[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 152 (Monday, August 9, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43142-43144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20378]



[[Page 43142]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Caribou National 
Forest, ID

AGENCY: Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 
in conjunction with revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan 
for the Caribou National Forest, located in Bannock, Bear Lake, 
Bingham, Bonneville, Caribou, Franklin, Oneida, and Power counties, 
Idaho; Box Elder and Cache counties, Utah; and Lincoln County, Wyoming.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service will prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement in conjunction with a revision of the 
Land and Resource Management Plan (hereinafter referred to as Forest 
Plan) for the Caribou National Forest.
    This notice describes the needs ``for change'' identified to date 
in the current Forest Plan to be revised, 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 process.

DATES: Comments concerning the intent to prepared a revised Forest Plan 
should be received in writing by October 2, 1999. The agency expects to 
file a Draft Environmental Impact Statement in the Spring of 2000 and a 
Final Environmental Impact Statement in the Spring of 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Jerry Reese, Forest Supervisor, 
Caribou National Forest, 250 South 4th Avenue, Pocatello, Idaho 83201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Oakes, Planning Team Leader, 
Caribou National Forest (208) 236-7500.
    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 of the Caribou National 
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 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 
Caribou National Forest was approved on September 27, 1985.
    The Regional Forester gives notice that the Caribou National Forest 
is beginning an environmental analysis and decision-making process for 
the proposed programmatic action to revise the Caribou Forest Plan. 
Opportunities will be provided to discuss the Forest Plan revision 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.
    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 forest-wide 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 Forest occurs 
through project, or site-specific, decision-making. 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.

Linkage to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

    The northern portion of the Caribou National Forest is within the 
area of land covered by the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 
Management Project (ICBEMP). Two sources of information from the ICBEMP 
will influence the development of the Forest Plan: (1) The integrated 
science assessment and (2) the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 
Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (ICBEMP FEIS) 
and Record of Decision.
    The integrated science assessments contain information that provide 
context at a 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 help 
identify 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 for the Revised Forest Plan.
    The other primary document that will influence this revision is the 
ICBEMP FEIS. The Draft EIS was issued for public comments in June 1997, 
and a final document is expected in Spring 2000. This document, which 
incorporates the results of the science assessments, will amend 
portions of the Forest Plan when the Record of Decision is issued. This 
amendment will establish new goals, desired range of future conditions, 
objectives and standards for management for that portion of the Forest 
within the ICBEMP assessment area. This amendment will simplify the 
scope of the planning effort, but will not replace the need for the 
revision of these reasons.
     The ICBEMP effort is at a much broader scale. The 
application of the information and decisions will need to be refined 
for the Forest-level scale.
     The ICBEMP will provide 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 ICBEMP FEIS will 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 
ICBEMP did not address.
     The Ecosystem Management Goals from ICBEMP will provide a 
framework for Forest planning that merges science and ecosystem 
capability with societal values to help make choices about dynamic 
systems on the Forest. These overarching forest-wide goals will be the 
ecological centerpiece for Plan revision.

Need for Change in the Current Forest Plan

    The Forest completed two monitoring reports, one in 1992 and a 
second in 1997. The results for 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 the Forest 
Plan. Several sources were used in determining the need changes in the 
current Forest Plan. These sources include:
     Public comments concerning implementation of current 
direction;
     Findings from the two Forest Plan monitoring reports;
     Regulatory, manual, and handbook requirements;
     Forest Service Natural Resource Agenda, 1998;

[[Page 43143]]

     Draft 1995 Resources Planning Act (RPA) Program;
     New Information, such as the Interior Columbia Basin 
Ecosystem Management Project scientific assessment and other research, 
and
     Public comments received regarding the findings in the 
Initial Analysis of the Management Situation.

Initial Analysis of the Management Situation

    In April, 1999, the Caribou National Forest published an Initial 
Analysis of the Management Situation (Initial AMS). The Initial AMS 
summarized the current management and resource conditions of the 
Forest, proposed a desired range of future conditions for forest 
resources, and disclosed significant ``needs for change'' forest 
managers and resource specialists identified. The Initial AMS was 
mailed to more than 500 interested individuals, non-government 
organizations, city, county, state and other federal agencies. Public 
comments were encouraged regarding the findings disclosed in the 
Initial AMS. As a result of the analysis of the comments received, the 
Forest Supervisor has determined the public has identified additional 
``needs for change'' that will be included in the revision of the 
Forest Plan. The ``needs for change'' topics, along with preliminary 
proposed programmatic actions, include:

1. Timberland Suitability and Wilderness Recommendations

     A reassessment of timberland suitability will be 
conducted.
     All inventoried roadless areas on the Forest will be 
reevaluated for possible wilderness recommendation.

