[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42230-42234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20631]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, White River National 
Forest, Colorado

AGENCY: Forest Service. USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
in conjunction with revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan 
for the White River National Forest located in Eagle, Garfield, 
Gunnison, Mesa, Moffat, Pitkin, Rio Blanco, Routt, and Summit counties, 
Colorado.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement in conjunction with the revision of its Lands and Resource 
Management Plan (hereafter referred to as Forest Plan or Plan) for the 
White River National Forest.

[[Page 42231]]

    This notice describes the specific portions of the current Forest 
Plan to be revised, environmental issues considered in the revision, 
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 November 1, 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 the fall of 1998. The 
agency expects to file a final environmental impact statement in the 
fall of 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Jerry Hart, Team Leader, White 
River National Forest Planning Team, White River National Forest, Box 
948, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jerry Hart, Planning Team Leader, (970) 945-2521.
    Responsible Official: Elizabeth Estill, Rocky Mountain Regional 
Forester at P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, CO 80225-0127.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to part 36 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) 219.10 (g), the Regional Forester for the Rocky 
Mountain Region gives 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 Forest Plan 
was approved on September 20, 1984.
    The Regional Forester gives notice that the Forest is beginning an 
environmental analysis and decision-making process for this proposed 
action so that interested or affected persons can participate in the 
analysis and contribute to the final decision.
    The public will be provided many opportunities to discuss the 
Forest Plan revision. The public is invited to help identify issues and 
define the range of alternatives to be considered in the environmental 
impact statement. Forest Service officials will lead these discussions, 
helping to describe issues and the preliminary alternatives. These 
officials will also explain the environmental analysis process and the 
disclosures of that analysis, which will be available for public 
review. Written comments identifying issues for analysis and the range 
of alternatives will be encouraged.
    Issue identification (scoping) meetings are scheduled for September 
and October 1997. Alternative development meetings will be held in 
early 1998.
    Forest plans describe the intended management of National Forests. 
Agency decisions in these plans do the following:
    * Establish multiple-use goals and objectives (36 CFR 219.11);
    * Establish forestwide management requirements (standards and 
guidelines) to fulfill the requirements of 16 USC 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) for 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 
resource production. This includes designation of suitable timber land 
and establishment of allowable timber sale quantity (36 CFR 219.14 
through 219.26);
    * Where applicable, recommend designations of special areas such as 
Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers to Congress.
    The authorization of project level activities on the Forest occurs 
through project decision-making, the second stage of forest land 
management 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 Forest Plan.
    In addition to the programmatic decisions described above, the 
Forest is considering:
    * Making site specific decisions on travel management through 
identification of specific management for individual roads and trails,
    * Identifying and analyzing vacant range allotments for specific 
decision, and
    * More specific disclosure related to management of four season 
resorts.
    Any site specific decisions made from the analysis in the 
Environmental Impact Statement will be in separate decision documents 
and the responsible official will be the Forest Supervisor.

Need for Changes in the Current Forest Plan

    It had been almost thirteen years since the current Forest Plan was 
approved. Experience and monitoring have shown the need for changes in 
management direction for some resources or programs. Several sources 
have highlighted needed changes in the current Forest Plan. These 
sources include:
    * Public involvement which has identified new information and 
public values;
    * Monitoring and scientific research which have identified new 
information and knowledge gained;
    * Forest plan implementation which has identified management 
concerns to find better ways for accomplishing desired conditions.
    In addition to changing public views about how these lands should 
be managed, a significant change in information and the scientific 
understanding of these ecosystems has occurred. Some new information is 
a product of research, while other information is the result of changes 
in technology.

Major Revision Topics

    Based on the information sources identified above, the combined 
effect of the needed changes demand attention through plan revision. 
The revision topics that have been identified so far are described 
below.

Biological Diversity

Planning Questions
    * How will the forest be managed to restore or maintain healthy 
ecosystems?
    * How will application of ecosystem management affect management of 
the Forest?
    * How does compliance with the Endangered Species Act and related 
Forest Service policy affect forest management?
Background
    Biological diversity is the full variety of life in an area 
including the ecosystems, plants and animal communities, species and 
genes, and the processes through which organisms interact with one 
another and their environment. Humans and human activity are integral 
parts of ecosystems and will be considered in the analysis of this 
topic. On the White River National Forest, biological diversity has 
been reduced through human activity and fire suppression for the past 
100 years.
    The current Forest Plan only partially addresses the concept of 
biological diversity. In revision, biological diversity concepts will 
be used for developing integrated forest management strategies for the 
physical

[[Page 42232]]

and biological environment. Elements of the integrated analysis 
include: (1) Analysis of landscape pattern and ecological health; (2) 
Definition of a historic range of variability to establish an 
ecological baseline; and (3) Analysis of forested and non-forested 
vegetation, riparian areas, soils, geologic hazards, watershed risk, 
air quality, late successional stage forests (old growth), risk of 
insect and disease infestation, risk of noxious weed growth, wildlife 
habitat, needs for fire management, and occurrence of threatened, 
endangered and sensitive species. The Forest Service believes 
biological diversity will decrease under continued implementation of 
the existing Forest Plan. The revision will develop specific methods 
for management of biological diversity and provide for monitoring of 
management actions to measure progress.

