[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47859-47866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23178]


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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management


Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

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

ACTION: Revised notice of intent to prepare environmental impact 
statements.

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

SUMMARY: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). 
The primary purpose for this revised notice of intent is to provide 
public notice of the updated completion schedule for the ICBEMP's 
environmental impact statements (EIS). The Bureau of Land Management 
and Forest Service will continue the interim management strategies 
pending completion of the ICBEMP EISs. Due to differences between 
Bureau of Land Management (Bureau of Land Management NEPA Handbook 
1790-1) and Forest Services (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, at 18.1) 
NEPA policies, the Bureau of Land Management is preparing a 
supplemental environmental assessment for the continuation of the 
PACFISH (see below in Supplementary Information), while the Forest 
Service has provided information in this notice, in compliance with 
Forest Service policies, to address the continuation of the PACFISH 
interim direction.
    Due to the complexity of an analysis of this scope, and the 
government shutdown in the first part of FY96, the timeframe for 
completing the environmental impact statements (EISs) has changed. The 
new schedule for release of the draft EISs is Fall 1996, for the public 
comment period; the public comment period will be 120 days. The 
adjusted schedule for the release of the final EISs and Records of 
Decision is Fall 1997.
    In February, 1994, the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service 
proposed to develop and adopt a coordinated ecosystem management 
strategy for national forests and public lands east of the Cascade 
Mountains in Oregon and Washington (59 FR 4680, February 1, 1994). The 
strategy later became known as the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 
Management Project. The ICBEMP strategy will include direction which 
will protect and enhance aquatic ecosystems for anadromous fish and 
inland native trout and terrestrial ecosystems. It will also address 
the social and economic interactions with these biological variables. 
The purpose is to carry out President Clinton's mandate of July 1993 to 
develop a scientifically sound and ecosystem-based strategy for 
management of these lands. The selected alternative may result in 
amendment to the Forest Service Regional Guides and/or amendment or 
revision of applicable national forest land management plans and Bureau 
of Land Management resource management plans.
    The original Notice of Intent for the ICBEMP effort was revised on 
May 23, 1994, to address changes in the scope of the area to be 
considered in the analysis and to establish a public meeting schedule 
(59 FR 26624). A third Federal Register notice was published on 
December 7, 1994, announcing the preparation of an EIS for the Upper 
Columbia River Basin (UCRB) (59 FR 63071). A fourth notice was 
published on August 7, 1994, changing the scope of the UCRB planning 
area. (60 FR 40153). On August 25, 1994, a fifth Federal Register 
notice was published revising the completion date for the Eastside EIS 
(60 FR 44298). The Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service will 
now produce two EISs, one for eastern Oregon and Washington (Eastside 
EIS) and one for Idaho, western Montana, and small portions of Nevada, 
Wyoming, and Utah (UCRB).

FOR INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Mealey, Project Management Team, Interior Columbia Basin 
Ecosystem Management Project, 304 North 8th Street, Room 246, Boise, 
Idaho 83702, phone 208-334-1770. Gordon Haugen, Columbia River Basin 
Fish Coordinator (PACFISH), 333 SW First Street, Portland, Oregon 
97208, phone 503-326-4929.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Summary of Public Involvement for the Long-Term Management Strategy

    Formal scoping periods, under National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA), opened with publication of the Notice of Intent in the Federal 
Register to prepare an EIS and conduct planning activity for the 
Eastside Ecosystem Management Project on February 1, 1994 and for the 
Upper Columbia River Basin on December 7, 1994.
    Public meetings, open houses, symposiums, briefings, workshops, 
Internet access, toll-free numbers, information centers, 
teleconferences, brochures and newsletters provide opportunities for 
the public to be involved. Over 350 public meetings and briefings were 
held throughout the project area from February 1994 through July 1996.
    The teleconference scoping meeting for the UCRB was held 
simultaneously in 27 planned locations on January 28, 1995 via 
satellite. Local Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service staff 
were on hand to facilitate discussions, part of which was devoted to 
sharing and responding to comments and concerns from the 27 sites. The 
scoping meeting was also broadcast over three public access television 
stations. In addition, anyone with access to a satellite dish within 
the continental United States was able to view the program and respond 
via fax.
    Many levels of government participated throughout the planning 
process including Federal and State agencies, Counties, Resource 
Advisory Councils, Province Advisory Committees, and Tribes. This has 
developed into effective partnerships and increased coordination and 
understanding between the groups.
    Mailing lists for the EISs were compiled from Bureau of Land 
Management and Forest Service offices within the ICBEMP area and from 
the PACFISH mailing list. As other interested parties requested to be 
added to the mailing list the total number of persons on the list rose 
to 4,800.
    Public involvement has been a vital and continuing aspect of the 
Eastside and UCRB planning process. NEPA requirements have been 
exceeded by involving people early and often, sharing information as it 
became available even if it was in draft form, and using non-
traditional public involvement methods.
    This type of public involvement will continue with the release of 
the draft EISs and through the Records of Decision. Teleconference, 
meetings, and workshops are planned as ways to continue to provide 
opportunities for the public to understand and shape the final 
management strategy.
    The Notices of Intent for Eastside EIS and the UCRB EIS, and the 
Charter for the ICBEMP include objectives for the EISs and Scientific 
Assessment to develop the basis for management direction to modify and 
implement Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds 
in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California 
(PACFISH).