2. Aquatic and Riparian Resources

     Develop goals, objectives, standards and guidelines and 
monitoring strategies for the management of riparian and aquatic 
ecosystems.

3. Economic and Social Concerns

     Changes in Forest management may have social and economic 
effects. During the analysis, effects on local, regional and national 
entities, agencies and Tribes will be assessed, considered and 
disclosed.

4. Fire Management

     Develop goals, objectives, standards, guidelines and 
monitoring requirements for the use of prescribed fire and wildfire for 
resource benefit to improve ecosystem health and reduce the risk of 
uncharacteristically large or intense fires.

5. Minerals Development

     Incorporate new best management practices or other new 
information as they are developed or become available to address 
selenium releases into the environment.
     Develop improved goals, objectives, standards and 
guidelines to address reclamation of land disturbed by mineral 
development.

6. Noxious Weeds

     Develop improved multi-program goals, objectives, 
standards, guides and monitoring strategies for prevention, containment 
and control of noxious weeds.

7. Rangeland Resources

     Evaluate rangeland capability and reassess areas suitable 
for livestock grazing through the application of management 
prescriptions.
     Develop standards and guidelines, including forage 
utilization standards for native range and seeded areas. Monitoring 
protocols that will promote adaptive management will also be included.

8. Recreation/Travel Management

     Establish open road and motorized trail density levels and 
determine which areas will be designated open to off road motorized 
use.

9. Special Management Areas

     Develop management direction to protect the outstandingly 
remarkable values of St. Charles Creek and Elk Valley Marsh, areas 
previously determined to be eligible for study under the Wild and 
Scenic Rives Act. A suitability study will not be completed as a part 
of this effort.
     Develop direction to provide for consistent management of 
all eight RNAs on the Forest. Include direction for the use of 
prescribed fire and wildfire for resource benefit as appropriate to 
meet the objectives for which the RNA was established.

10. Vegetation (Forestlands and Rangelands)

     Develop improve management direction for desired 
vegetation structure, composition, disturbance and patterns for each 
cover type which could include restoring historic fire regimes through 
prescribed fire or allowing wildfires to burn under appropriate 
conditions, harvest or thinning of dense stands to reduce ladder fuels.

11. Wildlife Habitat

     Develop management direction to conserve or restore key 
wildlife, fish and rare habitats including those species federally 
listed under the Endangered Species Act, those identified as sensitive 
by the Regional Forester, and those identified as rare or scarce 
species. This will also include monitoring for habitat trends.
    More detailed information on the ``need for change'' topics is 
available upon request at the address displayed above.

Framework for Alternatives To Be Considered

    Through a range of alternatives economic and social community 
stability will be considered in revising the Forest Plan. The 
alternatives will address different options to resolve the issues 
identified in the revision topics listed above. Alternatives must meet 
the purpose and need for revision 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 1985 Forest Plan, as amended. Alternatives are developed in 
response to public issues, management concerns, and resource 
opportunities identified during the scoping process. In describing 
alternatives, desired vegetation and resource condtions will be 
defined.

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.
    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 involvement 
opportunities will be offered at various locations. Public 
participation activities may include written comments, open houses, 
focus groups 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). Public meets will be arranged locally. Specific dates, 
times and locations of meetings will be identified at a later date. The 
public will be notified at that time.

[[Page 43144]]

Release and Review of the EIS

    The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is expected to be 
filed with the Environmental protection Agency (EPA) and to be 
available for public comment in the Spring of 2000. At that time, the 
EPA will publish a notice of availability in the Federal Register. The 
comment period on the Draft EIS will be at least 90 days from the date 
the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register, 
as required by the planning regulations.
    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 Draft EIS 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 (Final EIS) 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 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 Final EIS.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed programmatic actions, comments on the 
Draft EIS 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 Draft EIS or the merits 
of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statements. 
Reviewers may wish to refer to the Counsel 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 Draft EIS, comments will be 
analyzed, considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in 
preparing the Final EIS. The Final EIS is scheduled to be completed in 
the Spring of 2001. The responsible official will consider the 
comments, responses, and environmental consequences discussed in the 
Final EIS, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making 
decisions regarding the revision. The responsible official will 
document the decisions and reasons for the decisions in a Record of 
Decision for the revised plan. The decisions will be subject to appeal 
in accordance with 36 CFR part 217. Jack A. Blackwell, Intermountain 
Regional Forester, is the responsible official for this EIS.

    Dated: August 3, 1999.
Jerry B. Reese,
Forest Supervisor, Caribou National Forest.
[FR Doc. 99-20378 Filed 8-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M