[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 28, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52266-52273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25099]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Grand Mesa, 
Uncompahgre, Gunnison National Forests, CO

AGENCY: USDA Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 
(EIS) in conjunction with revision of the land and resource management 
plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison National Forests (GMUG) 
located in Delta, Montrose, Gunnison, Mesa, San Miguel, Ouray, 
Hinsdale, Saguache, Garfield, and San Juan counties, Colorado.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement in conjunction with the revision of its Land and Resource 
Management Plan (hereafter referred to as Forest Plan or Plan) for the 
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnision National Forests (GMUG).
    This notice describes the specific portions of the current Forest 
Plan to be revised, environmental issues considered in the revision, 
estimated dates for filing the environmental impact statement, 
information concerning public participation, and the names and 
addresses of the agency officials who can provide additional 
information.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing by January 31, 2000. The agency expects to file a draft 
environmental impact statement with the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) and make it available for public

[[Page 52267]]

comment in the fall of 2001. The agency expects to file a final 
environmental impact statement in the fall of 2002.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Carmine Lockwood, Planning Team 
Leader, GMUG National Forests, 2250 Highway 50, Delta, CO 81416.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carmine Lockwood, Planning Team 
Leader, at (970) 874-6677, or Carol Howe, Assistant Planner, at (970) 
874-6647.
    Responsible Official: Lyle Laverty, Rocky Mountain Regional 
Forester at P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, CO 80225-0127.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Part 36 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) 219.10(g), the Regional Forester for the Rocky 
Mountain Region gives notice of the agency's intent to prepare an 
environmental impact statement for the revision effort described above. 
According to 36 CFR 219.10(g), land and resource management plans are 
ordinarily revised on a 10 to 15 year cycle. The existing Forest Plan 
was approved on September 29, 1983. Significant amendments were 
completed in 1991 to address land suitability for timber production, 
and in 1993 to address land availability for oil and gas leasing.
    The Regional Forester gives notice that the Forest is beginning an 
environmental analysis and decision-making process for this proposed 
action so that interested or affected people can participate in the 
analysis and contribute to the final decision.
    Opportunities will be provided to discuss the Forest Plan revision 
process openly with the public. The public is invited to help identify 
issues and define the range of alternatives to be considered in the 
environmental impact statement. Forest Service officials will lead 
these discussions, helping to describe issues and the preliminary 
alternatives. These officials will also explain the environmental 
analysis process and the disclosures of that analysis, which will be 
available for public review. Written comments identifying issues for 
analysis and the range of alternatives will be encouraged.
    Issue identification (scoping) meetings will be scheduled for fall 
1999. Alternative development meetings will be held in fall 2000. 
Public notice of dates, times, and locations for specific meetings will 
be provided in local newspapers and posted on the Forest's web site: 
http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/gmug. Additionally, we will send notices and 
newsletters to those on the forest plan revision mailing list. Requests 
to be placed on this mailing list should be sent to the comment address 
stated above.
    The United States has a unique legal relationship with Indian 
tribal governments as set forth in the Constitution of the United 
States, treaties, statutes, Executive orders, and court decisions. As 
part of the overall effort to uphold the federal trust responsibility 
to tribal sovereign nations to the extent applicable to National Forest 
System lands, the Forest Service will establish regular and meaningful 
consultation and collaboration with the tribal nations on a government-
to-government basis. The Forest Service will work with governments to 
address issues concerning Indian tribal self-government and 
sovereignty, natural and cultural resources held in trust, Indian 
tribal treaty and Executive order rights, and any issues that 
significantly or uniquely affect their communities.
    Forest plans describe the intended management of National Forests. 
Agency decisions in these plans do the following:
     Establish management areas and management area direction 
(management area prescriptions) applying to future activities in that 
management area (resource integration and minimum specific management 
requirements) 36 CFR 219.11(c);
     Determine suitability and potential capability of lands 
for resource production. This includes designation of suitable timber 
land and establishment of allowable timber sale quantity (36 CFR 219.14 
through 219.26);
     Where applicable, recommend designations of special areas 
such as Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers to Congress.
    The authorization of project-level activities on the Forest occurs 
through project decision-making, the second stage of forest land 
management planning. Project-level decisions must comply with National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures and must include a 
determination that the project is consistent with the Forest Plan.
    In addition to the programmatic decisions described above, the 
Forest is considering:
     Making site-specific decisions on travel management 
through identification of specific restrictions for individual roads 
and trails on the Gunnison Forest, and
     Identifying and analyzing instream flow requirements for 
site-specific decision.
    Any site-specific decisions made in conjunction with the Forest 
Plan revision EIS would have a separate decision document and the 
responsible official would be the Forest Supervisor.