[[Page 47860]]

    A May 1995 mailer sent to the public by the Project, solicited 
comments on goals for the development of alternatives. There were seven 
primary goals including provisions for long-term direction that would 
replace PACFISH and the Inland Native Fish Strategy. Based on public 
responses and input from the ICBEMP Interdisciplinary Team, the seven 
goals were refined into five. Development of long-term aquatic 
conservation strategy became part of Goal 1, which is to sustain and 
where necessary restore the health of forest, rangeland, aquatic and 
riparian ecosystems.
    In September 1995, a mailer outlining seven alternatives was sent 
to the public. Several of the alternatives under consideration would 
adopt PACFISH as a long-term strategy either as currently described, or 
with minor refinements.
    Comments and responses on all alternatives, including those 
alternatives which adopt PACFISH and INFISH for the long term, plus 
alternatives which refine those strategies, will be accepted through 
the comment period on the draft EISs.

Summary of Public Involvement for the Interim Strategies

    Due to concerns over the possible effects to aquatic and 
terrestrial species and their habitats during the development of a 
long-term strategy, three sets of interim measures were put in place. 
First on August 18, 1993 the Forest Service Region Six adopted the 
Eastside Screens as interim direction in Oregon and Washington 
establishing riparian, ecosystem, and wildlife standards for timber 
sales. On May 24, 1994, this interim direction, with some modification, 
was continued through an environmental assessment. Second, on February 
24, 1995, direction was adopted to assure protection of habitat for 
anadromous fish species within the Columbia River Basin and portions of 
California (PACFISH). Third, on July 28, 1995, INFISH was adopted by 
the Forest Service to protect habitats for native inland fish. PACFISH 
and INFISH direction supersede the direction contained in the Eastside 
Screens for riparian area and aquatic management. Eastside Screens for 
riparian areas were modified by PACFISH and INFISH for two primary 
reasons, first, the Eastside Screens only applied to timber management, 
whereas PACFISH and INFISH included other resource management 
considerations; second, the Eastside Screens were too restrictive in 
that they did not allow for silvicultural practices that may be needed 
to benefit riparian plant and animal communities.
    As a general rule, all of the Eastside forests (eastern Oregon and 
Washington), not covered by the Northwest Forest Plan, are covered by 
either the PACFISH or the INFISH standards. However, some forests such 
as the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in Oregon have a portion of the 
forest covered by the PACFISH, due to the presence of anadromous fish 
watersheds, and the remaining portion of the forest is covered by the 
INFISH.
    PACFISH. Document Title: Decision Notice/Decision Record, Finding 
Of No Significant Impact for the Interim Strategies for Managing 
Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, 
Idaho, and Portions of California, February 24, 1995.
    A Notice of Availability for the PACFISH environmental assessment 
and proposed finding of no significant impact was published in the 
Federal Register (March 25, 1994, 58 FR 14356), with a 45 day public 
comment period. This comment period was extended for two weeks, until 
May 23, 1994 (85 FR 23049). The Bureau of Land Management and Forest 
Service received over 500 written comments; of which over 90 percent 
were from within the geographic range of the proposed action.
    EASTSIDE SCREENS. Document Title: Decision Notice for the 
Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, 
Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales, USDA Forest Service, 
Region 6, Colville, Deschutes, Fremont, Malheur, Ochoco, Okanogan, 
Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman, and Winema National Forests in Oregon and 
Washington, May 20, 1994.
    This Decision Notice identified that the Interim Direction of 
August 18, 1993, as modified in the Regional Forester's Plan Amendment 
#1, was continued pending completion of the Eastside Ecosystem 
Management Strategy, now known as the ICBEMP. The ecosystem management 
strategy will be displayed in the ICBEMP Eastside EIS. This interim 
direction applied to the design of timber sales in certain riparian 
areas (now replaced by the PACFISH and INFISH direction), and applies 
to late and old structural forest stands. On December 28, 1993, a 
Notice of opportunity to comment was published in every paper of record 
in Eastern Oregon and Washington. The Forest Service received 19 
comment letters and one citizen petition, bearing about 150 signatures. 
These submissions included nearly 270 discrete comments, reflecting a 
variety of support for and criticisms of the interim direction.
    INFISH. Document Title: Decision Notice and Finding Of No 
Significant Impact for the Inland Native Fish Strategy, USDA Forest 
Service, July 28, 1995.
    In response to growing concerns over the status of inland native 
fish communities and their habitats throughout the inland west, the 
Forest Service, working with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, 
developed an interim conservation strategy referred to as INFISH. The 
purpose of INFISH is to provide interim direction, similar to PACFISH, 
that applies to those areas not covered by PACFISH or the Northwest 
Forest Plan. This interim direction was developed to maintain 
management options for inland native fish habitat while the Bureau of 
Land Management and Forest Service developed long-term management 
strategies. Another purpose of the interim direction was to take 
prudent measures to arrest the degradation, and begin the restoration, 
of riparian and aquatic ecosystems in watersheds where inland native 
fish habitat is present.
    Initital outreach for the INFISH project was sent to over 5000 
people, of which approximately 1700 desired to remain on the mailing 
list. A scoping period was established from March 14 to April 26, 1995. 
This was followed by mailing the environmental assessment and draft 
FONSI in June and several public hearings. Overall, 29 people 
testified, and 91 written comments were received.

