[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20369-20375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10782]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Revised Land and Resource Management Plans, Boise National Forest
and Payette National Forest, Idaho. Significant Amendment Land and
Resource Management Plan, Sawtooth National Forest, Idaho
AGENCY: Forest Service.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
in conjunction with revision of the Land and Resource Management Plans
for the Boise and Payette National Forests, and significant amendment
to the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Sawtooth National
Forest located in Ada, Adams, Blaine, Boise, Camas, Canyon, Cassia,
Custer, Elmore, Gem, Gooding, Idaho, Jerome, Lincoln, Minidoka, Owyhee,
Payette, Twin Falls, Valley and Washington Counties, Idaho; Box Elder
County, Utah, and Malheur County, Oregon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement in conjunction with revision and significant amendment of its
Land and Resource Management Plans (hereafter referred to as Forest
Plans) for the Boise, Payette and Sawtooth National Forests (hereafter
referred to as the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup).
This notice describes the specific portions of the current Forest
Plans to be revised and amended, environmental issues considered,
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. The purpose of the notice is to begin the scoping phase of
public involvement in the revision and amendment process.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of analysis should be received in
writing by June 24, 1998. The agency expects to file a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement in the Fall of 1999 and a Final
Environmental Impact Statement in the Fall of 2000.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Joey Pearson, Administrative
Assistant, Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Planning Team, Payette National
Forest, P.O. Box 1026, McCall, ID 83638.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Faye Krueger, Planning Team Leader--Payette National Forest (208) 634-
0700; Jeff Foss, Planning Team Leader--Boise National Forest (208) 373-
4100; or Sharon LaBrecque, Planning Team Leader--Sawtooth National
Forest (208) 737-3200.
Responsible official: Jack Blackwell, Intermountain Regional
Forester at 324 25th Street, Ogden, UT 84401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to part 36 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 219.10 (f) and (g), the Regional Forester for the
Intermountain Region gives notice of the agency's intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the revision and significant
amendment efforts described above. According to 36 CFR 219.10(g), Land
and Resource Management Plans shall ordinarily be revised on a 10 to 15
year cycle. The existing Forest Plan for the Boise National Forest was
approved on April 27, 1990, the Payette Forest Plan was approved on May
6, 1988, and the Sawtooth Forest Plan was approved on September 16,
1987.
On November 14, 1997, the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998, H.R. 2107, was passed. Language in
section 333 of the law specifically prohibits the expenditure or
obligation of funds for new revisions of national forest land
management plans until new final or interim final rules for forest plan
revision are published in the Federal Register. Forests that had
formally published a Notice of Intent to revise prior to October 1,
1997, or have been court-ordered to revise are exempt from this section
and may proceed to complete forest plan revision. The Payette is under
court order (Wilderness Society, et al. v. U.S. Forest Service, Civ.
No. 94-0193-S-MHW) to complete Forest Plan revision by December 31,
2000, and thereby meets the exemption criteria to proceed with revision
in accordance with 36 CFR 219.10(g). The Boise and Payette Forests were
the subject of the Idaho Sporting Congress suit (Civ. No. 95-0025-S-
BLW). On September 25, 1996, District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill
affirmed the Forest Service in part because the two Forests had
initiated the forest plan revision process. Judge Winmill's opinion was
affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 21, 1997.
Judge Winmill's decision in the Idaho Sporting Congress suit meets the
intent
[[Page 20370]]
of the exemption criteria of the Appropriations Act, therefore the
Boise Forest may also proceed with revision in accordance with 36 CFR
219.10(g).
The Sawtooth National Forest does not meet the exemption criteria
for revision. Through the analysis of the management situation, the
Sawtooth Forest did identify several areas where current management
direction can be improved. Therefore, analysis efforts on the Sawtooth
will continue to parallel analysis efforts on the Boise and Payette,
with the intent to amend the Sawtooth Forest Plan in accordance with 36
CFR 219.10(f).
With this in mind, the Regional Forester gives notice that the
Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth National Forests are beginning an
environmental analysis and decision-making process for the proposed
action to revise the Boise and Payette Forest Plans and to amend the
Sawtooth Forest Plan. Opportunities will be provided to discuss the
Forest Plan revision and amendment processes with the public. The
public is invited to help identify issues that will be considered in
defining the range of alternatives in the Environmental Impact
Statement. Scoping meetings will be scheduled for May and June 1998.