Travel Management

Planning Question
    * What travel and transportation opportunities should the Forest 
provide to meet current and expected demands?
Background
    Travel management is movement of people, goods, and services to and 
through the Forest. An economically efficient transportation network is 
essential for forest management and the production of goods and 
services. Traditional forms of recreation such as driving for pleasure, 
hiking, horseback riding, and snowmobiling are showing steady 
increases. Mountain-biking, cross-country skiing, all-terrain vehicles, 
rafting and kayaking have grown dramatically in the past decade. Winter 
travel on and access to the Forest has increased substantially and 
conflicts have intensified in some areas. A separation of uses between 
motorized and non-motorized recreation activity is an issue. Motorized 
and non-motorized recreationists want to maintain or improve their 
opportunities to use the Forest. Consideration is being given to the 
analysis of site-specific travel management issues in the revision. If 
this occurs, a separate decision on these issues would be made by the 
Forest Supervisor.

Urbanization

Planning Questions
    * How will forest management change in response to continuing 
urbanization?
    * What role will National Forest System lands play in support of 
community infrastructure and development?
Background
    The human environment includes the natural and physical environment 
and the interdependent relationship of people to that environment. 
Commodity and amenity benefits from public lands within the planning 
area are major contributors to the social systems and economic base of 
many neighboring communities. Fully forty-one percent of the one 
hundred thousand jobs in the planning area are related to tourism--a 
large portion of which occurs on the Forest.
    Concerns related to this topic include: how to maintain public 
access to the Forest; how to restore fire to the ecosystem and engage 
in vegetation treatment in the urban--wildland interface; how to 
maintain domestic grazing so ranching can continue to be an element in 
local community character; how to maintain critical wildlife habitat on 
public lands; how to maintain water and air quality while continuing 
management and; how to support community development through land 
adjustments and special use permits.

Recreation

Planning Question
    * What range, mix, and emphasis of recreation opportunities will 
best meet the demands of a wide variety of current and future users; 
while ensuring protection of scenic, biotic and physical resources.
Background
    The White River National Forest is one of the top forests in the 
nation for recreation opportunities and use. Recreation on the Forest 
has a significant economic impact locally and in the state of Colorado. 
Concerns exist about the effect of recreation use on the physical and 
biological environment. As the four-season-resort concept evolves for 
ski resorts, a change in management direction is needed to address a 
variety of management issues including conflicts between users, 
changing user preferences and the multi-season use of the resorts. 
Rapidly increasing winter recreation outside ski resort boundaries is 
creating a need to address separation of users. There is a need to 
review existing direction to determine how the demand for a wider 
variety of summer uses can be met. People want more amenities at 
developed recreation sites. The need for capital investment at these 
sites must be addressed. Recreation capacities will be analyzed for the 
entire Forest and allocations will be made for commercial operators and 
individuals. A new scenery management system will be used in the 
allocation of lands forest-wide.

Roadless Area Management

Planning Questions
    * What are the roadless area on the Forest and which qualify for 
wilderness recommendation?
    * How should roadless areas not recommended for wilderness be 
managed?
Background
    During the revision process, the Forest Service is required (36 CFR 
219.17) to evaluate all roadless areas for potential wilderness 
designation. This process will produce an inventory of roadless areas 
meeting minimum criteria for Wilderness according to the 1964 
Wilderness Act. Wilderness designation is a Congressional 
responsibility; the Forest Service only makes recommendations.
    The Forest has large amounts of land which could be considered 
roadless because they have minimal development and little evidence of 
human use. All of the Forest, except designated wilderness, will be 
inventoried for roadless potential. Recommendations for wilderness 
designation will be made for those inventoried areas which meet the 
suitability and need criteria.

Special Areas

Planning Questions
    * How can Congressionally designated Wilderness be managed to 
accomplish the principles of the Wilderness Act as related to home use 
and natural processes?
    * What are the significant cave resources and how will they be 
protected?
    * What areas on the Forest qualify for Research Natural Area (RNA) 
establishment to meet regional and national objectives?
    * How will the Forest address protection of heritage resources?
    * What other areas qualify for special area designation?
    * What rivers on the Forest are eligible for addition to the 
National Wild and Scenic River (WSR) System?
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.''
    Special area designations may include Wilderness; Wild and Scenic 
Rivers; Research Natural Areas; and special

