[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8680-8685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4681]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Revised Land and Resource Management Plans for Some National
Forest System Lands in Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Wyoming
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
in conjunction with the revision of land and resource management plans
for several National Grasslands (NG) and Forests (NF) on the Northern
Great Plains.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``planning area'' includes these National Forest System lands:
[[Page 8681]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative unit National grassland/forest State Counties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cluster NF............................... Little Missouri NG.......... ND Billings, Dunn, Golden,
Valley, McHenry, McKenzie,
Slope.
Cedar River NG.............. ND Grant, Sioux.
Sheyenne NG................. ND Ransom, Richland.
Grand River NG.............. SD Corson, Perkins.
Nebraska NF.............................. Oglala NG................... NE Dawes, Sioux.
Nebraska NF................. NE Blaine, Dawes, Sioux,
Thomas.
Samuel R. McKelvie NF....... NE Cherry.
Buffalo Gap NG.............. SD Custer, Fall River, Jackson,
Pennington.
Fort Pierre NG.............. SD Jones, Lyman, Stanley.
Medicine Bow-Routt NF.................... Thunder Basin NG............ WY Campbell, Converse, Crook,
Niobrara, Weston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This planning effort is called the ``Northern Great Plains
Management Plans Revisions.'' Land and Resource Management Plans
(hereafter referred to as Management Plan or Plans) will be prepared
for each participating administrative unit, while one environmental
impact statement for all affected units will be issued.
This notice describes the specific portions of the current
Management Plans to be revised, environmental issues considered in the
revisions, estimated dates for filing the environmental impact
statement, information concerning public participation, and the names
and addresses of the agency officials who can provide additional
information.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received
in writing by July 31, 1997. The agency expects to file a draft
environmental impact statement with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and make it available for public comment in June 1998. The agency
expects to file the final environmental impact statement in May 1999.
ADDRESS: Send written comments to: Dave Cawrse, Team Leader, Northern
Great Plains Planning Team, USDA Forest Service, 125 North Main Street,
Chadron, NE 69337.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dave Cawrse, Planning Team Leader, (308) 432-0300.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: Hal Salwasser, Northern Regional Forester at 200
East Broadway, Missoula, MT 59807; and Elizabeth Estill, Rocky Mountain
Regional Forester at P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, CO 80225-0127.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Part 36 Code of Federal
Regulation (CFR) 219.10 (g), the Regional Foresters for the Northern
and Rocky Mountain Regions give notice of the agency's intent to
prepare an environmental impact statement for the revision effort
described above. According to 36 CFR 219.10 (g), land and resource
management plans are ordinarily revised on a 10- to 15-year cycle. The
existing Management Plans were approved as follows:
Custer National Forest--June 10, 1987;
Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest--November 20, 1985;
Nebraska National Forest--December 14, 1984.
The Regional Foresters give notice that they are beginning an
environmental analysis and decision-making process for this proposed
action so that interested or affected people can participate in the
analyses and contribute to the final decisions. One environmental
impact statement will be prepared. Separate decisions, documented in
Records of Decision, will be issued for each administrative unit. The
combined revision effort makes sense because of common issues and
concerns, and similar ecological landscapes. This effort will enable
the administrative units to share assessments, plan-related analyses,
and resource expertise, and will reduce costs.
Opportunities will be provided to discuss openly with the public
the alternatives to be developed, which can potentially replace the
existing Management Plans. The public is invited to discuss and help
define the range of alternatives to be considered in the environmental
impact statement. Forest Service officials will lead these discussions,
helping to describe the preliminary alternatives brought forward by the
agency. These officials will also explain the environmental analysis
process and the disclosures of that analysis, which will be available
for public review. Written comments concerning the range of
alternatives will be encouraged.
Management plans describe the intended management of National
Grasslands and Forests. Agency decisions in these plans will do the
following things:
* Establish multiple-use goals and objectives (36 CFR 219.11);
* Establish grassland and forestwide management requirements
(standards and guidelines) to fulfill the requirements of 16 U.S.C.