Alternative development meetings will be held in the Fall of 1998.
Forest plans describe the long-term direction for managing 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);
Establish management areas and management area direction
through the application of management prescriptions;
Identify lands not suited for timber production (36 CFR
219.3);
Establish monitoring and evaluation requirements; and
Recommend areas for official designation of wilderness.
The authorization of project-level activities on the Forests occur
through project, or site-specific, decision-making. Project-level
decisions must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
procedures and must include a determination that the project is
consistent with the Forest Plan.
Linkage to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project
Southwest Idaho Ecogroup is within the area of land covered by the
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). There
are two sources of information from the ICBEMP that will heavily
influence the development of the planning process: (1) The integrated
science assessments and (2) the Upper Columbia River Basin Final
Environmental Impact Statement (URCB FEIS) and Record of Decision.
The integrated science assessments provide an information base that
provides context at broad, multiple state area scale. The information
on forestlands, rangelands, aquatic and hydrologic integrity, ecosystem
pathways and disturbance patterns, and the current and projected
conditions of fish, wildlife and plant species were used to aid in
identifying need for change topics. This information will continue to
be used in defining the extent of the need for change and in the
development and evaluation of alternatives.
The other primary document that will influence this project is the
UCRB FEIS. The Draft EIS was issued for public comment in June, 1997,
and a final document is expected in late 1999. This document, which
incorporates the results of the science assessments, will amend all
three Forest Plans when the Record of Decision is issued. This
amendment will establish new goals, desired range of future conditions,
objectives and standards for management. This amendment will simplify
the scope of the Ecogroup planning effort, but will not replace the
need for the revision/amendment for these reasons:
The UCRB effort is at a broad scale. The application of
the information and decisions will need to be fine-tuned for the
Forest-level scale.
The UCRB provides some standards that are only to be used
until such time as better local standards are developed. The planning
effort will refine these standards to local conditions.
The UCRB EIS does not provide all of the analysis or
decisions required by the National Forest Management Act regulations.
The planning effort will need to evaluate land allocations, timber
suitability, wilderness recommendations and other factors that the UCRB
did not address.
Need for Change in the Current Forest Plans
In the Fall of 1996, the Forests in the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup
completed five year monitoring reports. The results of the monitoring
reports, in addition to public input and Forest Plan implementation
experience, indicated that there is a need for change in some
management direction in all three Forest Plans. Because of the need to
consider management of ecosystems across administrative boundaries, and
the fact that the three Forests share key issues, resources, customers
and interested publics, it was determined that an ecogroup approach to
planning would increase the overall efficiency and quality of the
effort to address the need for change issues. Several sources were used
in determining the needed changes in the current Forest Plans. These
sources include:
Results of the three Forest Plan monitoring reports;
Comparison of regulatory, manual, and handbook
requirements;
New information, such as the Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Plan scientific assessment and other research; and
Comments concerning implementation of current direction.
In November 1997, the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup published a
Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation (Pre-AMS). The Pre-AMS
summarized the current management condition of the three Forests based
on analysis of the findings from the sources listed above.
Major Revision/Amendment Topics
Based on the information sources listed above, the following
issues/areas were identified as needs for change in management
direction in all three Forest Plans. As previously explained, the Boise
and Payette National Forests will address these needs for change
through the revision process, while the Sawtooth will address them
through a significant amendment. Since the Forest Plans were originally
signed, the Boise and Payette Forests have experienced major changes in
forest conditions as a result of wildfire and tree mortality. The
magnitude of these changes requires that the Boise and Payette Forest
Plans be revised. The Sawtooth Forest has not experienced such major
changes. Until the Sawtooth is allowed to proceed with revision, it
will accommodate the needed changes through a significant amendment.
In revising/amending the Forest Plans, the Forests are focusing on
those areas that must be reviewed in accordance with federal
regulations, and on urgent issues identified through new information,
monitoring and public concerns. The regulations focus the process by
stating; ``The Forest Supervisor shall determine the major public
issues management concerns, and resource use and development
opportunities to be addressed in the planning process'' [36 CFR
219.12(b)]. Throughout this planning process, only those portions of
the Plans identified as critical issues needing change will be
[[Page 20371]]
addressed. Some examples of issues that were not identified as critical
or did not have an identified need for change include recommended
wilderness, heritage resource program management, and minerals program
management. Issues not identified as critical will be addressed at a
later time through non-significant amendments.