[[Page 42233]]

recreational areas with scenic, historical, geological, botanical, 
zoological, paleontological, archaeological, or other special 
characteristic. These special areas will influence land allocation and 
management in the revision.
    The Forest manages all or part of eight Wilderness Areas totalling 
over 750,000 acres. Issues include the level of human use and the loss 
of biological diversity due to past fire suppression.
    Seventy-four caves are known to occur within or near the Forest 
boundary. Caves will be protected to meet the intent of the National 
Cave Resources Protection Act.
    The Forest Service has recognized a lack of ecosystems protected as 
Research Natural Areas. Twenty-six areas are being inventoried to 
determine their potential for establishment.
    There are three scenic byways on the Forest and a number of natural 
trails. Proposals are under consideration for additional trails. Byways 
and trails will be designed in the revision and made part of the 
management of the Forest.
    The Forest currently has four sites listed in the National Register 
of Historic Places. Heritage resources must be protected by law. The 
Forest is part of the traditional homeland of the Ute Nation and there 
is an increased awareness of sacred sites. Protection of these sites 
will be part of revision.
    The purpose and authority for study of Wild and Scenic Rivers is in 
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 1, 1968, as amended. Rivers 
and streams determined eligible for potential inclusion in the Wild and 
Scenic River System will be examined. Currently, 77 river segments 
totaling over 700 miles have been identified for study to determine if 
they are eligible for addition to the system. The next step in the 
process, suitability analysis, will not be done as part of the revision 
process.

Timber Suitability and Management

Planning Questions
    * What areas of the Forest are suitable for timber harvest?
    * What volume of timber should the Forest provide?
    * What is the financial efficiency of the Forest's timber sales 
program?
Background
    In the plan revision process, the Forest Service is required (36 
CFR 219.14) to determine which lands are not suited for timber 
production. This allows an estimate to be made of the potential of the 
Forest to produce a continuous supply of timber. Preliminary analysis 
shows the tentatively suited timber lands on the Forest are similar to 
those identified in the current plan. Alternative levels of commercial 
timer harvest will be identified in the revision.
    Of significant concern to the Forest Service is the biological 
condition of forested vegetation. The Forest Service believes it will 
be necessary to use prescribed fire and timber harvest as tools in its 
effort to restore a healthy vegetative condition. Others believe the 
best way to restore this condition is to minimize human intervention 
and to allow natural processes to restore diversity.

What to do with this Information

    This revision effort is being undertaken to develop management 
direction to:
    *Provide goods and services to people;
    *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 be used in the revision effort.

Framework for Alternatives to be Considered

    A range of alternatives will be considered when revising the Forest 
Plan. The alternatives will address different options to resolve 
concerns raised as revision topics listed above and to fulfill the 
purpose and need. A reasonable range of alternatives will be evaluated 
and reasons will be given for eliminating some alternatives from 
detailed study. A ``no-action alternative'' is required by law. The no-
action alternative under this analysis will assume continuation of the 
existing Forest Plan without revision. Additional alternatives will 
provide a range of 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 will be estimated 
in the Forest Plan based upon achieving desired conditions. Preliminary 
information is available to develop alternatives; however, additional 
public involvement and collaboration will be done for alternative 
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 on a regular basis. All parts of 
this process will be structured to maintain the 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 
with members of the public who are interested in forest management. 
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 formal 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 alternatives in 
addition to No Action, and (4) identifying potential environmental 
effects of the proposed action and alternatives. Scoping meetings are 
currently scheduled from 4:30 pm to 7:30 pm in the following locations:
    September 18, 1997: Days Inn, 950 Cowen Drive, Carbondale, Co.
    September 23, 1997: First Choice Inn, 51359 US Highway 6 & 24 
Glenwood Springs, Co.
    September 25, 1997: Kilowatt Korner, 233 6th Street, Meeker, Co.
    September 30, 1997: Rifle Fire Station, 1850 Railroad Ave., Rifle 
Co.
    October 2, 1997: Avon Library, 200 Benchmark Rd., Avon, Co.
    October 7, 1997: Eagle Library, 600 Broadway, Eagle, Co.
    October 9, 1997: Four Points Inn, 137 Union Blvd., Lakewood, Co.
    October 14, 1997: Hilton Inn, 743 Horizon Dr., Grand Junction, Co.

[[Page 42234]]

    October 16, 1997: Summit Middle School, 0156 Summit County Road 
1030, Frisco, Co.
    October 21, 1997: Inn at Aspen, 38750 Highway 82, Aspen Co.

Release and Review of the EIS

    The DEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and be available for public comment in the fall of 1998. 
At that time, the EPA will publish a notice of availability for the 
DEIS in the Federal Register. The comment period of the DEIS will be 90 
days from the date the EPA 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; Vermong 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 schedules to be completed in the 
fall of 1999. The responsible official 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 official will document the 
decisions and reasons for the decisions in a Record of Decision for the 
revised Plan. The decision will be subject to appeal in accordance with 
36 CFR 217.

    Dated: July 30, 1997.
Elizabeth Estill,
Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region.
[FR Doc. 97-20631 Filed 8-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M