Supplemental information for the Environmental Assessment (EA)

    DOCUMENT TITLE: Implementation of Interim Strategies for Managing 
Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, 
Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH)
    CONTINUATION OF PACFISH. When the Decision Notice/Decision Record 
for PACFISH was signed it was the intent of the Bureau of Land 
Management and Forest Service that long-term direction would be 
provided by the ICBEMP within 18 months, and the effects analysis in 
the EA was based on this assumption. The Bureau of Land Management and 
Forest Service designed PACFISH as an interim measure to preserve 
options until the ICBEMP is put in place. Because the ICBEMP has taken 
longer than expected to develop, the Bureau of Land Management and 
Forest Service have decided to keep the PACFISH interim direction in 
place for the same extended period.
    This scheduling notice does not address in detail the other interim

[[Page 47861]]

measures, INFISH and Eastside Screens, because of important differences 
between these interim strategies and PACFISH. INFISH was implemented 
for an approximately 18 month period beginning in August 1995. (60 FR 
33927, August 4, 1995). Accordingly, the revised schedule for the 
implementation of the ICBEMP does not extend INFISH appreciably beyond 
the approximate time-period originally anticipated. Meanwhile, the 
Decision Notice for the Eastside Screens expressly implemented the 
interim direction until the Eastside EIS is completed, May 20, 1994 
Decision Notice (pg. 4).
    In February 1995, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, 
and the Chief of the Forest Service jointly approved the PACFISH 
aquatic conservation strategy which amended specific Forest Service 
land management plans in portions of California, Idaho, Oregon, and 
Washington states. This strategy is found in the above titled 
environmental assessment. This aquatic conservation strategy was 
applied to those federal lands supporting anadromous salmonids not 
included under the guidance of the Northwest Forest Plan. As stated in 
the Decision Notice/Decision Record, for the Forest Service, the 
PACFISH forest plan and regional guide amendments remain in place until 
superseded by further plan amendment or revision which was projected to 
occur in September, 1996.
    The purpose of the interim direction is to maintain management 
options for anadromous fish habitat while the Bureau of Land Management 
and Forest Service developed long-term management strategies. Another 
purpose of the interim direction is to take prudent measures to arrest 
the degradation and begin the restoration of riparian and aquatic 
ecosystems in watersheds where anadromous fish habitat is present or 
easily could be reestablished (EA, pp. 6-8).
    The responsible officials considered the ability of the selected 
alternative (alternative 4 of the EA) to meet the stated purpose and 
needs for the action (EA pp. 6-9); to comply with applicable laws, 
regulations, executive orders, and policies; and to respond to issues 
and public comments about the alternative strategies. A critical factor 
relevant to this decision was the ability of the selected alternative 
to respond to the issues identified in the EA (pp. 21-22); issues still 
relevant today.
    The PACFISH standards and guidelines (EA Appendix C, Alternative 4) 
serve to provide adequate environmental safeguards for proposed and 
ongoing projects and activities that pose an unacceptable risk within 
riparian habitat conservation areas or that degrade riparian habitat 
conservation areas. There are no new types of ongoing projects or 
activities, not already addressed in the PACFISH EA, to consider. With 
respect to the Forest Service, the selected alternative did not 
constitute a significant amendment under current planning regulations 
for the following reasons: (1) Its application is for a limited time; 
(2) it resulted in only minor modifications to standards and guidelines 
in existing plans; (3) it did not modify the goals and objectives of 
existing plans; and (4) it did not alter long-term levels of goods and 
services projected in existing plans. For the several Bureau of Land 
Management Districts, Resource Areas or planning areas, the interim 
PACFISH strategy was found consistent with approved plans and did not 
require or constitute a plan amendment.
    The Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service received a 
biological opinion, through the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 7 
consultation process, from the National Marine Fisheries Service dated 
January 23, 1995, supporting implementation of the PACFISH strategy. 
The National Marine Fisheries Service, through its PACFISH biological 
opinion, found that the proposed action was not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of listed Snake River salmon under its 
jurisdiction nor result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat.
    The interim strategy provides direction to ensure land management 
actions will not lead to jeopardy of listed anadromous fish stocks, or 
limit options while long-term management strategies are being developed 
through geographically specific analyses conducted by the ICBEMP.
    With respect to those National Forest System lands, covered by 
PACFISH in California, PACFISH will remain in place until replaced by 
long-term strategies on affected watersheds of the Lassen and Los 
Padres National Forests. As indicated in Appendix 1 of the PACFISH EA, 
this will be accomplished through (1) Minor adjustments of the Los 
Padres National Forest Plan/Riparian Conservation Strategy, and (2) 
direction for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds of the 
Lassen National Forest contained in the California Spotted Owl EIS.
    With respect to the Bureau of Land Management's lands covered by 
PACFISH in California, an analysis was made comparing the interim 
management goals, standards and guidelines, to the Redding Resource 
Area's management plan. Bureau of Land Management is actively 
participating with the State, National Marine Fisheries Service and 
others in developing a Coastal Salmon Initiative, which will include 
conservation guidelines and protection measures. It is expected the 
Initiative will be ready for the National Marine Fisheries Service to 
use in preparing an ESA Section 4(d) rule in early 1997. The Resource 
Area's management plan goals meet or exceed those established by 
PACFISH. In the Carmel Creek watershed of the Hollister Resource Area, 
management of Bureau of Land Management lands is also consistent with 
PACFISH. The extremely small portion of public land anadromous salmonid 
streams in that Resource Area are in very good condition and no 
management changes were necessary. Public comments on the adequacy of 
current Bureau of Land Management management and long-term management 
needs for anadromous fisheries were solicited in two public forums held 
jointly with the Forest Service in 1995. No comments critical of either 
Resource Area's management direction were received.
    With respect to Bureau of Land Management administered lands in 
Oregon and Washington, an analysis was made comparing the interim 
Pacfish management goals, standards and guidelines to the four approved 
Resource Management Plans for the Pacfish area in the Prineville, Vale 
and Spokane Districts. These plans included the Prineville Direct's Two 
Rivers and John Day Resource Management Plans, the Vale District's 
Baker Resource Management Plan and the Spokane District's Spokane 
Resource Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management staff in these 
areas are actively participating with the States of Oregon and 
Washington as well as the National Marine Fisheries Service whenever 
any new projects are proposed or existing use permits, leases or 
agreements are revised in areas with known or potential andromous fish 
habitat. Individual Bureau of Land Management or non-Bureau of Land 
Management proposed actions have been modified or deferred to allow 
review and approval by National Marine Fisheries Service under the ESA. 
The four Resource Management Plans management goals, objectives and 
management standards or standard operating procedures meet or exceed 
those established by Pacfish and/or were not inconsistent with Pacfish 
so that full implementation over the last 18 months did not require any 
Resource