1604 applying to future activities (resource integration requirements,
36 CFR 219.13 to 219.27);
* Establish management areas and management area direction
(management area prescriptions) applying to future activities in that
management area (resource integration and minimum specific management
requirements) 36 CFR 219.11 (c);
* Establish monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR 219.11
(d));
* Determine suitability and potential capability of lands for
producing forage for grazing animals and for providing habitat for
management indicator species (36 CFR 219.20), designate lands not
suited for timber production, and, where applicable, establish
allowable timber sale quantity (36 CFR 219.14, 219.15, and 219.21);
* Where applicable, designate those lands administratively
available for oil and gas leasing, and when appropriate, authorize the
Bureau of Land Management to offer specific lands for leasing (36 CFR
228.102 (d) and (e));
* Where applicable, recommend Wild and Scenic River designations in
accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1274; and
* Where applicable, recommend non-Wilderness allocations or
Wilderness recommendations for roadless areas (36 CFR 219.17).
The authorization of project level activities within the planning
area occurs through project decision-making, the second stage of forest
and grassland planning. Project level decisions must comply with
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures and must include a
determination that the project is consistent with the Management Plan.
Need for Changes in the Current Management Plans
Nearly a decade or more has lapsed since the current Management
Plans were approved. Experience has shown the need for changes in
management
[[Page 8682]]
direction for some resources or programs. Several sources have
highlighted needed changes in the current Management Plans. In brief,
these sources include:
* New issues and changing public values identified through public
interaction;
* New information and knowledge gained through scientific research
and effectiveness monitoring;
* Management concerns derived through implementation experience and
insight into relationships between prairie and forest vegetation and
other resources and better ways of accomplishing desired conditions.
In addition to changing public views about how these lands should
be managed, a significant change in the information and scientific
understanding of these ecosystems has occurred. Some new information is
a product of research, while other information has resulted from
changes in technology.
Major Revision Topics
Based on the information sources identified earlier, the combined
effect of the needed changes demand attention through plan revision.
The major revision topics described below influenced the decision to
revise the plans.
Rangeland and Forest Health
Planning Questions
* What management goals, direction, and prescriptions will best
attain desired conditions for rangeland and forest health?
Background. Issues and concerns over rangeland health frequently
relate to the current productivity of these lands and the resulting
capacity to provide livestock forage and wildlife food and cover. The
quality and quantity of grass and other vegetation produced on these
lands are influenced by soil type, weather, land use, disturbances such
as fire and drought, and many other factors. Livestock grazing can help
maintain, enhance or decrease rangeland productivity, depending on
management. This planning effort will provide an opportunity to assess
how livestock grazing can be used to best attain desired rangeland
productivity. The issue of rangeland productivity is also relevant to
addressing the role of National Grasslands in ``* * * administering
sound and progressive principles of land conservation and multiple use,
and to promote development of grassland agriculture and sustained-yield
management of the forage, fish and wildlife, timber, water and
recreation resources * * *'' (36 CFR 213.1). This role for the National
Grasslands is established by regulation and pertains to those lands
administered by the Forest Service under Title III of the Bankhead-
Jones Farm Tenant Act.
Forest health issues on these lands are closely tied to the ability
of riparian and other prairie woodlands to regenerate and sustain
themselves. Fire suppression, and insect and disease damage in
coniferous forests are other issues related to forest health.
Biological diversity is another aspect of rangeland and forest
health. Numerous individuals and groups have expressed concerns about
land-use effects on the diversity, abundance and distribution of native
plants and animals. These concerns extend to terrestrial and aquatic
plants and animals, rare species, declining grassland bird species,
game species and other wildlife. For example, interest in black-tailed
prairie dog colonies as habitat for threatened and endangered species
and other wildlife on National Grasslands is high. Others suggest that
more focus be placed on returning bison to their native habitats.
Habitat for numerous threatened, endangered and sensitive species
occurs on these areas, and the likelihood of other species being
proposed for protection under the Endangered Species Act supports the
need to revise current management plans. State fish and wildlife
agencies and others have also expressed considerable interest in
management and fish and wildlife habitats on these lands and have
expertise to provide for conservation of these species and their
habitats. The Council on Environmental Quality recommends incorporating
biodiversity conservation in environmental analyses.
Other issues and concerns about rangeland and forest health include
soil stability, water quality, noxious weeds, exotic plants and
animals, and wetlands management.
Community and Lifestyle Relationships
Planning Questions
* How may communities, people and their lifestyles be affected by
decisions made in the revision effort?
* How do communities and people and their lifestyles affect uses
and management of these public lands?
* How do management decisions affect the interdependent
relationship of resources, people, lifestyles, and economies?
Background. Commodity and amenity benefits from public lands within
the planning area have contributed to the social systems and economic
base of many neighboring communities. The human environment includes
natural and physical environment and the interdependent relationship of
people to that environment.