Need for Changes in the Current Forest Plan

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

Major Revision Topics

    Based on the information described above, Plan revision is 
warranted in light of the combined effects of these multiple needs for 
change. The preliminary revision topics that have been identified to 
date are described below.

1. Terrestrial Ecosystem Sustainability and Restoration

Planning Questions
     How will the forest be managed to restore or maintain 
healthy ecosystems?
     Should the forest be managed within historical range of 
variability for such things as fire size and frequency, size and 
distribution of openings, and mix of plant and animal species?
     Are some species or vegetation communities such as aspen 
and cottonwood declining?
     What are appropriate ways to improve forest health in 
addition to harvest and pre-commercial cutting?
     How much of the forest should be maintained in old-growth 
conditions and how should it be distributed in time and space?
     Are large ecological preserves needed to provide adequate 
habitat for some species? If so, how large, and

[[Page 52268]]

which conditions should be represented? What type of human activity, if 
any, should be allowed in such areas?
     What management direction is needed to ensure viable 
populations of threatened, endangered, sensitive and other focal 
species? How do various resource management regimes and human 
activities affect these species?
     What role should non-native species play in terrestrial 
ecosystems? What should be done about increasing populations of noxious 
weeds?
     What management direction is needed to identify, protect, 
and make available the traditional forest plant and animal products 
that American Indians enjoy through exercising their treaty rights, or 
other rights? How do various activities occurring on, or excluded from, 
National Forest System lands affect the availability of traditional 
forest products?
Background
    A tremendous amount of new information and research results 
regarding managing terrestrial ecosystems for ecological sustainability 
has been issued since the Forest Plan was completed in 1983. The 
current Plan only partially addresses this subject in piecemeal 
fashion.
    Several analysis concepts relating to ecological sustainability 
have been developed since the 1983 plan, such as: establishing the 
range of natural variability, comparing management to natural 
disturbance processes, maintaining biological diversity through coarse-
filter and fine-filter assessments, delineating reference landscapes, 
and broadening focus from vertebrates to all native species. 
Traditional approaches also remain valid, such as conserving habitat 
for indicator or focal species, and recovering threatened, endangered, 
or sensitive species. The Forest will be analyzed using these 
techniques and the Plan revised to reflect the knowledge gained.
    New Management Area (MA) Prescriptions have been developed since 
the 1983 Plan was approved. There is a need to develop new goals, make 
existing goals and objectives more specific, and to evaluate the 
present set of Management Areas, boundaries and prescriptions. Several 
existing Plan standards lack the sophistication required to account for 
key elements of ecological integrity, and variations in temporal and 
spatial scales. An improved monitoring strategy is needed to measure 
indictors of ecological integrity and sustainability at multiple 
scales. There is an opportunity to design monitoring so that it 
provides a better foundation for adaptive management.
    Particular aspects of this topic identified by past and current 
monitoring include: forest and rangeland health, insects and disease, 
fragmentation and connectivity of habitats, potential need for 
additional reserve areas, successional stage abundance and 
distribution, late successional forest structure, prescribed and 
natural fire/fuels management, forest cover and plant community 
conversions, soil productivity, control of noxious weeds and other 
undesirable species, riparian area health and management, and species-
to-habitat relationships. The Plan will revise direction for 
threatened, endangered, sensitive, focal, and demand species (an 
expansion of the current management indicator species (MIS) approach).
Proposed Actions
    Based on monitoring results, preliminary analyses, and public 
input, the following actions will be proposed in one or more EIS 
alternative:
     Define the desired conditions for terrestrial ecosystem 
sustainability for appropriate temporal and spatial scales.
     Base management practices on understanding and 
consideration of natural disturbance processes, including the 
intensity, frequency, and magnitude of those disturbance regimes.
     Increase use of prescribed fire both within and outside of 
Wilderness through natural and human ignitions.
     Utilize new methods and treat more acres with active 
vegetation management practices to improve forest health.
     Apply vegetation treatment areas and patch sizes which 
better reflect natural disturbance patterns.
     Exclude or modify existing human uses to better protect 
species at risk and to maintain or restore biological diversity.
     Aggressivly treat noxious weed populations through various 
means, including mechanical, biological and chemical control.
     Develop a monitoring strategy that will measure 
appropriate indicators of ecosystem integrity and ecological 
sustainability at multiple scales, and will serve to facilitate 
adaptive management.