[[Page 47862]]

Management Plan amendments. In many portions of the Pacfish area there 
are only very small portions of public lands adjacent to Pacfish 
streams and they are generally in good condition and no management 
changes were necessary. Public comments on the adequacy of current 
Bureau of Land Management management and comments on ongoing project 
environmental analyses indicate Pacfish and related concerns are being 
adequately addressed and resolved.
    With respect to Bureau of Land Management administered lands in 
Idaho, an analysis was made comparing interim PACFISH management goals, 
standards and guidelines to the four approved Management Framework 
Plans and one Resource Management Plan (Resource Management Plan) in 
effect for the PACFISH areas in the Challis, Lemhi, and Cottonwood 
Resource Areas of the Upper Columbia-Salmon Clearwater District 
Management Framework Plan, Ellis-Pahsemeroi Management Framework Plan 
and Mackay Management Framework Plan; Lemhi Resource Area: Lemhi 
Resource Management Plan/EIS; and the Cottonwood Resource Area: Chief 
Joseph Management Framework Plan. Bureau of Land Management staffs in 
these areas actively participate with the State of Idaho, as well as 
the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service 
whenever any new actions are proposed or ongoing actions are revised in 
areas with designated critical salmon habitat. All Bureau of Land 
Management or applicant-proposed actions are reviewed for PACFISH 
compliance and either found to be in compliance or modified, mitigated 
or deferred. All actions carried forward that are not in compliance 
must be considered may effect for listed salmon and/or their designated 
critical habitats. These actions are evaluated by a team of Bureau of 
Land Management, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Fish and 
Wildlife Service biologists, and if appropriate, consulted with 
National Marine Fisheries Service under section 7 of the ESA. Existing 
Land Use Plan management goals, objectives and management actions 
comply with those established by the PACFISH or were consistent with 
PACFISH over the interim period. Public comments on the adequacy of 
interim period Bureau of Land Management management and comments on 
ongoing environmental analysis indicate the PACFISH and related 
concerns are being adequately addressed and resolved.
    Public comments on the adequacy of interim period Bureau of Land 
Management and comments on ongoing environmental analysis indicate 
PACFISH and related concerns are being adequately addressed and 
resolved. Based upon the data the Bureau of Land Management has at this 
time, the Bureau of Land Management anticipates that it will make a 
decision to extend PACFISH, and will notify the public of its decision 
and its implementation strategy.

