[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33084-33092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16285]



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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service


Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the 
Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests; Ashland, Bayfield, Florence, 
Forest, Langlade, Oconto, Oneida, Price, Sawyer, Taylor, and Vilas 
Counties, Wisconsin

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service intends to prepare an environmental impact 
statement for revising the Chequamegon and Nicolet Land and Resource 
Management Plans (Forest Plan) pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5) and 36 
CFR 219.12. The Forest Service will prepare one environmental impact 
statement and one revised Forest Plan that encompasses both National 
Forests (36 CFR 219.4(b)(3)).
    The current Forest Plans for both the Chequamegon and Nicolet were 
originally approved on August 11, 1986. These Plans guide the overall 
management of these National Forests. The six primary decisions made in 
Forest Plans are:
    (1) Forestwide Multiple-use Goals and Objectives (36 CFR 
219.11(b));
    (2) Forestwide Management Requirements (36 CFR 219.27);
    (3) Management Area Direction (36 CFR 219.11(c)),
    (4) Lands Suited/not Suited for Timber Management (36 CFR 219.14, 
219.16, 219.21);
    (5) Monitoring and Evaluation Requirements (36 CFR 219.11(d)); and
    (6) Recommendations to Congress, (such as recommendations, if any, 
for additional Wilderness (36 CFR 219.27)).
    Forest Plans must be revised every 10 to 15 years (U.S.C. 
1604(f)(5) and 36

[[Page 33085]]

CFR 219.10(g)). In addition, the Forest Service has determined there is 
a need to revise these Forest Plans to adjust to changed conditions, 
incorporate new information, and consider the management of National 
Forest System lands in the context of the larger landscape in which 
these lands are situated.
    In looking at the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests in a 
landscape context and based on the monitoring and evaluation done and 
public comment received, the Forest Service has determined that there 
is a need to make some changes to the primary decisions made in the 
1986 Forest Plans. A revised Plan will be developed to address the 
following major revision topics that have been identified through 
monitoring, evaluation, and public comment:

(1) Access and Recreational Opportunities;
(2) Biological Diversity;
(3) Special Land Allocation; and
(4) Timber Production.

    Some inconsistencies between the two 1986 plans that are not 
directly related to the main revision topics will be resolved as the 
two separate Forest Plans are combined into one. To achieve this 
consistency, it will be necessary to make many minor changes, 
particularly in Forest standards and guidelines.
    When making decisions in the revised Plan, we will examine the 
economic and social impacts to local communities, and the impacts at a 
broader regional level. We will also examine biological impacts at 
similar levels. In northern Wisconsin communities, the relationship 
between people and the natural environment in which the needs of people 
are met typically centers around the forest products and tourism 
industries.
    The purpose of this notice is to inform you that the Forest Service 
is now soliciting comments and suggestions from American Indian tribes, 
Federal agencies, State and local governments, individuals, and 
organizations on the scope of the analysis to be included in the draft 
environmental impact statement for the Revised Forest Plan (40 CFR 
1501.7). Comments relevant to scoping include: (1) identifying 
potential issues, (2) identifying those issues to be analyzed in depth, 
(3) eliminating insignificant issues or those which have been covered 
by a previous environmental analysis, and (4) identifying possible 
alternatives for addressing the issues. General notice to the public 
concerning the scope of the analysis will be provided by mailings, news 
releases, and public meetings.
    The environmental analysis and decision-making process will include 
many further opportunities for public participation and comment so that 
people interested in this proposal may contribute to the final 
decision. The draft environmental impact statement is tentatively 
scheduled for release in November, 1997 and the final environmental 
impact statement and decision are scheduled for December, 1998.
    The Forest Service will host a series of open house meetings to 
provide information about the process of revising the Forest Plans and 
to gather public input on the scope of the decision to be made. 
Meetings will be held as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Date                             Time                                Location                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 9, 1996.......................  4 pm-7 pm..................  Laona District Office.                        
July 15, 1996......................  4 pm-7 pm..................  Medford District Office.                      
July 16, 1996......................  4 pm-7 pm..................  Lakewood District Office.                     
July 16, 1996......................  4 pm-7 pm..................  Park Falls District Office.                   
July 24, 1996......................  3 pm-8 pm..................  Washburn District Office.                     
August 7, 1996.....................  4 pm-7 pm..................  Glidden District Office.                      
August 8, 1996.....................  4 pm-7 pm..................  Eagle River District Office.                  
August 8, 1996.....................  4 pm-7 pm..................  Hayward District Office.                      
August 12, 1996....................  4 pm-7 pm..................  Florence District Office.                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing by August 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Forest Plan Revision, Chequamegon 
and Nicolet National Forest, Federal Building, 68 S. Stevens Street, 
Rhinelander, WI 54501.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Probasco, Forest Planning Group 
Leader; (715) 762-2461.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section contains more detailed 
information about the process to revise the Forest Plans for the 
Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests. The section is organized as 
follows:
    A. Need for change--Why the Forest Service believes that changes 
need to be made to the existing Plans.
    B. Working with others in revising the Forest Plan--Describes the 
public involvement plan.
    C. The nature and scope of the decision to be made--What decisions 
are made in Forest Plans, what decisions will be revisited in a revised 
Plan, and who makes the decision.
    D. Description of preliminary issues and changes that may result 
from addressing the issues--This is the heart of the Notice of Intent. 
It provides information about the four major revision topics, 
preliminary issues and what changes or decisions will be made to 
address the issues.
    E. What will not be addressed or changed in the revised Forest 
Plan--Describes those items outside the scope of Plan revision.
    F. Alternatives in the draft environmental impact statement--
Because the major revision topics can be addressed in more than one 
way, this section describes how the Forest Service will develop and 
consider alternative ways of addressing the related issues.