2. Aquatic Ecosystem Sustainability and Restoration

Planning Questions
     How do various activities occurring on the forest affect 
water quality and quantity, soil resources, and riparian areas?
     Where should limited watershed restoration funds be spent 
to provide the greatest return on investment in terms of enhancement or 
protection of aquatic ecosystem values?
     How can revised Forest Plan management direction further 
the implementation of the national ``Clean Water Action Plan and 
Policy'' and ``Framework for Developing and Implementing Total Maximum 
Daily Loads (TMDL) in Forest and Rangeland Environments''?
     What are the effects of water diversions on various stream 
ecosystems? What are the effects of various water storage facilities 
(reservoirs, ponds, and tanks) on aquatic ecosystems?
     In which drainages should the Forest Plan establish bypass 
or minimum instream flows as conditions for issuance or renewal of 
special use permits?
     On which streams or stream reaches should the Forest 
Service pursue settlement of claims for water rights in state court 
adjudications in order to protect aquatic ecosystem integrity?
     In which stream or lake systems is improved programmatic 
direction needed to ensure the viability of aquatic species or to 
restore dwindling populations? Which measures should be included?
Background
    Watersheds have become the basic unit (at multiple scales) for 
assessing ecological conditions, restoration needs, and the 
sustainability of management prescriptions. Analysis is needed to 
ascertain the appropriate management framework for achieving 
maintenance and restoration of watershed integrity. The existing Plan 
does not adequately describe management parameters required to ensure 
that the characteristic diversity of biological and physical components 
and processes are managed to provide watershed conditions within their 
approximate range of natural variability. In keeping with changes in 
Forest Service management philosophy based on the Clean Water Action 
Plan commitments, recommendations from the Committee of Scientists, and 
mandates from the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water acts, watershed 
health and restoration will be a fundamental priority in the Plan 
revision. There is currently a strong body of law, regulation, and 
policy to ensure water quality protection (re: agency ``Watershed 
Conservation Practices Handbook,'' FSH 2509.25, March 1999). This 
direction provides very little discretion as to planning and 
implementation of protection measures.

[[Page 52269]]

However, there is a zone of discretion with regard to the level and 
intensity of aquatic ecosystem restoration measures that should be 
pursued, based on anticipated benefits from investment, other resource 
trade-offs, and projected funding levels. These questions warrant 
examination as a primary revision topic.
Proposed Actions
    The revised Plan will prescribe specifications and constraints 
(standards and guidelines) for management practices to:
     Maintain and restore watershed function and provision of 
beneficial uses.
     Protect and recover native aquatic and riparian dependent 
species and prevent the introduction and spread of non-native, invasive 
species.
     Restore aquatic resources, including but not limited to 
streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, source waters, wetlands, 
riparian areas, and floodplains.
    The Plan also proposes to:
     Identify current and foreseeable future Forest Service 
consumptive and non-consumptive water uses and rights needed to 
maintain or restore watershed integrity, including instream flow needs.
     Locate and designate reference watersheds and stream 
reaches.
     Prioritize specific watersheds for restoration by applying 
factors such as: past disturbance history; water quality impairment and 
riparian condition; inherent instability, disturbance sensitivity, and 
restoration capabilities; diversity of native plants, fish, and 
animals; special designations such as Wild and Scenic Rivers; recovery 
of threatened, endangered, or other sensitive species; ability to 
leverage restoration funds through partnerships; and, the opportunity 
to work with interested and willing federal, state and tribal 
governments, communities, adjacent land managers, and owners.