The Southwest Idaho Ecogroup is proposing to revise or amend the
three Forest Plans by addressing the listed need for change topics. The
following is a brief definition of the issues associated with each need
for change topic and the purpose and need for change, and a description
of what we propose to do to address the needed changes:
Biological Diversity
Biological diversity is the variety and abundance of life in an
area including all living organisms, the genetic differences among
them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur. It also
refers to the compositions, structures and functions of species and
habitats and their interactions. The goal of conserving biological
diversity is to support sustainable development by protecting and using
biological resources.
The current Forest Plans address many of the key indicators of
biological diversity; however, these indicators are largely described
and analyzed as separate functional entities. There is little
information as to how these indicators interact with one another and
with natural processes, particularly at the broad, Forest-level scale.
The current Forest Plans need improved direction for potentially needed
restoration, management and maintenance of plant communities, including
vegetative structure, species composition, distribution, and patterns
and how they are influenced by soil and disturbance processes in
relationship to historic and current conditions. All three Forests
manage significant habitat for federally listed threatened and
endangered plant, wildlife and fish species. These include:
Macfarlane's four-o'clock, Ute's lady tresses, gray wolf, bald eagle,
peregrine falcon, sockeye salmon, chinook salmon, steelhead and redband
trout. In addition, these are species that are currently proposed or
candidates for listing including bull trout and Northern Idaho ground
squirrel. Current Forest Plan direction for these species is to follow
recovery plans developed by the appropriate regulatory agency.
The Ecogroup also manages habitat for a number of species that are
designated ``sensitive'' by the Regional Forester because their
populations or habitats are trending downward. Current management
direction in the Forest Plans is to follow conservation assessments and
plans developed at the Regional level. There is a need to improve
management direction in the Forest Plans to better address the needs of
listed and sensitive species.
Through this planning effort, biological diversity concepts will be
used to:
Develop improved management guidelines through better
understanding of species, including threatened, endangered or sensitive
(TES) species, candidate species, plant, fish, and animal species of
concern, and the communities they are dependent upon.
Develop improved guidelines for snag and coarse woody
debris that better provide habitat for plant and animal species
dependent on coarse woody debris, to improve soil productivity, and to
better provide for natural decay processes necessary for nutrient
cycling;
Develop improved management direction to address soil
processes (erosion rates, mass stability, infiltration, nutrient
cycling) as they relate to management of other resources;
Develop improved management direction for desired
structure and density for each structural stage, from openings to old
forest vegetation (including old growth);
Develop additional management practices, standards and
guidelines for tree density, stand structure, and species composition
that address the extent and frequency of all types of disturbances.
The intent of this improved management direction is to provide for
short- and long-term biological, physical, economic and social
sustainability.
Fire and Smoke Management
The 1897 Organic Act states that forests shall be protected against
destruction by fire. Early Forest Service policy interpreted protection
to mean fire suppression, and for several decades fire management
focused on maximum suppression efforts. The result of this
interpretation is that in many areas fire regimes within the Southwest
Idaho Ecogroup have changed from historical conditions; fuel loadings
have increased, and areas with moderate to high fuels are larger and
more contiguous. Historically, approximately 15 percent of the Ecogroup
area would likely have had stand-replacing fires. Past management
activities, including suppression efforts, have resulted in increasing
the area that would likely have stand-replacing fires to approximately
42 percent of the Ecogroup. Population growth within the Ecogroup has
also led to increases in wildland/urban interface. This growth of
wildland/urban interface increases the risk of fire spreading from
private to federal lands and vice versa.
The current Forest Plans need improved direction addressing the
role of fire as an ecosystem process or tool for maintaining or
restoring ecosystem health, particularly in vegetative communities that
historically burned more frequently. The ability to accomplish fire
management objectives, to set priorities for ecosystem management, and
to assess properly functioning condition may be limited by missing,
vague, or conflicting Forest Plan direction.