A. Need For Change

    The Forest Service proposes to prepare one revised Forest Plan for 
both the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests. In doing so, we 
intend to concentrate on those areas of the existing Plans that truly 
need changing. Each Forest currently has a Forest Plan that has been in 
effect for the past 10 years. Many parts of the existing Plans have 
been working well, and we propose to carry those parts forward into a 
revised Forest Plan with little if any change (some changes may be 
necessary for consistency as we merge the two Plans together). There 
are several reasons for revising the Forest Plans for the Chequamegon 
and Nicolet National Forests:

    The law requires Forest Plans be revised at least every 15 
years. The original Plans were approved in 1986, so it is now time 
to begin the revision process.
    Conditions have changed. Monitoring since 1986 shows conditions 
we did not anticipate or project. For example, a harvest level study 
on the Nicolet revealed inaccuracies in growth and yield 
projections, and thus in the sustainable level of timber harvest 
projected

[[Page 33086]]

in the 1986 Forest Plan. There is an increased demand for the 
variety of goods, services and uses produced by the Chequamegon and 
Nicolet National Forests (Revision Topics and Need for Change 
report, USDA, Forest Service, 1996). For example, an increase in 
gathering of special/miscellaneous forest products indicates a need 
for standards and guidelines to manage these resources.
    New information is available. New information and scientific 
understanding regarding biological diversity have become available 
since the Plans were approved. The Forest Service has also conducted 
Scientific Roundtables on Biological Diversity and Socio/Economics 
which provided new information and recommendations (New Information 
report, USDA Forest Service, 1995).
    Change in Policy. The 1986 Forest Plans focused mainly on the 
capabilities of and resource utilization on National Forest lands 
within the proclaimed boundaries of the Chequamegon and Nicolet 
National Forests. In revising Forest Plans for the next decade, it 
will be important to describe the management of these National 
Forests in the context of the larger landscape in which they are 
situated. Furthermore, decisions about the management of the two 
National Forests need to be made based in part on the ongoing and 
future management of interspersed and adjoining private and public 
lands. Revised Plans will only provide direction for federally-owned 
lands. Looking beyond the boundaries of the Chequamegon and Nicolet 
Forests is important in developing complementary management 
strategies across multiple ownerships, addressing issues at a 
broader or regional scale, and looking at cumulative effects at a 
landscape level.

B. Working With Others in Revising the Forest Plan

    The Forest Service intends to involve the public in the revision 
effort to the fullest extent practical, given the time and resource 
constraints under which the work is proceeding. This dialog will 
include both keeping the public informed about the work as it 
progresses, and listening to and considering the opinions and 
suggestions offered by the public. This dialog will occur with American 
Indian tribes, other Federal, State, County and local governments and 
agencies, and with groups and individuals interested in or affected by 
the Plan revision. The input received will be used throughout the 
revision process.
    As part of its overall efforts to ensure that it honors treaty 
rights and its responsibilities toward nearby Indian Tribes, the Forest 
Service routinely will consult and exchange information with Tribes on 
a government-to-government basis throughout the Forest Plan revision 
process. This consultation will include the development of goals, 
standards, and guidelines needed to ensure the exercise of tribal 
hunting, gathering and fishing rights. In addition, the Forest Service 
will be sensitive to American Indian religious beliefs.
    The Forest Service will work collaboratively with other public 
forest managers, especially other national forests in the three-state 
area of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota, the Wisconsin Department of 
Natural Resources, and the Wisconsin county Forest Association. Many 
forest management issues cross administrative boundaries and must be 
dealt with on a scale larger than a single national forest.
    There are several ways people can become informed about and 
involved in the Plan revision process. These include, but are not 
necessarily limited to, periodic newsletters, news releases, workshops, 
and open house meetings. The Forest Service is maintaining a mailing 
list which contains the names and addresses of individuals and groups 
that have expressed an interest in Forest Plan revision or in national 
forest management in general. Those on this list will be kept informed 
of the status of the revision effort and of upcoming public involvement 
activities. To have your name added to the list, phone or write to: 
Forest Plan Revision, Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests, 68 
South Stevens Street, Rhinelander, WI 54501.
    Although the Forest Service will be working with individuals, 
groups, land owning entities, tribal governments, and other government 
agencies throughout the entire planning process, there are some 
specific points at which we will be inviting participation or comment:
    Notice of Intent--At the time of this publication of the notice of 
intent, people are invited to comment on the scope of the analysis, 
including: (1) identifying potential issues, (2) identifying those 
issues to be analyzed in depth, (3) eliminating insignificant issues or 
those which have been covered by a previous environmental analysis, and 
(4) identifying possible alternatives for addressing the issues. A 
series of ``open house'' meetings will provide a forum for comments 
during July and August. To be most useful, comments on the notice of 
intent should be submitted in writing, and be received by August 27, 
1996. Comments should be mailed to: Forest Plan Revision, Chequamegon 
and Nicolet National Forests, 68 S. Stevens Street, Rhinelander, WI 
54501.
    Alternative Development--During this stage, the Forest Service will 
be developing a range of alternatives for a revised Forest Plan. People 
will be invited to participate in a facilitated meeting and open house 
to help develop the alternatives.
    Analysis of Environmental Effects--During this stage, the Forest 
Service will analyze the probable environmental effects of each of the 
alternatives considered. The results of that analysis will be displayed 
in an environmental impact statement. People will be invited to 
participate in a facilitated meeting and open house to help ensure that 
all of the applicable effects are identified and adequately described.
    Publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)--
This document will be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), which will publish a notice in the Federal Register. The Forest 
Service will invite written comments on the DEIS for 90 days. The DEIS 
is expected to be published and filed with the EPA in November of 1997. 
Recent court rulings emphasize the importance of people providing 
comments by the close of the 90-day period.
    The 90-day comment period for the DEIS starts on the date the EPA 
publishes a notice in the Federal Register. It is very important that 
those interested in the revision participate at that time. To be most 
helpful, comments on the DEIS should be as specific as possible and 
should address the merits of the alternatives discussed. It is also 
helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft 
statement (see the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for 
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental 
Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3).
    The Forest Service believes that, 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 U.S. 519, 533 
(1978). 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 90-day comment period on the draft 
environmental impact statement, so that

