision resulting from the Environmental Assessment for the 
Implementation of Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-
producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and 
Portions of California (commonly referred to as the ``PACFISH'' 
strategy). Another will be current management direction as modified by 
any decision issued as interim direction resulting from the ``PACFISH'' 
environmental assessment. As indicated, further alternatives will be 
developed in response to issues identified during the public scoping 
process as defined in the Council on Environmental Quality's National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations to identify a 
range of reasonable alternatives.
    Issues that are expected to be addressed in detail through the 
development and analysis of alternatives (in addition to the management 
of anadromous fish habitat) include ecosystem health and its forest, 
rangeland, and aquatic/riparian components with emphasis on population 
viability and long-term sustainability of threatened, endangered, and 
sensitive species. The use of public lands and resources in the 
production of goods and services within the context of sustainability 
will also be examined. The evaluation of these alternatives and others 
will consider people's expectations for public lands and resources, 
along with the capability of the ecosystems to provide and sustain 
these values through time. Information will be used from the basin-wide 
Scientific Assessment, Tribal governments, state and local governments, 
other federal agencies, and other appropriate sources.
    The direction being developed through this process will serve as an 
ecosystem management strategy to move from current conditions to more 
ecologically sustainable and socially desirable conditions, leaving 
options available for future generations. The strategy will, at least, 
establish desired ranges of future conditions for broad forest, 
rangeland, and aquatic/riparian habitat types and inter-related social, 
economic and landscape systems. Achievement of desired ranges of future 
conditions by practices and activities developed and implemented at the 
national forest and BLM district level, will result in restoration of 
ecosystem health and restoration of ecological processes that maintain 
ecosystems over time. Ecosystem restoration to, and maintenance within, 
sustainable ranges by identifying appropriate goals and objectives and 
management practices, can also help promote viability of associated 
social and economic systems. The strategy will be based on integration 
of social values, ecological capabilities, and economic relationships, 
and will recognize treaty rights reserved by various Native American 
Tribes on ceded lands and will fulfill United States government trust 
responsibilities to the Tribes. The strategy will (1) assure habitat 
condition needed to support species viability within the context of 
desired ecosystem function and structure; (2) address the needs of 
species and habitats of concern (currently listed or being considered 
for listing under the Endangered Species Act or designated as sensitive 
species by the Forest Service or BLM); (3) support the needs of dynamic 
ecosystems that change over time and space; and (4) recognize the role 
that disturbance mechanisms play in the evolution and maintenance of 
ecosystems.
    Scoping meetings are tentatively planned for Coeur d'Alene, Moscow, 
Orofino, Grangeville, McCall, Salmon, Challis, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, 
Twin Falls, Ketchum, and Boise in Idaho; Missoula, Libby, Kalispell, 
Hamilton, Helena, and Butte, in Montana; Jackson, Wyoming; Salt Lake 
City, Utah; and Elko, Nevada. Specific dates, times and locations for 
the meetings will be announced in local newspapers of general 
distribution.
    The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service will act as 
joint lead agencies to prepare the EIS. The two agencies will consult 
with Tribal Governments and coordinate with state and local governments 
and other federal agencies. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service will be consulted pursuant to the 
Endangered Species Act.
    The responsible officials for National Forest System lands will be 
the Regional Foresters for the:

--Intermountain Region, Federal Building, 324 25th Street, Ogden, Utah 
84401; and
--Northern Region, P.O. Box 7669, Missoula, Montana.

The responsible officials for public lands administered by the Bureau 
of Land Management will be the State Directors for:

--Idaho, 3380 Americana Terrace, Boise, Idaho 83706;
--Montana, Granite Tower, 222 N. 32nd Street, Billings, Montana 59101;
--Wyoming, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003;
--Utah, 324 South State Street, Suite 301, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111; 
and
--Nevada, P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada 89520.

    The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency in October, 1995, and will be available for public 
review at that time. A public comment period of 90 days will be 
provided for the draft EIS.
    The UCRB EIS Team (Team) believes it is important to give reviewers 
notice at this early stage of several court rulings related to public 
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of 
draft EISs 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 EIS stage but that are not 
raised until after completion of the final EIS 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 on the draft EIS, 
so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the 
Team at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to 
them in the final EIS.
    To assist the Team in identifying and considering issues and 
concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should be as 
specific as possible. It also is helpful if comments refer to specific 
pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments also may address the 
adequacy of the draft EIS 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.
    It is expected that the final EIS will be filed with the 
Environmental Protection Agency approximately 6 months after the draft 
EIS is published. The record of decision for National Forest System 
Lands will be issued with the final EIS and will be subject to Forest 
Service appeal regulations (36 CFR 217). The BLM's proposed plan 
amendment decision will be published with the final EIS and will be 
subject to BLM protest regulations (43 CFR 1610.5-2). The BLM's record 
of decision will be published following resolution of any protests.
David F. Jolly,
Regional Forester, Northern Region.
Dale N. Bosworth,
Regional Forester, Intermountain Region.
Alan R. Pierson,
Acting State Director, Idaho.
Larry E. Hamilton,
State Director, Montana.
[FR Doc. 94-30085 Filed 12-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P