The Federal Clean Air Act mandates that human health and welfare
from air pollution be protected. Particulate matter emissions are
produced from Forest Service activities as prescribed fire. The current
Forest Plans need improved direction that better addresses the trade-
offs with air quality versus increased prescribed burning to improve
rangeland and forest ecosystem health.
Through this planning effort, fire management will be incorporated
into the Forest Plans through:
Integration of fire management goals and objectives into
Forest-wide desired conditions;
Development of resource specific goals and objectives
related to how and when fire will be used;
Development of goals, objectives, standards and guidelines
for the use of prescribed fire to improve ecosystem health and to
reduce the risk of large uncharacteristic fires;
Development of goals, objectives, standards, guidelines
and monitoring requirements for air quality and smoke management;
Development of management direction addressing wildland/
urban interface; and
Development of goals and objectives for determining
appropriate suppression response based on factors such as social and
political implications, economics, environmental considerations, public
and firefighter safety and values at risk.
The intent of the new direction is to restore or maintain fire as a
process where appropriate in various ecosystems, to reduce the risk of
uncharacteristic wildfire in wildland/urban interface, and to aid in
determining how much area needs to be treated with prescribed fire.
Habitat Fragmentation and Disruption
Fragmentation is the separation or isolation of similar types of
habitat,
[[Page 20372]]
either by natural events or human activities. Historically, fire, wind,
insects, and disease were the disturbance processes that resulted in
the fragmentation of habitats, causing disturbance to species and the
habitats necessary for their survival. Current disturbance processes
are far more numerous and have affected far greater areas than in the
past. Agricultural and urban development have in effect created
genetically isolated islands of habitat. Forest management practices
such as roads, trails, utility corridors, and timber harvest have also
resulted in fragmentation of habitats and disturbance to species.
Disruption is the modification of species behavior as a result of the
presence of humans or their activities. Some species of fish and
wildlife are sensitive to human activities during breeding, nesting and
wintering portions of their life cycles. Human activities, whether
intentional or not, can increase stress to these species and reduce
their reproductive success or increase their risk for mortality.
The current Forest Plans need improved direction concerning habitat
fragmentation and disruption from roads, trails, timer harvest, fire,
culverts, utility corridors, and other sources. Likewise, the Forest
Plans need to better recognize the importance of maintaining Forest
habitats of special concern that have been affected as a result of off-
Forest activities such as conversion to agriculture and urban
development. Through this planning effort, improved management
direction concerning habitat fragmentation and disruption will be
incorporated into the Forest Plans through:
Integration of goals, objectives, standards and guides for
the protection of species during sensitive periods of their life
cycles; and
Integration of goals, objectives, standards and guides to
reduce the effects of fragmentation.
The intent of this improved direction is to develop management
strategies that improve habitat connectivity, minimize life cycle
disruption, and maintain species viability.
Non-Native Plants
Non-native plants are species that do not have their origin in a
local geographic area. Non-native plants include exotic plants and
noxious weeds. Exotic plants are species that have been introduced to
an area, usually from a different continent, typically for restoration
purposes such as road stabilization, range improvements and burned area
emergency rehabilitation (BAER). Noxious weeds are plant species
designated by law that can have detrimental effects on agriculture,
commerce, or public health. These species are generally new or not
common to the United States, spread aggressively, and are difficult to
manage. Some exotic and noxious weed species thrive in areas so well
that they tend to out-compete native species. This affects the amount
and distribution of native plants and the animals that depend on them
for forage and cover.
Recent monitoring reports for the Ecogroup Forests describe a
growing concern with the spread and effects of noxious weeds. The
expansion of noxious weeds with the Ecogroup is out-pacing containment
and control efforts. New infestations both on Forest Service System
lands and on adjacent lands pose significant risk for further
expansion.
Non-native plants are being introduced unintentionally (seeds from
vehicle tires or animal droppings) and intentionally (BAER, restoration
projects). Research has shown that seeded non-native plants have an
impact on establishment and growth of native vegetation in fire
rehabilitation areas. In some areas, certain species have been
purposely introduced to provide forage and cover. This has resulted in
monocultures or sites with few selected plant species. These conditions
affect fire regimes, soil erosion and wildlife habitat.