[[Page 33087]]

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.
    After the end of the 90-day comment period on the DEIS, the Forest 
Service will review, consider, analyze, and respond to the comments in 
preparing the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The FEIS is 
scheduled to be completed in December of 1998. The responsible official 
will consider the comments, responses, and environmental consequences 
discussed in the final environmental impact statement, together with 
applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making a decision 
regarding this revision. The responsible official will document the 
decision and reasons for the decision in the record of decision. That 
decision will be subject to appeal in accordance with Federal 
regulations at 36 CFR 217. The responsible official is Robert T. 
Jacobs, Regional Forester, Eastern Region, 310 W. Wisconsin Ave., 
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203.

C. The Nature and Scope of the Decision To Be Made

    Separate Forest Plans for the Chequamegon and Nicolet National 
Forests were approved in 1986. Since that time, the two National 
Forests have merged their administrative operations, and one Forest 
Supervisor oversees both National Forests. Since planning regulations 
allow one Forest Plan to be prepared for all lands for which a Forest 
Supervisor has responsibility (36 CFR 219.4(b)(3)), the two existing 
Plans will be revised into one Forest Plan that covers both National 
Forests. The scope of this decision is limited to revisiting any those 
portions of decisions that need revision, update, or correction. The 
following decisions are made in a Forest Plan:
    (1) Multiple-use goals and objectives for the two National Forests 
(Chequamegon and Nicolet) in Wisconsin. Goals are statements that 
describe a desired condition to be achieved sometime in the future. 
Objectives are concise, time-specific statements of measurable planned 
results that respond to the goals.
    (2) Forest-wide management requirements (standards and guidelines). 
These are limitations on management activities, or advisable courses of 
action that apply across the entire forest.
    (3) Management area direction applying to future activities in each 
management area. This is the desired future condition specified for 
certain portions of the forest, and the accompanying standards and 
guidelines to help achieve that condition.
    (4) Lands suited or not suited for activities. For example, the 
Forest Plan must identity those lands suited and not suited for timber 
production.
    (5) Monitoring and evaluation requirements. Forest Plans are 
required to identify certain key items that will be monitored and 
evaluated to gauge how well the plan is being implemented.
    (6) Recommendations to Congress. For example, Forest Plans may 
contain recommendations that additional Wilderness (if any) be 
recommended for designation by Congress.
    These decisions will be re-visited only in how they apply to the 
revision issues that are identified. In addition, some minor changes in 
goals, objectives, management area descriptions, standards and 
guidelines, definitions, and monitoring requirements will be necessary 
to achieve consistency between the Chequamegon and Nicolet. Through the 
Plan revision process, we will also add some direction that is 
currently lacking in either Plan. For example, we will provide 
direction for the gathering of miscellaneous forest products and for 
management of rare plant species. We will expand the direction for use 
of prescribed fire and change direction for management of riparian 
areas to incorporate guidelines in Wisconsin Forestry Best Management 
Practices. These changes would normally be insignificant amendments to 
the Forest Plans.
    Mnay items are beyond the scope of what can or should be changed in 
a Revised Forest Plan. See Section F, titled ``What will not be 
addressed or changed in the Revised Plan'' for a list of those items.