Analysis Process

    The Forest Service has applied the criteria set out in the 
implementing regulations for the NEPA from the Federal Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1) and the Forest Service 
Handbook at 1909.15 FSH 18.1 for determining the need to provide 
additional documentation of environmental impacts pursuant to NEPA. The 
question here is whether there are new circumstances or information 
that are significant or, in other words, would cause a substantial 
difference in the analysis of environmental effects documented in the 
EA for the PACFISH. Also considered was whether the interim direction 
is still adequate to meet the identified resource needs. The long-term 
continuation of PACFISH, or an aquatic conservation strategy which 
replaces it, is being considered in the ICBEMP.
    In the case of PACFISH, this evaluation was initiated to determine 
if there have been any significant changed circumstances or significant 
new information over the past 18 months relevant to the estimation of 
effects described in the EA. This analysis focuses on the premise that 
PACFISH interim direction is intended to maintain management options in 
the near future and not preclude implementation of options which may be 
considered as part of the ICBEMP and its associated EISs while 
permitting certain management activities to continue.
    For the analysis, the Forest Service addressed four questions 
(listed below), as well as the information stated in the PACFISH EA for 
the selected alternative (Alternative 4), and by comparing that 
information to information gathered over the past 18 months from the 
implementation of the PACFISH interim direction; this information 
included: (a) Inter-agency (Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, 
National Marine Fisheries Service, Fish and Wildlife Service) PACFISH 
Field Reviews, (Jan. 1996, Forest Service CRB files); (b) Bureau of 
Land Management and Forest Service Field implementation reports (April 
15, 1996, Forest Service CRB files); and (c) Analysis of ICBEMP science 
team and economic data.
    1. Are the circumstances, information, and/or the assumptions upon 
which the EA is based, still valid and germane? If not, are the changed 
circumstances, information, and/or the assumptions sufficiently minor 
as not to warrant a change in the interim programmatic direction in 
order to maintain options which may be considered as part of the 
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project?
    Environmental Assessment. The PACFISH strategy was developed in 
response to new information which documented broad declines in 
naturally reproducing anadromous fish, and widespread degradation of 
the habitat upon which these anadromous fish are dependent.
    To protect quality anadromous fish habitats, arrest habitat 
degradation, and begin restoration of anadromous fish habitat, as well 
as respond to a wide array of new scientific information on the status 
of various other anadromous fish stocks and the condition of aquatic 
and riparian habitat, the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service 
re-evaluated all management projects and activities in anadromous 
watersheds not covered by the Northwest Forest Plan. Such action was 
needed to ensure that management actions implemented before completion 
of the ICBEMP EISs would not have adverse environmental effects that 
would result in jeopardizing the continued existence of anadromous fish 
stocks or otherwise limit the range or number of reasonable 
alternatives evaluated in the geographically-specific environmental 
analyses. This interim strategy was designed to bridge the time gap 
between existing land management plans and the adoption of a long-term 
strategy.
    Response. Information obtained, to date, through the ICBEMP science 
reports verifies that the circumstances, information, and assumptions 
documented in the PACFISH EA are still valid and germane. The ICBEMP 
information also supports the need, on a broad-scale, for the 
continuation of interim direction to address the serious condition of 
anadromous fish within the Columbia River Basin. While the ICBEMP 
broad-scale information is not specific enough for analysis at the 
local level (i.e. site-specific project or watershed level) it does 
provide a basis for analysis of the interim PACFISH direction. This 
information (documents in publication) indicates the continuation of 
the PACFISH interim direction would continue to meet the original 
purpose and need of protecting critical habitats and maintaining 
options

[[Page 47863]]

during development of a long-term management strategy. In addition, all 
field units have completed an evaluation of ongoing activities.
    Discussions with the ICBEMP Aquatic Science Team affirmed that 
PACFISH is still a technically sound fish habitat conservation strategy 
from which to operate until the ICBEMP decision-making process is 
concluded.
    2. Is the methodology and analytical approach used in the EA still 
reasonable?
    The PACFISH interim direction was developed for short-term use at 
the site-specific project level. Bureau of Land Management and Forest 
Service personnel have reviewed the methodology and analytical 
approaches used in the analysis for the PACFISH EA, and have determined 
that they are still valid and appropriate. These same methodologies and 
analytical approaches would be used again if needed.
    3. Are the environmental effects which actually occurred 
essentially the same as those identified in the EA? If there have been 
unanticipated effects, are the unanticipated effects sufficiently minor 
as to warrant neither reopening the NEPA process nor changes in the 
interim programmatic direction?
    Environmental Assessment. Environmental consequences were evaluated 
for the physical, biological, and human environments. Analyses of 
environmental consequences were based on estimates of the effects of 
predicted changes in federal actions as a result of implementation.The 
following rationale, summarized from the nine assumptions used by the 
PACFISH Interdisciplinary Team, described on pages 37-38 of the EA, was 
used for determining the effects.

--The mitigation measures may result in the delay or modification of 
projects and activities. New project decisions will be preceded, as 
appropriate, by site-specific NEPA analysis.
--The affected environment is the present environment. Analyses in the 
EA considered trends and changes associated primarily with ongoing and 
proposed timber harvesting, livestock grazing, and recreation uses 
during the interim period.
--Environmental effects were based solely on the implementation of 
direction within the geographic scope of PACFISH. Management direction 
applied only to lands within anadromous watersheds that are 
administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.
--The effects of implementing the PACFISH direction were considered 
only for the interim period. Because recovery processes within riparian 
and aquatic habitats are gradual, short-term adjustments in management 
practices would not result in dramatic habitat improvement during the 
interim period.
--The effect of modifications in management practices were analyzed 
based on the size, number, and distribution of riparian habitat 
conservation areas; as well as in the breadth of standards and 
guidelines, the scope of projects and activities covered, and the 
degree to which watershed analysis would be conducted.
--Projects and activities within the range of listed anadromous fish, 
and for which ESA consultation with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service has been completed were considered to be in compliance with any 
interim direction alternative.