The current Forest Plans do not address exotic and noxious weed
plants from a multi-program approach (recreation, timber, special uses
* * *). Current direction only addresses the treatment of noxious weed
infestations, rather than taking a prevention, containment and control
approach. Likewise, the current Plans address noxious weeds from a
range or timber management standpoint and do not recognize that other
resource programs are significant contributors to the spread of noxious
weeds. There is a need to develop improved direction in the Plans for
designing or implementing BAER treatment strategies to assist in
evaluating the trade-offs between the short-term emergency needs of
post-fire rehabilitation and the long-term compatibility with ecosystem
management.
Through this planning effort, non-native plants will be addressed
through:
Development of improved goals, objectives, standards and
guides to address noxious weeds from a multi-program approach;
Development of improved goals, objectives, standards and
guides for a prevention, containment and control approach to noxious
weed management; and
Development of improved goals, objectives, standards and
guides for the use of non-native plants in BAER activities and non-
structural range improvement projects.
The intent of this new direction is to establish a containment/
control strategy that recognizes the difficulty of controlling large,
firmly established populations of noxious weeds; and to ensure seeding
and revegetation practices associated with erosion control, fire
rehabilitation, non-structural range improvement, and watershed
restoration is compatible with the desired future condition and
priorities established for management activities.
Rangeland/Grazing Resources
The National Forest Management Act requires that Forest Plans
determine potential capability and suitability for producing grazing
animal forage while providing habitat for management indicator species.
Range capability is defined as lands that have the potential to be
grazed given the physical constraints of grazing (distance from water,
slope, access * * *).
Current capability criteria do not make a clear distinction between
sheep and cattle use. Capability determinations have been corrected or
contested on a recurring basis at the project level. Some sites
currently considered capable are not meeting resource objectives
relating to soil productivity, erosion, and hydrologic function. This
indicates that the criteria used in the past to determine capability
needs to be updated. The current Forest Plans do not meet the
expectations outlined in new Forest Service national direction
regarding the identification of capability criteria and the rationale
supporting those criteria. The capability assessments in the original
Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statements need to be updated to
include new direction and more current information.
Suitability identifies areas within the capable base where grazing
is appropriate within the context of land management considerations
such as economics, environmental consequences, rangeland conditions,
and other uses or values. Actual average livestock use levels defined
in animal unit months per year (AUM/year) are lower than originally
anticipated in the Forest Plans. Some contributing factors to this
downward trend include protection of threatened and endangered species
habitat, increased livestock operator costs due to mitigation measures
identified to protect habitat,
[[Page 20373]]
changing economics of grazing livestock, and voluntary and involuntary
reductions for resource protection.
Guidelines in the current Forest Plans do not address site
conditions such as severe drought which occurs 10 to 40 percent of the
time across the Ecogroup. From a wildlife standpoint, there is
inconsistent or insufficient direction concerning wildlife wintering
areas that are also used by livestock, as well as the potential threat
of disease transmission from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep
populations. Recreation use increases above the projections made in the
current Forest Plans have resulted in increased user conflicts between
livestock, wildlife and recreationists. No direction or monitoring
process exists in the current plans to address this concern.
Through this planning effort, capability and suitability concerns
will be addressed through:
Improved capability assessments at the programmatic level
that include current Forest Service direction, research findings, and
distinguish the difference between cattle and sheep;
Development of suitability criteria to be validated on a
site-specific level that reflect site conditions; and
Development of improved goals, objectives, standards and
guides that address concerns such as drought and potential wildlife/
livestock and recreation/livestock conflicts.
The intent of this new direction is to insure that the Forest Plans
clearly identify at the programmatic level areas where livestock
grazing is appropriate and capable.
Riparian and Aquatic
Aquatic ecosystems are watersheds, waterbodies, riparian areas, and
wetlands and the species (fish, wildlife, plant, amphibian,
invertebrate) they contain. Riparian refers to distinctive soil and
vegetation between a stream or other body of water and an adjacent
upland.
All three Forests manage significant aquatic habitat for both
anadromous and resident fish populations. Collectively, the Forests
have over 14,400 miles of rivers and streams and 62,520 acres of lakes
supporting at least 57 native and non-native fish species. The
Environmental Protection Agency and the State of Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality have identified a list of 130 waterbodies within
the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup that are not fully meeting their
designated beneficial uses.