D. Description of Preliminary Issues Identified and Changes That May 
Result From Addressing the Issues

    The portions of the Forest Plans to be revised focus on four major 
revision topics that were identified through monitoring, evaluation, 
and public comments. Those topics are access and recreational 
opportunities, biological diversity, special land allocation, and 
timber production.
    When making decisions concerning the revised Forest Plan, we will 
examine the economic and social effects at a local level and at broader 
levels. We will also examine biological effects at similar levels. 
Community sustainability reflects long-term relationships between 
people and the natural environment in which the needs of people are met 
without compromising ecological capacities. In northern Wisconsin 
communities, these associations typically center around the forest 
products and tourism industries, but also include a range of service 
enterprises, social organizations, and governmental institutions.
    The four major revision topics were derived from a list of 
potential revision topics made available for public comment in July and 
August of 1995. A series of 13 open house meetings were held, and over 
100 individuals responded with written comments. While opinions were 
divided about how an issue should be addressed in a revised Plan (ie. 
have more or have less), most people who commented generally agreed 
these key topics needed to be considered. The access and recreation 
topics were combined because they are very closely related. The topic 
of sustainability of local communities is a vital consideration in all 
of the topics and will be incorporated into the effects analysis.
    The section that follows describes the major revision topics to be 
addressed. The decisions made on key topics will result in changes to 
Forestwide goals and objectives, Forestwide standards and guidelines, 
and management area allocations, prescriptions, and guidelines.

Topic: Access and Recreation Opportunities

    Access for people to use the Forests has become an increasingly 
controversial topic in recent years as a result of increasing visitors, 
changes in land use, costs of road management and impacts on fish and 
wildlife habitat. The number of people visiting the Forests is one on 
the rise, as projected. However, the large increase in motorized use in 
and through the Forests, primarily that of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) 
was not anticipated. More people visiting the Forests has resulted in 
greater conflict between motorized and non-motorized users. In 
addition, concerns have been raised about the variety and distribution 
of recreation opportunities offered by the Plans. Changes in Plan 
direction are needed in order to improve the quality of recreation 
experiences while providing access for all users.
    Some preliminary issues for which decisions will be made:
    All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs)--Presently, the two National Forests 
have different approaches for the use of ATVs. All areas on the Nicolet 
are closed to ATVs with the exception of use by Forest Service 
personnel and use by permit to persons with disabilities. On the 
Chequamegon, all areas are open unless posted closed. The revised Plan

[[Page 33088]]

will include direction for ATV use that can be uniformly enforced on 
both Forests, emphasizes quality experiences for both motorized and 
non-motorized uses, and reduces conflicts between motorized and non-
motorized users.
    The revised Plan will determine which areas of both Forests are 
potentially available for ATV use. Some areas may be allocated as open 
for ATVs, some areas as closed to ATVs, and some areas in which ATV use 
will be limited to designated trails. Compared to the current Plan, it 
is likely that more land may be available for ATV use on the Nicolet, 
while less land may be available for this use on the Chequamegon.
    Motorized and Non-motorized Use--There is an extensive system of 
roads and trails open to motorized vehicles (eg. cars, trucks, ATVs, 
snowmobiles, 4-wheel drive vehicles) which allows access to nearly 
every part of both Forests. The use of motorized vehicles is often in 
conflict with uses by people who are seeking more solitude. Motorized 
use can also reduce the quality of habitat for some wildlife, because 
there is a greater potential for human encounters. The revised Plan 
will specify in which parts of the Forests motorized or non-motorized 
uses will be emphasized. This would enhance the overall recreation 
quality; provide adequate access for recreation, transporting wood 
products, and gathering special/miscellaneous forest products; protect 
fish and wildlife habitat; and conserve biological diversity. The Plan 
will also set standards for road density and road management.
    Mix of Recreation Opportunities--The Chequamegon and Nicolet 
National Forests are managed to provide recreation opportunities within 
a wide range of settings. These settings are categorized using criteria 
such as the level of motorized access to lakes and streams, the scenic 
conditions, the level of vegetative management, and the remoteness of 
the area. Concerns have been raised that the present Forest Plan 
direction favors roaded and motorized recreation settings at the 
expense of semi-primitive and non-motorized opportunities. Implementing 
standards and guidelines in the current Plans has not produced visible 
differences among recreation settings because there is little 
difference in harvest size limits, silvicultural practices, road 
density, and recreational developments between semi-primitive and 
roaded-natural areas.
    The revised Forest Plan will change standards and guidelines for 
size of timber harvests and silvicultural prescriptions so that there 
is a more distinct difference in recreation opportunities between semi-
primitive and roaded-natural areas. The present land allocations will 
be reconsidered, with an emphasis on allocating some additional semi-
primitive, non-motorized acres and reducing incompatible uses where 
possible. The locations of some present semi-primitive, non-motorized 
areas on the Nicolet may change to improve their compatibility with 
surrounding Forest and road settings.
    Economic, Social and Biological Considerations--Year-round outdoor 
recreation continues as an important part of northern Wisconsin's 
economy. As one of many recreation providers in northern Wisconsin, the 
Chequamegon and Nicolet offer a variety of public forest settings for 
local and out-of-town customers. Changes in these opportunities or in 
the type or level of access could result in either growth or loss of 
visitors, disruption or local user activities and impacts on local 
communities. For example, a change in management that alters motorized 
access could restrict where and how some people use the woods. At the 
same time, other users may find additional opportunities. These effects 
and other biological effects will be addressed during Plan revision in 
perspective with the Forests' role for providing access and outdoor 
recreation.