Management decisions determine public land uses and resource
availability from those lands. In resource-based economies, these
decisions can perpetuate or disrupt relationships between public land
management, communities, and lifestyles. Communities with more diverse
economies may be better able to adopt to changes, even though some
economic sectors may be strained as change occurs. The capacity to
handle change without major hardships or disruptions to social groups
or institutions is an important component of community and lifestyle
relationships.
Economic effects can include changes in local employment and
income, payments to state and local government, and can also have
possible implications to local government services and community
infrastructure.
Livetock Grazing
Planning Questions
* How will management of vegetation affect availability of forage
for permitted livestock?
* What are the desired vegetation conditions and how can livestock
grazing be used to help achieve them?
Background. Livestock grazing occurs on most of these lands under a
permit system and is a major economic activity in these rural areas.
Livestock grazing levels and strategies need to provide for sustained
stewardship of the land, resources and rural communities. However,
appropriate grazing levels and strategies continue to be debated.
Researcher, scientist and resource management specialists at various
universities, agencies and institutions are currently gathering
information that will be valuable in assessing issues related to
livestock grazing.
The Forest Service is required by regulation (36 CFR 219.20) to
determine suitability and potential capability of National Grasslands
and Forest to produce forage for livestock. This regulation prescribes
that the grazing systems and facilities (such as fencing and water
developments) to support livestock grazing also be evaluated and
considered during the planning process. The amount of facilities and
structural developments on these lands to support livestock grazings is
an issue. Some individuals want to see more
[[Page 8683]]
developments on public lands while others want to see less or current
levels.
Another issue related to livestock grazing is drought. Droughts can
substantially reduce available livestock forage and, if prolonged, can
result in long-lasting changes in plant species composition and
rangeland productivity. Livestock grazing strategies during and after
drought can affect range recovery so grazing guidelines for drought
period may be proposed for some areas.
Oil and Gas Leasing
Planning Questions
* Which National Forests System lands (or portions) are
administratively available for oil and gas leasing?
* What specific lease stipulations will apply to those lands
determined to be administratively available for leasing?
* Are existing lease decisions and stipulations consistent with
management goals and objectives?
Background. In 1987, Congress passed the Federal Onshore Oil and
Gas Leasing Reform Act, which expanded the Secretary of Agriculture's
role in the leasing decision process. Within the National Forest
System, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to identify lands
where leases can be sold and to determine appropriate stipulations to
protect surface resources. Regulations to implement this Act were
developed by the Secretary and became effective April 20, 1990 (36 CFR,
Part 228, 100 et. seq.).
Leasing analyses in accordance with the requirements of 36 CFR
228.102(c) have been completed for about 1.7 million acres of the
planning area, including the Little Missouri, Cedar River, and Thunder
Basin National Grasslands and the western half of Fall River County on
the Buffalo Gap National Grassland. Existing leasing decisions will be
reviewed in light of new information generated as a result of Northern
Great Plains Assessments and other sources since the leasing decisions
were made (e.g., newly listed threatened and endangered species, rare
ecosystem elements or habitats). This new information may result in
changes to previous leasing availability decisions or to leasing
requirements, or both. Existing leases will not be affected by these
changes.
The remaining 1.2 million acres of the planning area (Sheyenne,
Grand River, Fort Pierre, Oglala National Grasslands, the remainder of
the Buffalo Gap National Grassland, and Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie
National Forests) will be examined for oil and gas potential and, based
on the potential, may have a leasing analysis completed.
Plant and Animal Control
Planning Questions
* How and when should resource or property damage caused by noxious
weeds, exotic plants, insects, disease, rodents and other animals be
controlled or managed?
Background. Under certain conditions, some plant and animal species
can cause unacceptable economic and/or environmental damage. Plant and
animal damage control activities currently conducted or authorized by
the Forest Service on National Grasslands and Forests are largely
directed towards noxious weeds and prairie dogs. Biological controls
and herbicides are currently being used to control noxious weeds such
as leafy spurge and Canada thistle. These weeds can substantially
reduce native plant species and forage production. Prairie dog
reductions in selected colonies on the National Grasslands are
primarily in response to concerns of neighboring private landowners who
do not want prairie dogs moving onto their lands. Concerns expressed
about these programs range from the economic losses from damage to
potential effects of the control activities on wildlife and the
environment. Human health and safety issues are also associated with
the use of pesticides and herbicides.