In 1992, Snake River sockeye salmon were listed as endangered under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended. In 1993 and 1997, Snake
River chinook salmon and steelhead, respectively, were listed as
threatened.
In 1995, the three Forest Plans were amended by management
direction in the Interim Strategies of Managing Anadromous Fish-
producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and
portions of California (PACFISH) and the Inland Native Fish Strategy
(INFISH). These strategies include the identification of interim
riparian management objectives (RMOs), standards and guidelines, and
watershed analysis requirements. These interim strategies are in effect
until long-term management direction is developed through
geographically specific environmental analyses such as the Upper
Columbia River Basin Assessment and forest plan revision efforts. At
the forest plan level, RMOs need to reflect the inherent diversity and
capability of the Ecogroup aquatic ecosystems, and to support the
designated beneficial uses for Water Quality Limited waterbodies.
There is a need to develop improved Forest Plan direction for
riparian area management that is consistent across the Ecogroup. This
direction should include all riparian areas (including intermittent
streams) and landslide-prone areas. In June 1998, bull trout are
proposed to be listed as a threatened species. In response to the
potential for listing, the Governor's Bull Trout Plan was implemented
in July 1996. This plan, which was coordinated with the Forest Service,
included development of watershed specific problem assessments and
conservation plans. This direction needs to be considered in the Forest
Plans.
Through this planning effort, improved management direction for
riparian and aquatics will be incorporated into the plans through:
Development of consistent goals, objectives, standards and
guides, and monitoring strategies for riparian and aquatic management;
Development of appropriate RMOs and desired future
conditions that reflect the inherent diversity and capability of the
Ecogroup aquatic ecosystems and fully support the designated beneficial
uses for waterbodies as identified by the State Water Quality
Standards;
Development of direction for the management of
intermittent streams and landslide-prone areas;
Development of improved management direction for sensitive
species, including the identification of management indicator species;
and
The intent of this new direction is to insure that: riparian and
aquatic ecosystems are being managed consistently across the Ecogroup;
the appropriate emphasis is being placed on riparian protection and
restoration; that RMOs reflect the inherent capability of the aquatic
ecosystems; appropriate emphasis is being placed on sensitive as well
as listed species; and intermittent streams and landslide-prone areas
are being appropriately managed.
Timberland Suitability
The National Forest Management Act and its implementing regulations
require that lands identified as not suited for timber production be
reassessed at least once every ten years to determine if they should be
reclassified as suited. Suited lands include forested lands outside of
withdrawn areas such as designated Wilderness, lands where
reforestation can be assured, and lands where timber management
activities can take place without causing irreversible resource damage
to soils productivity or watershed conditions. The suitability
assessment includes the identification of tentatively suited
timberlands (available forest lands that are physically suited for
timber management) and suited timberlands (the tentatively suited lands
considered appropriate for timber management). Since the Forest Plans
were released, land exchanges have resulted in both the loss and the
addition of timberlands. A preliminary reassessment indicates that land
exchanges have resulted in an approximate increase of 7,400 acres of
tentatively suited lands (2,400 acres on the Boise and 5,000 acres on
the Payette). New information about the capability of Forest lands and
an increased understanding about the effects of timber management will
also influence the reassessment of suited timberlands.
Through this planning effort, a complete reassessment of timberland
suitability will be conducted.
Management Emphasis Areas
All three Forests include many outstanding natural areas with
various combinations of biophysical resources and social interests.
Included in the management emphasis areas are Wild and Scenic Rivers.
Agency policy related to the Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) Act of 1968
in land management planning requires that rivers identified as
potential WSRs be evaluated as to their eligibility, with the findings
documented in the Forest Plan. An eligible river must be free flowing
and
[[Page 20374]]
possess at least one feature that is judged to be outstandingly
remarkable.
It is recommended but not required to complete WSR suitability
studies during the Forest Plan revision process. To be found suitable,
the benefits of designating the river should outweigh the
disadvantages. Currently, the Boise has 35 river segments identified as
eligible for WSR status, the Payette and Sawtooth have five segments
each. Since the original studies were completed, there have been
changed conditions such as the listing of species under ESA and new
information from sources such as the ICBEMP Scientific Assessments.
Suitability studies have not been conducted on the eligible rivers
listed in the three Forest Plans.