Topic: Biological Diversity

    The term biological diversity is used to describe the variety and 
variability of life and the ecological complexes in which they occur. 
The issue includes many aspects and is very complex. A conceptual model 
identifies three interrelated components of diversity--composition, 
structure and function--operating at multiple scales and changing 
through time. For National Forest management, it is important that 
biological diversity be considered on a regional (Great Lake States) or 
sub-regional (Northwoods) scale that includes several National Forests 
and the public lands around and between forests that are managed by 
other agencies. This kind of analysis is important because National 
Forest lands may be able to compensate for declining trends in 
biological diversity on other lands, or may be able to provide 
complementary management opportunities along Forest boundaries.
    The biological diversity issue has assumed an increasingly 
important place in natural resource management issues. There is a 
greater awareness of the complexity of the subject and of the extent to 
which some elements of biological diversity are declining due to 
habitat loss or alteration. Some see the National Forest as playing a 
role in slowing the rate at which species are becoming extinct, slowing 
the rate at which biological communities are becoming simplified and 
declining in abundance or size, and in conserving biological diversity. 
Other people are concerned that efforts to protect biological diversity 
may result in lower levels of timber production, limits on motorized 
access to some areas, or lower populations of some game animals. This 
subject touches the core values of people in matters such as relative 
importance of commodity and non-commodity forest products, and forest 
development versus conservation.
    When applied to Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forest management, 
the biological diversity issue results from a concern that broad-scale 
landscape patterns have changed substantially from a baseline condition 
that presumably sustained species and communities now in decline due to 
habitat loss or alteration.
    In a forest landscape, the term ``landscape patterns'' refers to 
the spatial arrangement of forest patches composed or different species 
or successional stages. The terms may also be applied to patches of 
different land uses, such as residential, commercial or agricultural. 
The change in landscape patterns that has arisen from human influences 
has had a negative effect on some plant and animal species. Some 
effects are direct, such as when primary habitat is altered. Other 
changes are indirect, as when a change in landscape patterns affects 
the ability of a species to disperse or propagate, or when a species 
achieves a different competitive ability relative to other species with 
which it formerly coexisted. Some of these effects are apparent 
immediate, while others take many years before they can be detected.
    Current Forest Plans (1986) did not take a broad-scale approach to 
the analysis of biological diversity, nor did they consider landscape 
patterns. Rather, biological diversity was addressed primarily at small 
scales as tree diversity (species, within-stand vertical structure and 
age of vegetation) and as individual species (Endangered, Threatened, 
Sensitive and Indicator). Concern for biological diversity has been at 
the heart of challenges to the current Chequamegon and Nicolet Forest 
Plans, both from administrative appeals and later through a lawsuit. 
The Forest Plan needs to be revised to incorporate these new approaches 
for addressing concerns about biological diversity.

[[Page 33089]]

    Some preliminary issues for which decisions will be made:
    Spatial Scale of Reference-Lake States Area--New scientific 
information has shown that maximizing biological diversity at a small 
scale may reduce biological diversity at a broader scale. An analysis 
of regional biological diversity may highlight unique conditions or 
capabilities of the National Forests. The revised Plan will address the 
unique role of the Chequamegon and Nicolet Forests in conserving 
biological diversity regionally. In some cases, this may mean that 
National Forest management may compensate for trends on other lands by 
providing habitat that is scarce regionally.
    Old Growth--Old growth forests are characterized in part by older 
trees, trees with cavities, and sizeable coarse woody material on the 
forest floor, and provide ecosystem conditions necessary for some 
species. Old growth forests provide aesthetic values prized by many 
people, and in some cases may contribute to the overall quality of the 
forest condition and productivity. For example, since they typically 
contain many snags which provide habitat for insect eating birds, old 
growth forest may play a role in checking the spread of forest pests. 
The two 1986 Forest Plans defined old growth in different ways, had 
different standards and guidelines, and did not contain specific 
direction on location. Today, little true old growth (remnants of 
original forest) remains on either forest. The revised Forest Plan will 
provide common definition and specific direction for the amount, type, 
distribution, location and management of old growth. Some alternatives 
may provide for old growth forest within a network of natural areas to 
provide older vegetative communities of forested and non-forested types 
through time in a setting where human influence is minimized on the 
Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests.
    Fragmented Habitats--Fragmentation, when applied to land 
management, results when a large and contiguous ecosystem is converted 
to a network of small patches isolated from each other by areas of a 
different ecosystem condition. Activities such as road building, 
logging and agriculture can contribute to fragmentation. In escsystem 
that were formerly openlands or savannah, widespread planting of jack 
pine by the Civilian Conservation Corp created fragmentation in these 
ecosystems. At a landscape scale, the cumulative effects of small-scale 
projects are a reduction in patch size, increased distance between 
isolated patches, and an increase in the amount of edge habitat. 
Increased edge habitat affects species requiring large patches, 
(including forest species as well as open-land species) and can 
interrupt species dispersal. Using an ecological classification system, 
we will decide on the amount, location and management of areas where 
large forest patches within the landscape will be maintained, and we 
will also maintain a continuum of other patch sizes. Mimicking the 
natural disturbances of fire, wind, and water in some areas will also 
help avoid fragmentation of the landscape.
    Habitat Linkages--This aspect refers to linking blocks of habitat 
by corridors that allow or encourage movement between them and may 
increase the effective size of total habitat for some species. In some 
cases, linkages allow spread of exotic species and undesirable 
predators, insects or diseases, so both positive and negative effects 
and characteristic patterns of linkages among historic ecosystems must 
be considered. The revised Plan will specify what habitats should be 
linked to provide for movement of plants and animals and to increase 
the effective size of habitats that are now separated in space. It will 
also state how much area is needed to link habitats with suitable types 
of management in the various corridors.
    Ecosystem restoration--This aspect describes management direction 
that would restore and maintain the structure, function, and 
composition of native terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. This will 
involve managing to maintain species and communities at risk, to 
promote old growth or old forest, to reduce fragmentation, and to 
restore ecosystems that are under-represented within the regional 
landscape. Ecosystem restoration may use management activities that 
mimic natural disturbance regimes such as fire in barrens ecosystems. 
The revised Plan will specify the amount, location, and management for 
ecosystems that require restoration work.
    Management Indicator Species--Management indicator species (MIS) 
are selected to serve as indicators of change to the conditions of the 
habitats they occupy and to accurately predict the effects of forest 
management practices. Most of the MIS species selected in the 1986 
Plans were highly mobile animals which made discerning changes in 
populations of species more difficult. Also, many of the MIS species 
were habitats generalists and did not serve as the best indicators of 
change to habitats. The revised Plan will utilize MIS that better serve 
as ecological indicators by having narrower niches, showing sensitivity 
to change and allowing more accurate monitoring. New indicators of 
ecological sustainability may include some keystone species, floral or 
faunal communities, foraging guilds of animals, landscape patterns, and 
ecological processess like regeneration or nutrient cycling.
    Scientific Roundtable on Biological Diversity--In response to 
appeals of Forest Plans for the chequamegon and Nicolet National 
Forests, the Chief of the Forest Service directed these Forests to 
establish a ``committee of scientific experts'' to address biological 
diversity issues. Many of the recommendations of this group of 
scientists will be evaluated for possible inclusion into the revised 
Plans as forestwide standards and guidelines or management area 
prescriptions.
    Economic, Social and Biological Considerations--Northern Wisconsin 
forests, including the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests, have 
provided people and communities a way of life for thousands of years. 
Changing national forest management to address such complex conditions 
as biological diversity raises concern by those who feel directly 
affected. Potential outcomes of Plan revision could include limits on 
motorized access and alternate prescriptions for harvesting timber in 
unique areas, possibly impacting area economies. Managing the Forests 
as ecosystems while producing forest products and conserving diversity 
may also improve the quality of the overall forest condition. 
Biological, social and economic effects, trade-offs and benefits will 
be addressed during Plan revision.