3. Roadless Areas and Unroaded Areas

Planning Questions
     Where are the roadless areas on the Forest, what are their 
characteristics, and which qualify for Wilderness recommendation?
     How can Congressionally designated Wilderness be managed 
to accomplish the principles of the Wilderness Act as related to human 
uses and natural processes?
     How should roadless areas not recommended for Wilderness 
be managed?
Background
    Inventoried roadless areas (RARE II and Forest Plan inventoried 
areas) and other unroaded areas continue to be areas of high 
controversy and debate as to their appropriate and best use. Although 
the Colorado Wilderness Acts of 1980 and 1993 (Pub. L. 96-560 and Pub. 
L. 103-77) released undesignated roadless lands for other management, 
these Acts and federal regulation (36 CFR 219.17) require that these 
areas be re-evaluated for Wilderness designation during Forest Plan 
revision. Some ``inventoried roadless areas'' have always included 
roads. Many more roads have been developed through management practices 
and by users in the intervening decades. Actual Wilderness designation 
is a Congressional responsibility; Forests can only make 
recommendations. One current member of the Colorado Congressional 
delegation has draft Wilderness legislation that would increase 
Wilderness on the GMUG. Ecological sustainability goals will likely 
lead to focused consideration of Wilderness additions in locations on 
the margins of existing Wilderness, or in lower elevations where 
Wilderness is less well represented.
    The revision process will include a new inventory of roadless and 
unroaded areas, replacing the RARE II and previous Plan inventories as 
the basis for future analysis of ``roadlessness.'' A roadless area 
inventory will be developed and areas capable of being designated for 
Wilderness will be identified. Areas not recommended for Wilderness 
will be studied for possible allocation to other management 
prescriptions. The issue has become more complex over time and now 
includes the need to assess values beyond potential Wilderness, such 
as: source drinking water areas, reference areas for research, areas of 
high or unique biodiversity, areas where other unfragmented landscapes 
are scarce, areas of cultural or historic importance, or areas that 
provide unique or important seasonal habitat for wildlife, fish, and 
plant species.
    The inventory will be conducted according to most recent guidance 
defining unroaded areas. Current policy--which is in draft form--
defines unroaded areas as any areas that do not contain classified 
roads (a road at least 50 inches wide and constructed or maintained for 
vehicle use, Interim Rule, 36 CFR 212, 2/11/99). Assessment methods 
will have to be developed to ascertain whether unroaded areas have 
sufficient size in a manageable configuration to protect the inherent 
values associated with the unroaded condition.
Proposed Actions
    The following actions will be proposed in one or more EIS 
alternative:
     Identify and recommend for Wilderness designation those 
roadless areas which meet basic requirements for Wilderness and would 
further the goals of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 (note)).
     For those roadless and unroaded areas not recommended for 
Wilderness designation, provide management prescriptions that allow for 
various levels of development.

4. Travel Management

Planning Questions
     What travel and transportation opportunities should the 
Forest provide to meet current and expected demands?
     Where and what type of travel restrictions are needed to 
sustain aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem integrity during all seasons 
of use?
     How can the Forest Service provide a wide range of 
recreational opportunities to people who are physically restricted from 
traveling by other than motorized means?
     What type of transportation system, in terms of amount of 
and standards for roads and trails, can the Forest manage and maintain 
to an adequate level, particularly considering declining budgets and 
greatly reduced road maintenance through timber sale contracts?
     Which existing roads and trails should be closed 
(permanently or seasonally) and/or decommissioned?
     How will travel management policies affect property 
inholders and landowners adjacent to the Forest boundary?
     How do the GMUG's travel management policies fit with 
those of adjacent national forests and other land management agencies, 
particularly where routes cross jurisdictions?
Background
    Issues and management concerns related to travel management have 
increased significantly since completion of the Plan and its 
amendments. Use numbers for traditional recreation travel, such as 
driving for pleasure, hiking, horseback riding, and motorbiking have 
grown steadily. Other modes, such as all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, 
and mountain bikes have dramatically increased over the last decade. 
Resource impacts and social conflicts have increased proportionally 
with these uses. All user groups want to

[[Page 52270]]

main or increase opportunities for their preferred uses. Plan 
monitoring reports have acknowledged existing impacts and the potential 
for increased adverse effects on soil, water, wildlife and heritage 
resources from increased use, development of unauthorized routes, and 
lack of maintenance on existing roads and trails. Semi-primitive areas 
are becoming more developed as use increases and new routes appear.
    Current agency policy (``Natural Resource Agenda'', Dombeck, 02/03/
99) directs forests to aggressively decommission old unneeded, 
unauthorized, and other roads that contribute to environmental 
degradation. An economically efficient and environmentally sound 
transportation network is essential for active forest management and 
the flow of goods and services.
    The GMUG has invested a great deal into travel management planning 
for the Grand Mesa and Uncompahgre Forests. For the Gunnison Forest 
area, we will use Plan revision to conduct comparable analysis and make 
consistent decisions. Additional designation and/or separation of 
motorized and non-motorized uses will be needed to reduce conflicts. 
Site-specific travel management decisions for individual routes will be 
included in the revision process; any ground-disturbing closure or 
decommissioning actions will receive project-level analysis. The Forest 
will consider and apply those portions of the pending ``Road Analysis 
Process'' which are specified for forest-level planning, when the 
policy becomes final.
Proposed Actions
    The following actions will be proposed in one or more EIS 
alternative:
     Identify a road and trail transportation network that 
provides an environmentally sound and socially responsive travel 
management system which is consistent across the entire Forest, and 
well coordinated with adjacent forests.
     Eliminate cross-country motorized travel (``green'' areas) 
on those portions of the Forest not previously addressed in recent 
travel management plans. Specify travel routes by appropriate modes and 
season of use.
     Designate permanent or seasonal travel restrictions and 
those routes that will be decommissioned. Identify new road and trail 
alignments that are needed to enhance travel opportunities or protect 
resource values.
     Specify whether motorized use is allowed in each land area 
(MA) allocation and prescription; provide new goals, standards, and 
guidelines.