There is a need to re-evaluate the previous eligibility studies
based on the new information and changed conditions. There is also a
need to address the suitability of high priority eligible segments.
Through this planning process, the Forests are proposing to address WSR
issues by:
Re-evaluating previous eligibility studies; and
Complete suitability studies for Priority 1 segments in
revision as agreed in a settlement agreement between American Rivers,
Inc. and the Payette National Forest (Big Creek, French Creek,
Monumental Creek, and the Secesh River on the Payette National Forest,
and the South Fork Salmon River on the Payette and Boise National
Forests). Suitability studies on Priorities 2, 3, and 4 segments will
be completed after the revision/amendment effort.
Social and Economic Issues
While the majority of the revision topics appear to be biological
and physical in nature, we recognize that the topics are all linked to
social and economic issues. As we develop alternatives for the need for
change topics, we need to consider how these alternatives will affect
the economics of the current and traditional resource users; what
influences the alternatives may have on the demographics of local
communities; how the alternatives address local community priorities;
and what influences the alternatives may have on local and regional
cultures.
We recognize that livestock grazing, timber production and
recreation activities are key sources of income to communities
dependent on forest resources for the generation of revenue. As we
develop and analyze the effects of alternatives we need to consider
things such as local community stability, community development
patterns, goods and services, employment, current and traditional
resource users, and forest revenue.
We also recognize that founding of many of the communities within
the Ecogroup was and continues to be tied directly to the use and
production of forest products. For these communities, we need to
consider land use patterns, including urban interface, local
employment, community development patterns, local communities of place
and interest and the implications to these factors.
As we develop alternatives and analyze their effects, we will also
need to consider local and regional culture (attitudes, beliefs, values
and life-styles). Some of the questions we will be considering include:
How will Tribal life-styles and cultural traditions be
affected by management activities and decisions?
What are the potential social conflicts, risks, and
implications regarding rangeland grazing and timber harvest?
How will these alternatives affect opportunities for
recreation and recreation experiences?
How will the traditional life-styles associated with
livestock grazing be affected?
How will the alternatives tie to local community
priorities?
Decision To Be Made
Based on the analysis made in the FEIS, the Regional Forester must
decide what changes will be made to goals, objectives, standards and
guides, and monitoring and evaluation criteria in the Forest Plans to
best address the need for change topics. The Regional Forester must
also decide what changes in management boundaries and prescriptions are
necessary to meet the changed goals and objectives.
Framework for Alternatives To Be Considered
A range of alternatives, including an alternative addressing
community stability, will be considered when revising and amending the
Forest Plans. The alternatives will address different options to
resolve the issues identified in the revision/amendment topics listed
above. Alternatives must meet the purpose and need for revision/
amendment to be considered valid. One of the alternatives to be
examined is the ``no-action alternative''. This is a required
alternative that represents continuation of management under the
current plans as amended. Alternatives are developed in response to
public issues, management concerns, and resource opportunities
identified during the scoping progress. In describing alternatives,
desired vegetation and resource conditions will be defined. Preliminary
information, including a map of the proposed programmatic action, is
available for review at all Ecogroup District and Supervisor Offices.
Involving the Public
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 written comments, open houses,
focus groups and collaborative forums.
Public participation will be sought throughout the revision/
amendment 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 meetings are currently
scheduled from May 26 to June 19, 1998 in the following Idaho
locations: Boise, Idaho City, Mountain Home, Garden Valley, Cascade,
McCall, Riggins, Weiser, Council, Twin Falls, Burley, Ketchum, Stanley.
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 in the Fall of
1999. At that time, the EPA will publish a notice of availability in
the Federal Register. The comment period on the DEIS will be 60 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
[[Page 20375]]
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 two-month comment period so that
substantive comments and objectives 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 FEIS. The FEIS is scheduled to be completed in the Fall
of 2000. The responsible official will consider the comments,
responses, and environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS, and
applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making decisions
regarding making the revisions and amendment. The responsible official
will document the decisions and reasons for the decisions in a Record
of Decision for the revised and amended plans. The decisions will be
subject to appeal in accordance with 36 CFR part 217.
Dated: April 16, 1998.
Jack A. Blackwell,
Regional Forester.
[FR Doc. 98-10782 Filed 4-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M