Topic: Special Land Allocation

    Public interest in the allocations of lands to specific purposes 
makes special land allocation a revision topic. Many people value these 
areas and feel that more of Wisconsin's National Forests should be 
assigned to special allocations in order to address such issues as 
conserving biological diversity, providing primitive recreational 
opportunities, providing scientific research or baseline monitoring, 
protecting unique features and resources, and providing non-commodity 
values and uses. Many other people oppose assigning more areas to 
special allocations and want to reduce the current quantity of such 
allocations. They are concerned such areas could limit or reduce 
recreation use, access, or traditional economic returns to local 
communities from timber harvesting and tourism.
    Some preliminary issues for which decisions will be made:

[[Page 33090]]

    Wilderness--The 1984 Wisconsin Wilderness Act requires the Forest 
Service to revisit the Wilderness option when the Forest Plans are 
revised. The Forest Service must decide if any additional areas should 
be recommended for designation as Wilderness by Congress.
    Research Natural Areas--Research Natural Areas (RNA's) are part of 
a national network of ecological areas designated in perpetuity for 
research and education and/or to maintain biological diversity. 
Research Natural Areas will be designated on National Forest land based 
on criteria such as whether a representative or unique vegetative 
condition or potential condition can contribute to the RNA needs for 
Region 9, the presence of rare elements, and the value for scientific 
research. The revised Plan may designate previously identified 
Candidate RNA's or change them to another land use designation. Other 
areas will be evaluated to determine their suitability as RNA's or 
Candidate RNA's.
    Special Management Areas--These areas are unique because of their 
recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, botanic, or heritage 
(cultural) characteristics. The revised Plan will determine if the 
existing Candidate Special Management Areas should be designated and 
will determine the suitability of additional areas as Special 
Management Areas.
    Economic, Social and Biological Considerations--Allocating lands 
for specific purposes will remove land from other uses, such as 
commodity production, but will also provide new uses such as 
backcountry experiences, gathering special/miscellaneous forest 
products, and area for scientific research and monitoring. This 
decision requires a difficult balance between human values, social 
needs, and the biological needs of an area or species. Some people are 
concerned that such allocations could reduce traditional recreation 
uses, access, and economic returns to local communities. Potential 
benefits and trade-offs for local tourism and timber economies will be 
addressed through the role the Chequamegon and Nicolet serve in 
providing special land areas in northern Wisconsin.

