[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