Predators are occasionally removed from some of the National
Grasslands and Forests to protect livestock, wildlife, and public
health and safety. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) is the lead federal agency for predator control on these public
lands and is conducting its own evaluation and planning for these
activities. However, in South Dakota, predator control is conducted by
the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks through an
agreement with APHIS. Under this agreement, APHIS acts in an advisory
capacity. APHIS also has the lead responsibility for evaluating,
planning and initiating grasshopper control projects on the National
Grasslands. Issues related to the responsibilities of APHIS will not be
addressed in this planning effort.
Recreation and Travel Management
Planning Question
* What recreation opportunities should be provided?
* What travel opportunities should be provided?
Background. Demand for recreational opportunities on these public
lands is increasing dramatically. Contributing factors are: 1)
Increasing number of hunters on public lands; 2) increasing
appreciation for the beauty of the prairie; and 3) people taking
shorter vacations on nearby public lands. The public is asking us to
address recreational uses and values on these National Grasslands and
Forests. During revision, scenery management objectives and
recreational opportunities will be determined. Results from customer
surveys will help determine public expectations for recreational
opportunities.
Recreational uses and interests vary widely across the planning
area. Some recreational activities, such as mountain biking and use of
all-terrain vehicles, have increased in popularity since land and
resource management plans were written. Current recreational use in
some units exceeds levels anticipated in the existing plans. Increased
recreational use highlights the importance and value of these National
Forests and Grasslands in filling recreational, esthetic and spiritual
needs.
Upland bird and big game hunting are major dispersed recreational
activities on many of these public lands. Hunters are interested in how
wildlife cover on these areas is managed. This concern is not fully
addressed in existing land and resource management plans. Prairie dog
shooting is another popular activity on the grasslands. Hunters have
expressed concern over prairie dog management activities that might
affect their recreational opportunities.
Travel management is often an important element in recreational
experiences. Some users desire primitive recreational experiences with
restricted motorized travel. Some recreationists rely on motorized
access for their experiences, such as all-terrain vehicle users.
Because recreational use on these public lands has increased over the
last decade, the potential for conflicts has also increased. The
appropriateness of motorized travel as it complements or conflicts with
specific recreational settings and associated experiences will be
examined and determined during the revision process.
Special Area Designations
Planning Questions
* Which, if any, roadless areas should be recommended to Congress
for Wilderness designation?
* How should roadless areas not recommended for Wilderness
designation be managed?
* Which rivers on the planning units are eligible for inclusion in
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System?
[[Page 8684]]
* Which, if any, eligible rivers are suitable and should be
recommended for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River
System?
* How should eligible rivers not recommended for inclusion be
managed?
* What, if any, Research Natural Areas or Special Interest Areas
may be needed for their contributions to furthering knowledge about
natural systems or other objectives?
Background. The planning area includes many unique and outstanding
combinations of physical and biological resources, and areas of social
interest. These are collectively referred to as ``special areas.''
Interest in protecting special areas has been shown by the public,
other agencies, and Forest Service employees.
Special area designations may include Wilderness; Wild and Scenic
Rivers; Research Natural Areas (RNAs); and special recreational areas
with scenic, historical, geological, botanical, zoological,
paleontological, archaeological or other special characteristics. These
special areas may influence land allocation and management.
Maintaining grassland roadless areas and establishing grassland
Wilderness areas have become important to some people. Within the last
few years, various groups have offered proposals for grassland
Wilderness in South Dakota and North Dakota. Likewise, interest for
Research Natural Areas in grassland ecosystems has increased since the
planning effort. Some would like to see the Forest Service preserve and
study some areas of native prairie vegetation.
The Forest Service is required (36 CFR 219.17) to evaluate all
roadless areas for potential Wilderness designation during the revision
process. This process will produce an inventory of roadless areas
meeting minimum criteria for Wilderness according to the 1964
Wilderness Act or 1975 Eastern Wilderness Act, as appropriate. Actual
Wilderness designation is a Congressional responsibility; the Forest
Service only makes recommendations.
The purpose and authority for study of Wild and Scenic Rivers are
in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 1, 1968, as amended. All
rivers and streams determined eligible for potential inclusion in the
Wild and Scenic River System will be examined. The Custer National
Forest Management Plan (1987) identified the Little Missouri River as
an eligible river. A suitability study will be done as part of the
revision process.
