[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 84 (Monday, May 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23592-23594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-10946]
========================================================================
Notices
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 1999 / Notices
[[Page 23592]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Forest Plan Amendment for the Curlew National Grassland; Caribou
National Forest, Oneida County, Idaho
AGENCY: Forest Service; Department of Agriculture.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to document the analysis and disclose the environmental
impacts of the proposed actions to amend the direction for resource
management on the Curlew National Grassland (Grassland) as contained in
the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Caribou National Forest
and Curlew National Grassland. The Grassland is located approximately
17 air miles west of Malad City, Idaho. The proposed actions are
located entirely within the 47,600-acre Grassland. The need for the
proposal is to amend existing and create new management direction for
the vegetation, riparian, livestock grazing, wildlife and other
resources and uses on the Grassland based on a proposed desired range
of future conditions.
Direction from the Chief of the Forest Service requires that a
separate management plan for each of the National Grasslands be
developed. The Caribou National Forest proposes to complete an EIS to
amend existing and create new management direction for the Curlew
National Grassland. Current direction is found in the 1985 Land and
Resource Management Plan for the Caribou National Forest and Curlew
National Grassland.
The EIS will address ecological patterns, processes, and management
direction for both riparian and upland resources; develop direction for
restoration of rangeland vegetation composition; develop and implement
livestock grazing standards; develop soil and watershed management
direction; develop and implement direction for sagebrush associated/
obligate wildlife species habitat; and develop policy for future
utility proposals. The amendment will include ecosystem management
goals, objectives, standards and guidelines, and monitoring strategies
specific to the Grassland.
DATES: Written comments concerning the scope of the analysis described
in this Notice should be received on or before June 2, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Forest Supervisor, Caribou
National Forest, Curlew National Grassland Amendment, Federal Building,
250 South 4th Avenue, Pocatello, Idaho 83201. Electronic mail may be
sent to: pcomment/[email protected]. Please reference the Curlew
Amendment on the subject line.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Questions concerning the proposed action and
EIS should be directed to Scott Feltis, Interdisciplinary Team Leader,
Caribou National Forest, Pocatello, Idaho, phone: (208) 236-7500.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This EIS will tier to the final 1985 EIS for
the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Caribou National Forest
and Curlew National Grassland (Forest Plan). This Forest Plan provides
the overall guidance (goals, objectives, standards and guidelines, and
management area direction) to achieve the desired future condition for
the area being analyzed, and contains specific management area
prescriptions for the Grassland. The specific objectives of this
proposal are:
To develop direction for restoration of rangeland
vegetation composition.
To develop and implement livestock grazing standards.
To develop soil and watershed management direction.
To develop direction for sagebrush associated/obligate
wildlife species habitat.
To develop policy for future utility proposals.
To develop management direction for both riparian and
upland resources.
Public scoping for this proposal will be initiated with the
publication of this Notice. An Analysis of the Management Situation
(AMS) was released to the public on February 25, 1999 and is available
electronically at www.fs.fed.us/r4/curlew or by written request to the
address provided above. Opportunities will be provided to discuss the
Grassland Plan 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.
Preliminary Issues/Concerns
Riparian Condition. Some riparian areas and stream
channels have deteriorated and are no longer functioning properly. This
has resulted in a deterioration or loss of deep-rooted riparian
vegetation, reduced water quality, and degraded habitat for many
aquatic and terrestrial species. Some upper watersheds, not managed by
the Forest Service, have contributed to past flooding, channel scouring
and sediment within the Grassland.
Sage Grouse and Other Sagebrush-Associated Species and
Habitats. Sage grouse populations on and adjacent to the Grassland have
declined over the past 20-25 years. Historic expansion of agriculture
on non-federal lands has reduced the extent of sagebrush habitats in
the Curlew Valley area. Changes in some of the remaining habitat from
fragmentation, invasion of exotic plant species, disruption of natural
fire cycles, use by livestock and loss of native species diversity have
contributed to declines in sagebrush habitat quality and wildlife
species, some to the point of needing special attention.
Forage Utilization. Grazing utilization standards for
seeded and native vegetation types currently do not exist in the 1985
Forest Plan. Livestock forage utilization needs to consider, and be
compatible with, other resource values and needs. During the analysis
of Grassland resources, a determination of rangeland capability and
suitability will be made.