5. Recreation and Scenery Resources

Planning Questions
     What range, mix, and emphasis of recreation opportunities 
will best meet the demands of a wide variety of current and future 
users; while ensuring protection of scenic, biotic and physical 
resources.
     How much recreation use can be sustained from both the 
ecological integrity and visitor enjoyment perspectives? Do limits need 
to be placed on certain areas or types of use during various seasons?
     Should potentially conflicting uses, such as mountain 
biking and horseback riding occur in the same areas or be segregated?
     How should surface water uses, including types and levels 
of use on lakes and streams be regulated to maintain quality of the 
recreation experiences and protect natural resources?
     How should major recreation corridors and scenic byways be 
managed? What type of opportunities should be provided in these areas?
     What are appropriate development levels for campgrounds, 
picnic areas, trailheads, etc.? How many facilities can be adequately 
maintained under projected budget levels?
     How do national forest and private sector facilities and 
services best fit with each other?
     How should the Plan revision be used to address allocation 
of special uses, capacity and development levels? What program 
parameters, such as service day allocations, permit numbers, activities 
permitted, location and types of developments, should be established?
     Where and how should scenic quality be maintained or 
enhanced along major travel routes?
     How does scenic quality change over time? What are the 
implications of ecosystem dynamics and how should management intervene 
prior to or after changes? How much weight should be given to short-
term versus long-term impacts and benefits?
     What is the relationship between scenic quality and air 
quality? What role should prescribed fire play?
Background
    Recreation is a dominant use of the GMUG. Recreationists generate 
major economic benefits to local counties and communities, and a high 
percentage of recreation opportunities on the Forest are provided or 
enhanced by private enterprise. Public perceptions of national forest 
management are primarily based on personal experiences and visual 
impressions. Forest visitors vary widely in their recreational 
interests. A range of recreation settings from pristine to highly 
developed is desired. This results in pressures for different land 
allocations. Generally expressed public sentiment, attitudes and values 
indicate strong desire for protection of natural scenic beauty. The 
current Plan discusses both Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 
categories and Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs), but does little to 
establish management direction for either recreation or scenic 
resources. The existing Plan included an inventory, but very little in 
the way of firm direction on ROS allocations; it basically set ranges 
of ROS and VQO classes for most Management Areas. These allocations 
were based more on compatibility with other management area direction 
than on the characteristics of particular land areas. ROS objectives 
and consequences were poorly displayed. This topic area is strongly 
tied to travel management, as well as timber and other vegetation 
management activities.
    The VQO framework has been replaced by the scenery management 
system. the ROS and scenery management frameworks can be used both to 
inventory existing conditions and to make decisions on management 
objectives. We will reassess management and public use needs related to 
these concepts. The ROS system will be used to describe desired 
recreation settings, conditions, compatible user groups, and 
appropriate levels of use for specific areas of the Forest. Project 
decision-making will have improved efficiency and support (e.g., in 
travel management) when the revised Plan clearly establishes the 
conditions we are trying to achieve in terms of recreation 
opportunities. Improved direction, including distinct descriptions for 
both winter and summer conditions, will substantially enhance 
recreation management and user experiences. These displays will also 
help more clearly define the conflicts and trade-offs between motorized 
and non-motorized recreational
Proposed Actions
     The Forest will be zoned into various classifications of 
``recreation opportunity spectrum'' for summer and winter uses. There 
are seven broad classifications which range from primitive through 
urban, and they will be associated with a variety of resource 
management standards and guidelines in nearly all program areas.
     The Forest will be zoned into various classifications of 
`'scenic integrity levels,'' ranging form very low

[[Page 52271]]

to very high. These classifications will be associated with a variety 
of management implications in nearly all program levels.
     The revised Plan will provide updated programmatic 
direction for recreation facility developments, maintenance, special 
use permitting parameters, and private sector service objectives.

