[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 113 (Thursday, June 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32076-32077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15379]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[ID918-1610-00-UCRB]


Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

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

ACTION: Notice of availability of draft environmental impact 
statements.

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

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) have prepared two draft environmental impact statements (EISs) 
(the Eastside Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Upper 
Columbia River Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statement) as part of 
the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (Project). The 
proposed action of the Project is to develop a scientifically sound, 
ecosystem-based strategy for management of the lands under the 
jurisdiction of the Forest Service and BLM in the Project area. The 
Project area includes lands east of the crest of the Cascade Mountains 
within the Columbia River basin (with the exception of those National 
Forest System lands within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem) and the 
Klamath and Great Basins within the State of Oregon. The Eastside Draft 
EIS applies to approximately 30 million acres of Forest Service- and 
BLM-administered lands within Oregon and Washington. The Upper Columbia 
Rover Basin Draft EIS applies to approximately 42 million acres of 
Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands within the Columbia River 
basin in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. These draft EISs 
are based, in part, on the work of the Science Integration Team of the 
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, summarized in the 
Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the 
Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, 
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, 
September, 1996.
    Both draft EISs describe and analyze two ``no action'' alternatives 
and five ``action'' alternative intended to respond to the statement of 
purpose of, and need for, the Project and to the issues identified 
through public scoping.
    The Record of Decision that will eventually complete the National 
Environmental Policy Act process of which these two draft EISs are a 
part, may amend Forest Service Regional Guides and is expected to amend 
existing Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plans and BLM 
Resource Management Plans and Management Framework Plans in the Project 
area by the adoption of an ecosystem-based management strategy.

DATES: A 120-day comment period begins with the publication in the 
Federal Register of the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of the 
filing of these two draft EISs. Comments on the draft EISs must be 
submitted or postmarked no later than October 6, 1997. Those who do not 
comment on one or both of the draft EISs or otherwise participate in 
this EIS process may have limited options to appeal or protest the 
final decision. Public outreach to explain the draft EISs and to assist 
the public with commenting on the two draft documents will be conducted 
throughout the Project area during the comment period. Notice of dates 
and locations of these efforts will be given through mailings and local 
media.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Eastside Draft EIS may be obtained from 
ICBEMP, 112 E. Poplar Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362 or by calling (509) 
522-4030. Copies of the Upper Columbia River Basin Draft EIS may be 
obtained from ICBEMP, 304 N. 8th Street, Room 250, Boise, ID 83702 or 
by calling (208) 334-1770, ext. 123. The Draft EISs will also be 
available in late June via the internet (http://www.icbemp.gov).
    Comments on the Eastside draft EIS should be submitted in writing 
to ICBEMP, 112 East Poplar Street, P.O. Box 2076, Walla Walla, WA 
99362. Comments on the Upper Columbia River Basin draft EIS should be 
submitted in writing to ICBEMP, 304 N. 8th Street, Room 250, Boise, ID 
83702. If your comments are in regard to both draft EISs, they may be 
sent to either office. Comments may also be made electronically by 
accessing the Project home page (http://www.icbemp.gov), where a 
comment form will be available by late June for submitting comments.
    Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will 
be available for public review at the above addresses during regular 
business hours (7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at Walla Walla and 8:00 a.m. to 
5:00 p.m. at Boise, Monday through Friday, except holidays), and may be 
published as part of the final environmental impact statement. 
Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to 
withhold your name or street address from public review or from 
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this 
prominently at the beginning of your written comments. Such requests 
will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from 
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying 
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or 
businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their 
entirety. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and 
considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments may not have 
standing to appeal the decision under 36 CFR 217 (Forest Service) or 
standing to protest the proposed decision under 43 CFR 1610.5-2 (Bureau 
of Land Management).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
EIS Team Leader Jeff Walter, 304 N. 8th Street, Room 250, Boise, ID 
83702, telephone (208) 334-1770 or EIS Deputy Team Leader Cathy 
Humphrey, 112 East Poplar Street, P.O. Box 2076, Walla Walla, WA 99362, 
telephone (509) 522-4030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The statement of the purpose of, and need 
for, the proposed action (development of a scientifically sound, 
ecosystem-based management strategy) is key information. The purpose 
and need, along with the issues identified through public scoping, 
framed the alternative management strategies considered in these two 
Draft EISs. The purpose and