Vegetation Composition and Structure. Vegetation seedings
have changed species composition, reduced biological diversity, changed
species interactions, reduced wildlife habitat quality and forage
availability. When compared with native plant communities, seedings
have reduced the system's ability to buffer against changes. Sagebrush
structure is trending toward older age classes, resulting in a lack of
understory diversity, reduced herbaceous production and reduced
watershed condition due to losses of
[[Page 23593]]
ground cover. Bulbous bluegrass, a non-native grass species, was seeded
on 18,000 acres of the Grassland during the 1940's and 1950's. While
having value as a sod forming, ground cover species, it is not
desirable from a wildlife habitat or forage production perspective.
Opportunities exist to treat bulbous bluegrass-dominant sites and
revegetate with a desirable mix of native and non-native grass, forb
and shrub species.
Intermingle Lands. A mix of private and state and federal
land ownerships lie within, and surround the Grassland. Activities on
adjacent ownerships within the Curlew Valley are not always compatible
with Grassland management objectives and sometimes influence
activities, management options and resource conditions on the
Grassland. Because of these influences, ability to fully implement the
1985 Forest Plan direction is hindered in some instances.
Cumulative Effects. Cumulative impacts of the proposal
need to be identified and evaluated, including past, ongoing, and
future management on the Grassland, given the geographic setting of the
Grassland in relation to the ownerships and activities.
The Forest Service is seeking information and comments from Tribes,
Federal, State and local agencies as well as individuals and
organizations who may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed
action. The Forest Service invites written comments and suggestions on
the issues related to the proposal and the area being analyzed.
Information received will be used in preparation of the Draft EIS and
Final EIS. For most effective use, comments should be submitted to the
Forest Service within 30 days from the date of publication of this
notice in the Federal Register.
Preparation of the EIS will include the following steps:
1. Define the purpose and need for action.
2. Identify potential issues.
3. Eliminate issues of minor importance or those that have been
covered by previous and relevant environmental analysis.
4. Select issues to be analyzed in depth.
5. Identify reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.
6. Describe the affected environment.
7. Identify the potential environmental effects of the
alternatives.
Steps 1 and 2 have started; steps 2 through 4 will be completed
through the scoping process. Step 5 will consider a range of
alternatives developed from the key issues. To date, two alternatives
have been drafted The No Action Alternative continues the direction and
management of the 1985 Forest Plan. The Proposed Action was developed
in response to issues listed above. Step 6 will described the physical
attributes of the area to be affected by this proposal, with special
attention to the environmental factors that could be adversely
affected. Step 7 will analyze the environmental effects of each
alternative. The direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each
alternative will be analyzed and documented. Additional alternatives
will be developed in response to public issues, management concerns,
and resource opportunities identified during the scoping process. In
describing alternatives, desired vegetation and resource conditions
will be defined. Preliminary information, including a map of the
Proposed Action is available for review at the Westside Ranger District
Offices (Malad and Pocatello) and the Supervisor's Office (Pocatello).
Elements of the Proposed Action are presented below.
The Proposed Action
The Proposed Action applies a riparian/wetland areas prescription
which establishes a zone of special emphasis that restricts activities
to those which will not compromise prescription goals or reduce water
quality below that needed to comply with state water quality
requirements and sustain beneficial uses. Riparian forage utilization
is not to exceed 30 percent or a 6-inch minimum stubble height
(whichever is attained first) directly adjacent to the stream channel.
In contrast, the 1985 Forest Plan (No Action Alternative) manages
riparian areas at a minimal custodial level, limiting actions to those
activities required to comply with existing laws, regulations, and
executive orders. Also, no forage utilization standards are identified.
The Proposed Action applies Grassland-wide forage utilization
levels not to exceed approximately 50 percent on seeded sites and 45
percent on native vegetation sites. In contrast, the 1985 Forest Plan
does not specifically identify forage utilization levels. However, the
Grassland has been managed (through allotment management plan
direction) to not exceed 60 percent forage utilization regardless of
vegetation type.
The Proposed Action sets a goal of managing for a diversity of
sagebrush canopy cover class ranges on the Grassland: ten to 30 percent
of the Grassland acres in early seral status (0-5 percent canopy cover;
early age and structure); 40-60 percent of the Grassland acres in mid
seral status (6-15 percent canopy cover; mid-age and structure); 30-50
percent of the Grassland acres in late seral status (>15 percent canopy
cover; mature and overmature age and structure). In contrast, the 1985
Forest Plan does not provide management goals for sagebrush canopy
cover.