Topic: Timber Production

    The production of timber products and how that relates to the 
management of other resources is an important revision topic. Commodity 
products from the National Forests provide raw materials important to 
local industries--industries that affect the economic and social fabric 
of the local communities. How the Forests are managed to produce those 
commodities greatly affects other aspects of National Forest management 
such as biological diversity, available recreation experiences, and 
game and non-game animal habitats. In some cases, timber production and 
vegetation management are conducted to accomplish objectives for 
wildlife, recreation or visual quality. While most of the issues 
considered in the revision effort are interrelated, the issues of 
timber production and vegetation management directly affects almost all 
other issues.
    Some preliminary issues for which decisions will be made:
    Subregional Scale-Biological Diversity and Efficiencies--
Interpreting an analysis of conditions in the Lake States area suggests 
that the National Forests may have a role in compensating for 
conditions and trends elsewhere in the area. Because of this, it may be 
determined that there is a specific and unique opportunity for the 
National Forests to provide habitat that is scarce or declining 
elsewhere. These opportunities may lead to a change in focus from some 
of the cover types prescribed in the current Forest Plans (1986) toward 
an emphasis on scarcer types. Further, economic analyses may indicate 
that there are efficiencies in featuring certain types in specific 
locations.
    Allocation of Forest Cover Types--The existing Forest Plans 
allocate portions of the two Forests to various management area 
prescriptions. These prescriptions, among other things, describe the 
type of harvesting that will predominate in each management area. The 
spatial locations of these prescriptions will be reconsidered during 
the revision, as will some of the aspects of the prescriptions 
themselves. One important objective of the revision will be to better 
match the management prescriptions with the capabilities of the land 
and with the demands for products while considering biological 
diversity.
    Vegetation Management Standards and Guidelines--Within each 
management area and over the Forests as a whole, the Forest Plans 
provide direction for vegetation management practices through standards 
and guidelines. Some of these may be modified and others may be added 
or deleted during the revision. For example, experience during 
implementation of the Plans has shown that guidelines for treating 
limbs and tree tops left after logging may need to be changed to 
accomplish visual quality goals more efficiently. Under some 
alternatives considered, additional standards and guidelines may need 
to be developed for vegetation management adjacent to riparian areas 
and areas unique to conserving biological diversity. These guidelines 
could shield the unique areas from negative effects of wildlife 
predation or increased levels of light and wind.
    Timber Harvest Levels--Under law, forest plans include an estimate 
of the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) for each national forest. This 
volume is a ceiling, or maximum level of timber sale outputs that can 
be achieved during a decade of implementing a forest plan. The ASQ for 
the Nicolet National Forest under the current Plan was estimated to be 
about 970 million board feet (MMBF) for the first decade. In practice, 
this has not been achieved for a variety of reasons: the extent and 
severity of tree mortality and growth reduction due to drought, insects 
and disease were not adequately understood or incorporated into the 
growth and yield models; the actual amount of land suitable for timber 
production is less than originally thought; and the effects of some 
land allocations and practices were not fully anticipated. Under the 
revised Plan, the ASQ will be determined more accurately, taking into 
account the factors listed and using a variety of techniques.
    Economic, Social and Biological Considerations--Following the 
decline of the early logging era, Forest Service management focused on 
rehabilitating the northern Wisconsin forests. Timber production was 
high in response to increasing demands. Many local communities came to 
rely on steady or growing supplies of national forest resources. Recent 
decades have brought major changes in public expectations and values 
related to the national forests. Concerns about ecosystem condition, 
biological diversity, and the economic benefits of tourism now join 
long-held interests in timber and fish and wildlife. Changes in 
management direction for the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests 
may affect the types, quantities, and source locations of timber 
products from the Forests. Area communities are concerned about losing 
timber-related jobs and related economic impacts if timber production 
declines. However, managing the Forests as intact ecosystems over the 
long term may eventually result in improved timber growth, higher value 
products, and increased revenue from tourism. Potential effects, such 
as these, will be addressed through Plan revision.

E. What Will Not Be Addressed or Changed in the Revised Plan

    Although many decisions relate to managing a National Forest, some

[[Page 33091]]

decisions, such as treaties, laws, rights, and regulations, are beyond 
the scope of what can be decided in a Forest Plan. Other decisions deal 
with implementing projects or enforcing regulations. These are also 
beyond what can be decided in a Forest Plan.
    Another category includes decisions that can be decided in a Forest 
Plan, but do not need to be re-visited at this time. The revision of an 
existing Forest Plan should concentrate only on those parts of the Plan 
that truly need changing. Decisions made in the initial Forest Plan 
that work well will be carried over into the revised Plan with few, if 
any, changes.
    The following is a list of items that we will not be deciding in 
the revised Forest Plan:

Existing Rights

    American Indian Treaty Rights--American Indian communities bring 
long histories of traditional use to the Forests similar to their uses 
on tribal lands. Tribal members rely upon fish, wildlife and plants for 
religious, ceremonial, medicinal, subsistence and economic purposes. It 
is to maintain this lifeway that various treaties between the United 
States and a number of Indian Tribes located near the Chequamegon and 
Nicolet National Forests guarantee the Tribes' right to hunt, fish and 
gather in those Forests. In addition, historically and presently, the 
conservation of the natural resources subject to the treaty rights is a 
necessary and integral part of tribal culture and sovereignty. In 
revising the Forest Plan, the Forest Service will honor the treaty 
obligations toward those Tribes that retain hunting, fishing, and 
gathering rights on Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forest lands. 
These rights are part of existing law. Their existence and nature are 
beyond the scope of the Forest Plan and are not a decision to be made 
in the Revised Forest Plan. As part of its overall efforts to ensure 
that it honors these rights and its responsibilities toward nearby 
Indian Tribes, the Forest Service routinely will consult and exchange 
information with those Tribes on a government-to-government basis 
throughout the Forest Plan revision process to develop goals, 
standards, and guidelines needed to ensure the exercise of these treaty 
rights.
    Rights of Private Property--The revised Plan only makes decisions 
that apply to National Forest System lands. The Revised Plan will make 
no decisions regarding management or use of privately owned lands or 
reserved and outstanding mineral estates.
    Rights of Other Ownership--The revised Plan will make no decisions 
regarding state, county, industrial, or other federal (such as National 
Lakeshore, or National Wildlife Refuge) forest lands.
    Rights of Existing Permittees and Easement Holders--Many people and 
businesses hold special use permits and easements for various permitted 
uses within the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests. These include 
permits such as: recreation summer homes, special-use roads, and 
utility corridors. The revised Forest Plan will not re-visit decisions 
on existing permits and easements. As they are renewed, it may be 
necessary to make changes in the terms of permits and easements to 
achieve consistency with revised standards and guidelines.