[[Page 32077]]

need also provide guideposts for selection of a preferred alternative.
    The purpose of this action is to create a coordinated approach and 
to select a management strategy that best achieves a combination of the 
following: (1) Restore and maintain long-term ecosystem health and 
ecological integrity. (2) Support economic and/or social needs of 
people, cultures, and communities, and provide sustainable and 
predictable levels of products and services from lands administered by 
the Forest Service or BLM, including fish, wildlife, and native plant 
communities. (3) Update or amend current Forest Service and BLM 
management plans with long-term direction primarily at the regional and 
sub-regional levels. (4) Emphasize adaptive management over the long 
term. (5) Provide consistent direction at regional and sub-regional 
levels that will assist managers in making project decisions at a local 
level in the context of broader ecological considerations. (6) Help 
restore and maintain habitats and viability of plant and animal 
species, especially for threatened, endangered, and candidate species 
and of special interest to Tribes. This would be done primarily by 
moving toward desired ranges of landscape conditions on a sub-regional 
and regional basis. (7) Provide opportunities for cultural, 
recreational, and aesthetic experiences. (8) Replace interim direction 
(PACFISH, INFISH, and Eastside screens) primarily with ecosystem-based 
long-term, regional and subregional strategies, to provide a broader 
context for local direction. (9) Identify where current policy, 
regulation, or law may act as barriers to implementing the strategy or 
achieving desired conditions.
    The need for this action is to restore and maintain long-term 
ecosystem health and ecological integrity; and to support the economic 
and/or social needs of people, cultures, and communities, and 
sustainable and predictable levels of goods and services from National 
Forest System and Bureau of Land Management lands.
    Using the issues identified through public scoping to establish the 
scope of the alternatives, the interdisciplinary team developed five 
action alternatives intended to respond to the statement of the purpose 
and need. Alternatives 1 and 2 are variations of ``no action''. 
Alternatives 3 through 7 are alternative ecosystem-based management 
strategies. The themes of the seven alternatives are as follows:
    Alternative 1: Continues management specified under existing Forest 
Service or BLM land-use lands.
    Alternative 2: Applies recent interim direction (PACFISH, INFISH, 
and Eastside Screens as the long-term strategy for lands administered 
by Forest Service or BLM. All other direction from existing plans would 
continue. Direction in Alternative 1 would apply to areas not covered 
by interim direction.
    Alternative 3: Updates existing Forest Service or BLM plans in 
response to changing conditions. Minimizes changes to local plans, 
addressing only priority conditions that most hinder effectiveness or 
legal conditions. Provides a broader dimension and more integrated 
management regarding priority large-scale issues than Alternatives 1 or 
2.
    Alternative 4: Aggressively restores ecosystem health through 
active management using an integrated ecosystem management approach. 
Priority is placed on forest, rangeland, and watershed health. Actions 
are designed to produce economic benefits whenever practical. 
Alternative 4 is the agencies' preferred alternative.
    Alternative 5: Emphasizes production of goods and services 
consistent with ecosystem management principles. Areas are targeted for 
specific uses based on biological capability and economic efficiency. 
Other uses may occur but conflicts would be resolved in favor of the 
priority use.
    Alternative 6: Emphasizes an adaptive management approach to 
restore and maintain ecosystems while providing for social and economic 
needs. Takes a slower, more cautious approach than other alternatives 
and implies the use of experimental processes, local research, and 
extensive monitoring.
    Alternative 7: Emphasizes reducing risks to ecological integrity 
and species viability by establishing a system of reserve lands 
administered by the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management. 
Reserves are selected for representation of vegetation and rare animal 
species. Management activities are limited within reserves and are 
similar to Alternative 3 outside reserves.

    Dated: June 6, 1997.
Nancy Graybeal,
Deputy Regional Forester.

    Dated: June 6, 1997.
William L. Bradley,
Deputy State Director for Resource Planning, Use and Protection.
[FR Doc. 97-15379 Filed 6-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-11-M, 4310-GG-M