6. Timber Suitability and Forest Management for Commercial Products

Planning Questions
     Which portions of the Forest are suitable for timber 
harvest?
     What volume of timber and mix of products should the 
Forest provide? What harvest level is sustainable while ensuring 
ecological integrity?
     How important to local communities and economies are the 
wood products which the Forest provides?
     What is the financial efficiency of the Forest's timber 
sales program?
     Which logging systems should be applied to better enable 
forest vegetation treatments over a wider variety of terrain, and 
during more stages of stand development?
     How should recommended and allowable timber harvest 
prescriptions be adjusted, both in terms of type and spatial 
application limits, to account for new information relative to historic 
range of variation and natural disturbance regimes?
     Should logging occur in unroaded areas?
     Are new roads needed for harvesting? If so, to what 
standards should they be built? Should roads be maintained or 
obliterated after logging use? Should logging roads be open or closed 
to the general public?
     What are the appropriate specifications and constraints 
(standards and guidelines) for logging? What kinds of restoration 
practices should occur after logging and road building?
Background
    Timber management continues to be one of the most controversial 
agency activities, as well as one of the most important for some local 
communities. The debate surrounding timber harvesting is generally 
waged in terms of related issues, such as biodiversity, community 
sustainability, and roadless areas. However, this topic remains 
significant in its own terms because of statutory mandates (e.g., the 
1897 Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 473), and the National Forest Management 
Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600(note))), emphasis in current research and 
public dialogue (e.g., ``Committee of Scientists Reports'', 3/16/99; 
proposed legislation to ban logging on NFS lands, H.R. 2789), and the 
intensity of public emotion. The determination of lands suited and not 
suited for timber production and ASQ is required by NFMA (sec. 
6(g)(2)(A)) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 219.14).
    The 1991 significant amendment to the Forest Plan addressed most of 
the ``timber'' elements of the vegetation management debate. Timber 
demand was re-evaluated, and the suitable timber base and allowable 
sale quantity (ASQ) were recomputed using FORPLAN. Below-cost sales and 
the economic suitability of timber were key topics addressed in the 
amendment. Much of this analysis remains current, though stumpage 
prices, among other elements, have changed significantly. The Forest 
has completed new inventories since the 1991 timber amendment was 
adopted which will be useful in determining timber suitability. Plan 
implementation and monitoring have shown that portions of the suited 
base may have been inappropriately classified based on current 
standards. Updating the 1991 analysis is needed to account for new 
ecological and economic criteria, and other social aspects of the 
timber program.
    The amended Plan for the GMUG identified 544,730 acres that are 
suitable for timber production and set an ASQ that averages 38.7 
million board feet (MMBF) of wood products per year for the decade 
beginning in 1992. Programmed sale quantity, the amount expected to be 
offered for sale, is equal to the ASQ. In addition, the Forest 
estimated sales of 7 MMBF per year of non-chargeable products, mostly 
personal-use firewood. Actual volume sold has fallen well short of the 
projected levels. There are several reasons for this, the greatest of 
which is insufficient budget and skyrocketing timber project planning 
costs and time frames.
    Traditional objectives for timber management have been supplanted 
with broader objectives for vegetation and fuels management to achieve 
integrated ecological goals. Plan revision must describe multiple land 
classifications for timber removal, including: lands not suitable for 
timber production, lands where timber harvest is permitted to 
accomplish other resource objectives, and lands where timber production 
is an objective.
    Proposed timber sales in currently unroaded areas have generated 
much controversy. This revision topic overlaps with the Roadless Area 
and Unroaded Area allocation and management. Harvesting aspen, 
harvesting mature / late-successional stands or large trees, 
regeneration harvest methods, patch size, logging systems, and cost 
efficiency of timber sales, are elements of this topic.
Proposed Actions
     The Forest land base will be classified into various 
categories of suitability for timber production within each Plan 
alternative, including lands: tentatively suited for timber production; 
not appropriate for timber production because they're occupied by 
administrative sites; not appropriate for timber production due to 
minimum management requirements that limit activities; not appropriate 
for timber production because of other multiple-use objectives; not 
cost efficient for timber production over the planning horizon; and, 
net suited lands appropriate for timber production.
     Allowable sale quantity and long-term sustained yield 
capacity will be identified for each Plan alternative.
     Programmatic direction (standards and guidelines) will be 
revised for harvest prescriptions and logging systems and road 
management.