    Modifications resulting from PACFISH were predicted to account for 
reductions in recreation visitor days, timber harvest, and permitted 
grazing within certain streamside areas. Where grazing and timber 
harvest have caused impacts, adoption of alternative 4 would provide 
improved soil stability, additional stream shading, and continuing 
supplies of large woody debris to affected streams. Where grazing has 
contributed to unstable stream banks, loss of vegetative cover and 
shade, and increased sedimentation, the trend of such habitat 
degradation would be reversed.
    Protection measures prescribed for timber, road management, 
minerals management, recreation, and grazing related activities, as 
well as other activities, would be applied throughout the area of the 
proposed action. Where such measures are applied, risks to riparian and 
aquatic resources would be reduced. Where site-specific analysis or 
watershed analysis indicate other protection measures are necessary 
they would still be designed to achieve riparian management objectives.
    The potential cumulative effects of the PACFISH interim direction 
were limited by the nature of the interim direction itself. No ground-
disturbing actions were authorized, funded, or carried-out by the 
PACFISH decision. The interim programmatic nature of PACFISH does not 
constitute any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. 
Such commitment of resources can only be made through long-term 
permanent amendments to land management plans, or through site-specific 
project decisions. In the programmatic environmental assessment for 
PACFISH, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service merely 
considered the impacts of various interim strategies for protecting 
anadromous fish habitat. The intended effect of the interim direction 
was to maintain the environmental status quo while long-term management 
strategies are being developed.
    The standards and guidelines presented in PACFISH were intended to 
limit or mitigate the effects of human activity on anadromous fish 
habitat on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service administered 
lands. The interim direction is not the sole or final direction for 
anadromous fish habitat protection for Bureau of Land Management and 
Forest Service administered lands. Cumulative effects are also being 
assessed through specific project and activity analysis efforts. At the 
programmatic level of this interim direction, detailed analysis of 
specific cumulative effects was not possible. Such analysis would 
require speculation as to the scope, character, and environmental 
consequences of future project and activity decisions.
    Response. The implementation monitoring summaries from each of the 
administrative units were received in January of 1996. These summaries 
identified the following: (1) That approximately 1200 projects were 
either completed, planned or in the process of being completed; (2) 
that PACFISH default riparian habitat conservations areas (EA at 
Appendix C, pp. C-6 and C-7) were applied to over 600 of these 
projects; (3) that riparian habitat conservations areas were either 
modified through watershed analysis or site specific analysis on the 
remaining projects; and (4) that watershed analysis was conducted for 
less than 10 percent of the projects and effectiveness monitoring was 
either conducted or planned on approximately 300 projects.
    Implementation monitoring to date has not identified management 
actions that would lead to noncompliance with PACFISH direction. The 
direct and indirect effects of implementing the PACFISH interim 
direction have been essentially the same as those described in the 
PACFISH EA, and therefore, are assumed to continue as previously 
projected. Projects which could reasonably be deferred or re-designed 
to avoid or mitigate impacts were treated accordingly.
    The programmatic cumulative effects are consistent with, or less 
than, those estimated in the EA. The cumulative effects of interim 
PACFISH direction were reviewed and considered in relation to projects, 
reasonably

[[Page 47864]]