Other vegetation management direction found in the Proposed Action
includes an objective to treat 4,000 to 6,000 acres of bulbous
bluegrass (an undesirable grass species) dominant sites and revegetate
with desirable native and non-native grass, forb and shrub species over
a ten year period. In contrast, the 1985 Forest Plan does not provide
specific direction for the treatment of bulbous bluegrass. The 1985
Forest Plan does provide direction for revegetation proposals which
includes a avoiding establishing monocultures and maintaining a variety
of desirable grass, forb and shrub species; however, there is no
reference to native versus non-native plan species. In addition to the
treatment of bulbous bluegrass sites, the Proposed Action would treat,
over a ten-year period, between 1,000 and 3,000 acres of sagebrush with
canopy covers greater than 15 percent. Vegetation treatments under the
Proposed Action would total between 5,000 and 9,000 acres over a ten-
year period (an average of 500 to 900 acres annually). The 1985 Forest
Plan proposes to treat approximately 18,700 acres over a ten-year
period (1,870 acres annually).
The Proposed Action designates the Sweeten Pond and tree row acres
as special wildlife areas and sets forth objectives to construct an
additional impoundment in the Sweeten Pond area and establish an
additional ten miles of tree rows over the next ten years. In contrast,
the 1985 Forest Plan does not identify additional improvements
specifically for wildlife. The Proposed Action provides guidance for
the management of Forest Service designated sensitive species; the 1985
Forest Plan does not provide such guidance. The Proposed Action
provides guidance for sage grouse habitat management including
deferring habitat manipulation practices within a 0.25 mile radius of
active sage grouse leks and provides for a seed mix that includes
vegetation species preferred by upland birds during the pre-nesting,
nesting and brood rearing periods, and guidance to provide residual
cover to meet the needs of spring period ground nesting wildlife. In
contrast, the 1985 Forest Plan guidance defers habitat manipulation
practices within 1.9 miles of active sage grouse leks; no sagebrush
[[Page 23594]]
control where sagebrush cover is less than 20 percent or on steep
slopes; no sagebrush control along streams, meadows or secondary
drainages; application of sagebrush treatments in irregular patterns;
and where possible, avoid complete kill or removal of sagebrush.
The Proposed Action includes the identification and development of
monitoring protocols specific to Grassland resources.
The Proposed Action sets a goal to engage in collaborative efforts
with adjacent landowners, Soil Conservation District and the Natural
Resource Conservation Service to conserve soil, watershed and riparian
resources. In contrast, the 1985 Forest Plan does not provide direction
for such efforts.
Agency representatives and other interested people are invited to
visit with Forest Service officials at any time during the EIS process.
Two specific time periods are identified for the receipt of formal
comments on the analysis. The two comment periods are, (1) during the
scoping process (the next 30 days following publication of this Notice
in the Federal Register) and, (2) during the formal review period of
the Draft EIS.
The Draft EIS is estimated to be filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review and comment in
January, 2000. At that time the EPA will publish an availability notice
of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register.
The comment period on the Draft EIS will be 45 days from the date
the EPA notice of availability appears in the Federal Register. It is
important that those interested in this proposed action participate at
that time. To be the most helpful, comments on the Draft EIS should be
as specific as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement
or the merits of the alternatives discussed (see the Council of
Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3).
In addition, Federal court decisions have established that
reviewers of draft environmental impact statements 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). Environmental objections that could have been raised at
the draft stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of
the final environmental impact statement. City of Angoon v. Hodel, (9th
Circuit, 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Incl. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp.
1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). The reason for this is to ensure that
substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest
Service at a time when it can be meaningful to consider them and
respond to them in the final EIS.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
and concerns related to the proposed action, comments on the Draft EIS
should be as specific as possible. Referring to specific pages or
chapters of the Draft EIS is most helpful. Comments may address the
adequacy of the Draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated
and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the
Council of Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR
1503.3 in addressing these points.
The Final EIS is expected to be released in August, 2000.
The Regional Forester, Intermountain Region, who is the responsible
official for the EIS, will then make a decision regarding this
proposal, after considering the comments, responses, and environmental
consequences discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and
applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The reason for the decision
will be documented in a Record of Decision.
Dated: April 21, 1999.
Jerry B. Reese,
Forest Supervisor, Caribou National Forest.
[FR Doc. 99-10946 Filed 4-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M