Secondary Revision Topics

    Preliminary topics discussed in this section are also important 
issues to be addressed in the Plan revision. However, they are likely 
not substantial or widespread enough to be major drivers in the EIS 
alternative themes or forest-wide management area prescriptions and 
standards.

1. Special Areas

Planning Questions
     Which area on the Forest quality for Research Natural Area 
designation?
     Which rivers, or river segments, on the Forest are 
potentially eligible for addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System?
     Which portions of the Forest qualify for other special 
area designations?
     Should landscapes containing cultural or historic resource 
properties that are potentially eligible for, or already listed on, the 
National Register of Historic Places receive special land management 
prescriptions?
     What is the appropriate balance between providing for 
historic site preservation, or conservation, and recreational 
enjoyment, and allowing other activities that can affect the use of the 
cultural or historic site and its setting? What are the appropriate 
specifications and constraints (standards and guidelines) for 
activities

[[Page 52272]]

affecting cultural properties and their setting?
     What kinds of cooperation are needed between the Forest 
Service, the tribes, other agencies, and private individuals to protect 
these areas?
Background
    The planning area includes several unique or outstanding areas and 
resources of outstanding physical, biological, or social interest. 
Collectively these are known as ``special areas.'' Potential formal 
designations of special areas may include Wilderness (which was also 
discussed under Primary Topic 3, above); Wild and Scenic Rivers; 
Research Natural Areas; and special recreational areas with scenic, 
historical, geological, botanical, zoological, paleontological, 
archaeological, or other special characterists. These special areas 
will influence land allocation and management in the revision. In some 
cases the Plan will make the designation as a special area, and in most 
cases it will simply make recommendations to another authority (e.g., 
U.S. Congress). Some areas received special designation after the last 
Plan was approved, such as, Tabeguache Area, Roubideau Area, Fossil 
Ridge Recreation Management Area and Wilderness, Powderhorn Wilderness, 
and other Wilderness additions, and have never been incorporated into 
the Plan or been given programmatic direction other than for travel 
management.
    Ten areas have been inventoried to determine their potential for 
establishment as Research Natural Areas. The Plan revision will address 
establishment of RNA's including an assessment of the needs for 
additions to the RNA network.
    There are five scenic byways on the Forest and a number of national 
trails. Proposals are under consideration for additional trails.
    There are currently several historic properties on the Forest 
recognized to National Register of Historic Places. Heritage resources 
must be protected by law.
    The Forest is part of the traditional homeland of the Ute Nation 
and there is an increased awareness of the sacred sites. Protection of 
these sites will be part of revision.
    The purpose and authority for study of Wild and Scenic Rivers is in 
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 1, 1968, as amended. The GMUG 
includes two rivers (the East River) and Taylor River listed on the 
National Rivers Inventory. Both rivers were evaluated during 
development of the original Forest Plan and determined not to be 
eligible for the Wild and Scenic River System. Other rivers and streams 
with potential for designation (e.g., portions of the Gunnison and San 
Miguel) are located off of National Forest System lands.

2. Coal, Leasable Minerals, and Mining

Planning Questions
     What lands are suitable for oil and gas leasing? What 
stipulations should be included in leases? What lands should be 
withdrawn from mineral entry because of conflicts with other National 
Forest uses?
     What types of activities or practices are suitable? What 
mitigation measures are needed? What kinds of restoration practices 
should occur after mining and oil and gas exploration or development?
     How should mineral and energy exploration and development 
be balanced with other considerations, such as heritage resources, 
aesthetics, human health, and ecosystem health and sustainability? What 
are the effects of exploration, development, and associated road 
construction on other uses of the Forest?
     What are the effects of mining and oil and gas activities 
beyond the local area?
     What kind of direction is needed for recreational planning 
or dredging?
     What special considerations are needed in Wilderness?
     What are the economic impacts in the local community of 
mining and coal, oil, and gas exploration and development?
Background
    The 1993 Oil and Gas Leasing EIS established standard, controlled 
surface use, and no surface occupancy stipulations, in addition to 
determining the availability of land for leasing. No similar effort has 
been undertaken for coal or uranium. Leasing decisions continue to be 
made on a case-by-case basis, when in fact, many of the leasing 
stipulations for oil and gas (e.g., protection of riparian areas) 
appear to apply equally well to coal, uranium, and other resource 
programs. The Forest Service needs to determine what areas are suitable 
and available for oil, gas, coal, and uranium leasing and what 
stipulations should be placed on exploration and development. The 
revised Plan will develop separate stipulations for coal and uranium 
leases.
    Most of the Forest is available for locatable (or ``hard rock'') 
mineral exploration and development under the Mining Law of 1872, 
unless areas are specifically withdrawn. The Plan revision will update 
programmatic guidance to minimize adverse environmental impacts on 
Forest surface resources during mining operations for locatable 
minerals.