Law, National Policy and Decisions Not Within Forest Service Authority

    Existing Wildernesses--The Rainbow Lake and Porcupine Lake 
Wildernesses on the Chequamegon National Forest and the Blackjack 
Springs, Headwaters, and Whisker Lake Wildernesses on the Nicolet 
National Forest were established by law. Considering these areas for 
non-Wilderness management is beyond the scope of the revised Forest 
Plan. Minor changes in the standards and guidelines for managing these 
areas may be considered in the revised Plan.
    Baiting for Deer and Bear--On March 20, 1995, the Forest Service 
adopted a national policy on all baiting connected with hunting which 
states that National Forests will adopt state wildlife laws and 
regulations affecting the taking of resident game animals. Therefore, 
the practice of baiting on National Forest lands in Wisconsin will be 
the same as the state regulations on baiting elsewhere in Wisconsin. 
This policy does allow for area closures when Plan goals would direct 
protecting sensitive areas.
    Use of Motors on Lakes--The authority for regulating the size and 
use of motors on lakes within the Chequamegon and Nicolet National 
Forests rests with local governments, unless superseded by Federal law 
(such as Congressional designation of Wilderness). Therefore, these 
regulations are outside the scope of decisions that can be made in a 
Forest Plan.

Topics Where Little or No Change Is Warranted

    Minerals Management--Overall, the existing policy on managing the 
Federal minerals resource on these two National Forests has been 
working well. Some changes will likely be made to the standards and 
guidelines to provide consistency between the two Forests and to 
provide a higher degree of resource protection within our legal 
jurisdiction.
    Wild and Scenic River Recommendations--The 1986 Forest Plans 
identified parts of six rivers flowing through Wisconsin National 
Forests to be studied for inclusion in the National Wild, Scenic and 
Recreational Rivers system. An eligibility determination has been made 
on these rivers. Present Forest Plan direction protects the qualities 
of the rivers until these studies and recommendations for Congressional 
action are complete. After discussions with the Administration, 
Congressional representatives, and local river groups, it appears that 
now is not the time for such legislative action since making such a 
suitability determination and recommendation to Congress involves a 
detailed and expensive process.
    As a result, no further suitability determination will be made in 
Plan revision. However, because the Chequamegon and Nicolet Forest 
Plans differ in the management area designation for these candidate 
rivers, the revised plan will make the changes necessary to provide 
consistent direction for the river corridors. Standards and guidelines 
will also be changed to provide direction for vegetation management 
consistent with the river corridor objective and ROS setting.
    Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Forest Roads--The use of street-legal 
off-highway vehicles (4 wheel drive trucks, motorbikes) will continue 
to be allowed on all National Forest roads except those that are closed 
by signing, gating, or other road closure device.
    Snowmobile Use--The general policy that snowmobiles can be operated 
on designated trails and on unplowed roads will not be revisited. Some 
changes will be made to provide consistency between the two Forests.
    Visual Quality Objectives--Although there have been some problems 
with the way the 1986 Forest Plans manage for visual and scenic quality 
on the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests, those problems center 
on the size limits of harvest treatments in visually sensitive areas. 
The visual quality objectives (VQO) system appears to be working 
reasonably well, with visually sensitive areas generally being 
adequately protected. Therefore, the visual quality objectives system 
will continue to be used in the revised Forest Plan. However, the 
clearcut limits in the VQO system will be reviewed and better defined. 
Travel routes and water bodies will be reviewed to determine if their 
VQO classification is appropriate. Some

[[Page 33092]]

changes to standards and guidelines may also need to be made to assure 
consistency between the two National Forests.
    Developed Recreation Facilities--The revised Forest Plan will not 
include decisions on closing existing developed recreational facilities 
(campgrounds, picnic sites, boat launching ramps, trailheads, swimming 
beaches) nor will it propose that new facilities be built. Existing 
sites will continue to be operated as specified in the current Forest 
Plans.
    Exceptions to this will be made on a case-by-case basis.
    Research Natural Areas--The revised Forest Plan will not revisit 
the designation of existing Research Natural Areas.

F. Alternatives in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

    The Forest Service will develop several revision alternatives in 
the DEIS. These alternatives will consider different ways to address 
the need to change the current Plan based on the major revision issues 
discussed above.
    The alternatives will include ``no action'' which is a continuation 
of current direction contained in the 1986 Chequamegon and Nicolet 
Forest Plans.

    Dated: June 20, 1996.
Robert T. Jacobs,
Regional Forester.
[FR Doc. 96-16285 Filed 6-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M