foreseeable policies of other agencies, and possible effects of long-
term management. The short term nature of PACFISH makes it difficult to 
determine measurable changes in cumulative effects. However, the 
cumulative effects of project level implementation of PACFISH standards 
and guidelines have resulted in benefits to fish habitat, a condition 
expected to remain with continuation of PACFISH. Activities anticipated 
during continuation of PACFISH are similar to those which have occurred 
during implementation and are not expected to have different effects.
    The following provides additional analysis based on recent 
information about environmental consequences.
    Watershed Resources. The EA, page 45, states although improvements 
to watersheds and water resources would be noticeable at a few sites, 
measurable improvement in habitat condition during the interim period 
would not likely to substantial because recovery processes are gradual. 
As discussed above, implementation monitoring of projects shows that 
there is good compliance with the PACFISH management direction. As 
stated in the EA, basin-wide effectiveness monitoring has not been 
conducted for a sufficient time to show marked improvement. Given the 
long timeframes required for improvement, the projected environmental 
consequences for the physical environment are not expected to change 
through the continuation of the PACFISH direction.
    Non-Forested Vegetation. The EA projected most effects to be caused 
by grazing with some localized areas affected by recreation. The EA 
stated that application of the proposed management direction would 
improve ecological conditions but for upland areas this might take 5-10 
years before it is measurable, although recovery within riparian areas 
may be faster. Range allotments identified as posing an unacceptable 
risk have been subjected to PACFISH management direction. Initial 
implementation monitoring results show that riparian conditions are 
improving but that it will take more time to show definitive results on 
a broad scale for PACFISH. The continuation of PACFISH would not change 
the effects to the range management program from that described in the 
PACFISH EA.
    Forested Vegetation. Forested vegetation changes slowly except when 
catastrophic fire, insect or disease events cause rapid change. This 
was discussed on pages 50-51 of the EA. For the preferred alternative, 
the EA anticipated harvesting would not generally be allowed within the 
riparian habitat conservation areas except as allowed for in TM-1 
standard which provided for salvage after catastrophic events. The EA 
disclosed that this would result in higher risks for tree mortality but 
the inherent risk would not change over such a short timeframe.
    During the time period since the approval of the PACFISH EA there 
have been numerous salvage sale projects. While these projects did not 
require PACFISH standards and guidelines be applied, Forests were 
directed to apply management prescriptions that would not cause adverse 
effect on anadromous fish habitat. An interagency review has been 
conducted, the results of which will be useful for determining effects 
to the environmental baseline. These projects have been designed and 
conducted either using the default PACFISH direction or under direction 
developed with site specific analysis and Section 7 consultation 
procedures in drainages with listed stocks. As projected, the completed 
sales did not salvage as much material as might have occurred prior to 
PACFISH, though the PACFISH interim direction does allow for salvage 
after appropriate analysis has been completed. The original projection 
that the inherent risk would not change is still correct and is 
applicable to the continuation of the PACFISH direction.
    Fishery Resources. The EA projected that because alternative 4 
would broaden the application of management direction by including new 
standards and guidelines to all proposed projects and activities, and 
some ongoing projects and activities within riparian habitat 
conservation areas or that degrade riparian habitat conservation areas, 
and because large riparian habitat conservation areas would be 
established in all key watersheds, increased protection of riparian and 
aquatic habitat would occur. Although there would be no permanent 
cessation of activities in riparian habitat conservation areas, some 
actions would be modified or deferred during the interim period, 
resulting in a reduction of adverse effects on riparian and aquatic 
habitats within riparian habitat conservation areas.
    The application of the interim management direction has provided 
the protection anticipated. Effects on fisheries populations and 
habitat improvement will take a prolonged time of monitoring to show 
measurable results. This also applies for the continuation of PACFISH.
    Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species/Wildlife Resources. 
Since the signing of the PACFISH EA, steelhead trout populations in the 
Snake River Basin and the upper Columbia River Basin have been proposed 
for federal listing under the ESA (61 FR 41541, August 9, 1996). 
Steelhead trout populations in the middle Columbia River Basin were not 
included as proposed species, but will be monitored for possible 
inclusion. This species of anadromous fish is located throughout the 
PACFISH area. Steelhead trout were addressed by the EA as one of the 
anadromous fish PACFISH was designed to benefit. The EA projected that 
effects on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and wildlife 
resources from implementing more constraining standards and guidelines 
would be minor but mostly positive. Results from the inter-agency field 
reviews and field implementation reports show this to be true. A 
similar trend is expected for the continuation of PACFISH.
    Social. The EA projected that the social effects of the preferred 
alternative would be relatively small for small isolated communities 
(EA, page 60). This has been confirmed by the social analysis developed 
for the ICBEMP effort. The effects on cultural resources, wild and 
scenic rivers, Indian tribes, and social effects are as predicted by 
the EA and are projected to be similar for the continuation of PACFISH 
direction.
    Economic. The focus of the economic effects discussion in the EA 
was to identify the additional or incremental effects that might be 
expected as a result of interim direction. Because of ESA requirements 
and the presence of listed anadromous fish stocks, both Bureau of Land 
Management and Forest Service field units in the Snake River Basin 
generally were already operating under more stringent management 
requirements than were called for under current plans. These units had 
already experienced reductions in many activities and output levels as 
a result of consultation and other ESA provisions. Estimated effects of 
implementing alternative 4 were reductions in timber harvesting, 
livestock grazing, and recreation visitor day use.
    In general the economic impacts are more modest than forecasted in 
1994. The continuing low prices for timber and beef have resulted in 
lesser impacts from the PACFISH decision for those industries than 
stated in the PACFISH EA; the low prices for timber and beef affected 
the outputs of all forests. For various reasons, timber harvest fell 
slightly between 1994 and 1995 by an average of 9 percent. The major 
difference in total impacts is the lack of recreation impacts observed 
over the past 2 years. The original economic analysis (late 1994 and 
early 1995)

[[Page 47865]]

assumed seasonal or permanent closures of both developed and dispersed 
sites in areas affected by the PACFISH strategy. Such closures did not 
occur, although some National Forests closed roads and implicitly 
limited access. Another difference is that some of the projected range 
impacts have not occurred. The original analysis assumed that as 
allotment management plans were completed, there would be a drop in the 
number of animal unit months. The completion of allotment management 
plans has been a slow process with few changes to numbers of animal 
unit months, although there have been changes to season of use and 
grazing patterns. The costs of various programs have increased for the 
Forest Service. A sample from the majority of National Forests involved 
in PACFISH suggest cost increases on the order of 12, 8, and 4 percent 
for administration of the timber, range, and recreation programs 
respectively.
    The ICBEMP information indicates that the assumptions used for the 
economic effects determinations in the PACFISH EA are still correct. 
The estimates for effects for cut and sold timber volumes, and the 
estimated effects to the livestock grazing program are within those 
projected in the PACFISH EA. These effects would remain the same under 
the continuation of PACFISH.
    4. Is the range of alternatives for interim direction still 
reasonable for meeting the purpose and need (i.e., changes in 
information, circumstances, and or assumptions do not lead to issues 
that would warrant development of an alternative not already considered 
in the EA but which would meet the purpose and need)?
    Although the range of alternatives in the ICBEMP DEISs are greater 
and more diverse than the PACFISH EA alternative range, the former 
documents are intended to consider long-term strategies which could 
involve major changes in federal land use allocations and management 
direction. In contrast, the PACFISH EA and associated decisions were 
intended to consider a more limited range of interim actions that could 
be readily implemented while preserving future management options. The 
long-term management strategy would clearly consider actions which 
would be major federal actions (as defined by the CEQ guidelines for 
implementing NEPA), while the PACFISH EA provides more modest interim 
actions designed to preserve options with minimal effects on the other 
federal land uses and resource allocations during the time needed to 
complete the ICBEMP decision-making process. The range of PACFISH EA 
alternatives are still reasonable and appropriate for continuing 
interim policies, standards, and guidelines.