Topics Outside the Scope of Management Plan Decisions
Some topics are raised by the public that are outside the scope of
this action. They include topics that require departmental or
legislative actions or topics that come under the authority of other
governmental agencies. Examples of topics that fit these categories are
listed below:
Departmental and Legislative Topics--grazing fee levels; recreation
user fees; sale or transfer of administration of National Grasslands;
transfer of Cedar River and Grand River National Grasslands to the
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe; and transfer of Buffalo Gap National
Grassland to the Oglala Sioux Tribe.
Topics for Other Governmental Agencies--predator control;
grasshopper control; and transfer of Shadehill Reservoir to another
federal agency.
What To Do With This Information
This revision effort is being undertaken to develop management
direction to:
* Provide goods and services to people;
* Involve people and communities; and
* Sustain ecosystem functions.
``Collaborative stewardship,'' which is defined as caring for the
land and serving the people by listening to all constituents and living
within the limits of the land, will guide the revision effort.
Framework for Alternatives To Be Considered
A range of alternatives will be considered when revising the
Management Plans. The alternatives will address different options to
resolve concerns raised as revision topics listed above and to fulfill
the purpose and need. Reasonable alternatives will be evaluated and
reasons will be given for eliminating some alternatives from detailed
study. A ``no-action alternative'' is required, meaning that management
would continue under existing plans. Alternatives will provide
different ways to address and respond to public issues, management
concerns, and resource opportunities identified during the scoping
process. In describing alternatives, desired vegetation and resource
conditions will be defined. Resource outputs from Management Plans will
be estimated based upon achieving desired conditions. Preliminary
information is available to develop alternatives; however, additional
public involvement and collaboration will be done to complete this
development.
Involving the Public
An atmosphere of openness is one of the objectives of the public
involvement process, where all members of the public feel free to share
information with the Forest Service and its employees on a regular
basis. All parts of this process will be structured to maintain this
openness.
The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and assistance
from individuals, organizations and federal, state, and local agencies
who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action (36 CFR
219.6). The Forest Service is also looking for collaborative approaches
among all landowners who desire health and productivity for the
planning area. Many federal and state agencies and some private
organizations have been cooperating in the development of assessments
of current biological, physical, and economic conditions. This
information will be used to prepare the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS). The range of alternatives to be considered in the
DEIS will be based on public issues, management concerns, resource
management opportunities, and specific decisions to be made.
Public participation will be solicited by notifying in person and/
or by mail known interested and affected publics. News releases will be
used to give the public general notice, and public scoping
opportunities will be offered in numerous locations. Public
participation activities will include (but are not limited to) requests
for written comments, open houses, focus groups, field trips, and
collaborative forums.
Public participation will be sought throughout the revision process
and will be especially important at several points along the way. The
first opportunity to comment is during the scoping process (40 CFR
1501.7). Scoping includes: (1) identifying potential issues, (2) from
these, identifying significant issues or those that have been covered
by prior environmental review, (3) exploring additional alternatives,
and (4) identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed
action and alternatives.
Release and Review of the EIS
The DEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and to be available for public comment by June 1998. At
that time, the EPA will publish a notice of availability for the DEIS
in the Federal Register. The comment period on the DEIS will be 90 days
from the date the EPA
[[Page 8685]]
publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of
the DEIS must structure their participation in the environmental review
of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the
reviewer's position and contentions; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.
v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that
could be raised at the DEIS stage but are not raised until after
completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 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 three-month comment period so
that substantive comments and objections are made available to the
Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and
respond to them in the FEIS.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
and concerns on the proposed actions, comments on the DEIS should be as
specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific
pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the
adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and
discussed in the statements. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council
on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in
addressing these points.
After the comment period ends on the DEIS, comments will be
analyzed, considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in
preparing the Final EIS. The FEIS is scheduled to be completed in May
1999. The responsible officials will consider the comments, responses,
environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS, and applicable laws,
regulations, and policies in making decisions regarding these
revisions. The responsible officials will document their decisions and
reasons for their decisions in a separate Record of Decision for each
Management Plan. Each decision will be subject to appeal in accordance
with 36 CFR 217.
The responsible official for each of the Management Plans is the
appropriate Regional Forester.
Dated: February 11, 1997.
Kathleen McAllister,
Deputy Regional Forester, Northern Region.
Dated: February 13, 1997.
Elizabeth Estill,
Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region.
[FR Doc. 97-4681 Filed 2-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M