Endangered Species Act Consultation

    On August 29, 1996, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest 
Service re-initiated consultation, under section 7 of the Endangered 
Species Act, with the National Marine Fisheries Service per the terms 
of the January 23, 1995, Biological Opinion for PACFISH. The Biological 
Opinion states at page 33, consultation shall be re-initiated in the 
event that consultation on the geographically-specific EISs in eastern 
Oregon, Washington, and Idaho is not completed by 18 months from the 
effective date of the [record of decision] for PACFISH.

Conclusion

    The Forest Service reviewed the interagency information from the 
area covered by PACFISH, and information from field reviews indicating 
that it is still a technically sound fish habitat conservation strategy 
from which to operate until the ICBEMP decision-making process is 
completed. Through this review the Forest Service concluded that: (1) 
the data and/or assumptions upon which the EA was based are still valid 
and germane; (2) the methodology and analytical approach used in the EA 
are still reasonable; (3) the effects experienced are within those 
identified in the EA, and reasonably foreseeable future effects are 
consistent with those estimated in the EA, and are not significant; and 
(4) the range of alternatives in the EA is still reasonable.
    The available evidence indicates that the direction provided by 
PACFISH is sufficient to provide resource protection until long-term 
direction is in place, that the analysis contained in the EA is still 
valid, and that the factors leading to a finding of no significant 
impact are still correct and appropriate. Consequently, the PACFISH 
interim direction will continue until implementation of the ICBEMP 
decisions.
    NEPA Findings. Under the Forest Service Handbook, 1909.15 at 18.1, 
the Forest Service may conduct interdisciplinary reviews and 
consideration of new information in the context of the overall program 
or project to determine whether or not the new information warrants 
reopening the NEPA process. The analysis, documented above, fulfills 
that review and consideration. The analysis indicates there is not 
significant new information or changed conditions that would warrant 
reopening the NEPA decision-making process for PACFISH. The range of 
alternatives, estimation of effects, and the finding of no significant 
impact are still valid. The science used to develop the PACFISH 
strategy is still valid.
    PACFISH & NFMA Significance. The PACFISH Decision Notice contains a 
finding that the PACFISH amendments were not NFMA significant 
amendments (36 CFR 219.(10)(f); Decision Notice, pp 8-11). The Decision 
Notice reviewed the significance factors and concluded:
    Timing: Because PACFISH will be in place only until the current 
analysis of a longer-term strategy is completed they do not constitute 
significant amendments of the Regional Guides and forest plans.
    Location and Size: The area in the planning unit affected by the 
interim standards and guidelines is not so large in size as to mandate 
a significant amendment.
    Goals, Objectives, Outputs: PACFISH does not significantly alter 
the long-term relationships between levels of goods and services 
projected by the forest plans. Any short term temporary reductions in 
outputs do not foreclose opportunities to achieve such outputs in later 
years.
    Management Proscriptions: The desired future conditions and long-
term levels of goods and services projected in current plans would not 
be substantially changed by the interim strategy.
    Other Factors: Other factors include the ability of the Forest 
Service to adapt to changing conditions and protect anadromous salmonid 
species for a short period of time until a longer-term strategy can be 
analyzed and adopted.
    Furthermore, the situation with regard to the NFMA significance of 
the PACFISH amendments remains largely the same. First, the original 
analysis contemplated that PACFISH would remain in place until the EISs 
were completed to provide protection for anadromous salmonid species. 
The only difference is that the interim direction is being continued 
while the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service complete the 
EISs for the long-term strategy and consider and respond to public 
comments on the draft proposals. Second, the area potentially impacted 
remains the same. Third, the potential impact of the amendments upon 
levels of goods and services and desired future conditions projected in 
the forest plans also remains unchanged. The original analysis 
contemplated that short term changes from estimated levels of possible 
outputs of goods and services would not foreclose opportunities to 
achieve such outputs in later years. This is still true. Likewise, the 
desired future

[[Page 47866]]

conditions projected in the forest plans would not be substantially 
changed by continuation of PACFISH until the EISs area completed. 
Finally, we note that the certain salmon and other ESA listed species 
remain imperiled. PACFISH was undertaken to ensure the Bureau of Land 
and Forest Service would do no harm to the salmon while continuing to 
manage the national forests for multiple use resources. This objective 
remains unchanged. Thus, the situation with regard to the NFMA 
significance remains largely the same as it was at the time of the 
original analysis and decision.
    PACFISH amended Regional Guides and forest plans to provide interim 
protection for anadromous salmonid species pending the completion of a 
EISs for longer-term direction. As an interim measure PACFISH will 
continue to ensure that the Bureau of Land Management and Forest 
Service do not foreclose multiple use management options while the 
longer-term strategy is being developed. The significance of these 
measures to sustain multiple use management were thoroughly analyzed in 
the original PACFISH EA and Decision Notice/Decision Record. The 
continuation of PACFISH as direction intended to remain in place 
pending completion of the longer-term strategy does not alter the 
conclusions reached in the original analysis of NFMA significance.

    Dated: September 4, 1996.
Robert W. Williams,
Regional Forester.
    Dated: September 5, 1996.
Elaine Y. Zielinski,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 96-23178 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M; 4310-84-M