3. Landownership Adjustment

Planning Questions
     Which areas of the Forest need strengthened programmatic 
direction to guide land ownership pattern adjustments?
     How can goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for 
lands adjustment be improved to prioritize agency action, enhance 
management efficiency, and assist local communities?
Background
    Landownership adjustment is generally considered a tool to 
accomplish resource or socioeconomic objectives, rather than a driving 
issue in and of itself. However, land exchange activity on the GMUG has 
far exceeded predictions of the existing Plan. Exchange proposals 
continue to generate intense controversy, particularly when they 
involve land within or near resort communities, where land values are 
high and open space is at a premium. Plan revision offers an 
opportunity to develop agreements about desired future patterns of land 
ownership that could be achieved through exchanges or purchases. Access 
to public land is often a related concern where private land 
development is happening, or likely will occur, adjacent to the Forest.

What To Do With This Information

    This revision effort is being undertaken to develop management 
direction that will help attain the three basic agency goals of 
ecological sustainability, social and economic sustainability, and 
collaborative public involvement.
    The Forest's role and responsibilities in promoting social and 
economic sustainability include: utilizing an effectively structured 
planning process that helps build public understanding of the 
interconnectedness of communities, economies and the Forest and its 
resources; applying continuous, open, and collaborative planning 
processes which enable well-reasoned community deliberation of 
sustainable choices; examining opportunities to help local communities 
meet specific needs; and providing for a wide variety of uses, values, 
products and services through decision-making and Plan implementation.
    Early public participation will identify the topics to be addressed 
in

[[Page 52273]]

Plan revision. The preceding discussion of preliminary revision topics 
is based upon our assessment of Plan monitoring and evaluation results; 
public and agency input during project planning and Plan amendment 
efforts; and socioeconomic, demographic and political changes. We 
expect this list to change as people engage in the planning process.

Framework for Alternatives To Be Considered

    A range of alternatives will be considered when revising the Forest 
Plan. The alternatives will address different options to resolve 
concerns raised as the revision topics listed above. A reasonable range 
of alternatives will be evaluated and reasons given for eliminating 
some alternatives from detailed study. A ``no-action alternative'' is 
required, meaning that management would continue under the existing 
Plan. Alternatives will provide different ways to address and respond 
to public issues, management concerns, and resource opportunities 
identified during the scoping process. In describing alternatives, 
desired vegetation and resource conditions will be defined. Resource 
outputs will be estimated in the Forest Plan based on achieving desired 
conditions. Preliminary information is available to develop 
alternatives; however, there will be additional public, agency, and 
tribal government involvement and collaboration for alternative 
development.

Consulting and Collaborating With Tribal Governments

    The Forest Service will establish regular and meaningful 
consultation and collaboration with tribal nations on a government-to-
government basis. The agency will work with tribal governments to 
address issues concerning Indian tribal self-government and 
sovereignty, natural and cultural resources held in trust, Indian 
tribal treaty and Executive order rights, and any issues that 
significantly or uniquely affect their communities. Correspondence, 
meetings, and field trips will be used in this effort.

Involving the Public

    An atmosphere of openness is one of the objectives of the public 
involvement process, in which all members of the public feel free to 
share information with the Forest Service regularly. All parts of this 
process will be structured to maintain this openness.
    The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and assistance 
from individuals, organizations, tribal governments, and federal, 
state, and local agencies who are interested in or may be affected by 
the proposed action (36 CFR 219.6). The Forest Service is also looking 
for collaborative approaches with members of the public who are 
interested in forest management. Federal and state agencies and some 
private organizations have been cooperating in the development of 
assessments of current biological, physical, and economic conditions. 
This information will be used to prepare the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (DEIS). The range of alternatives to be considered in the 
DEIS will be based on public issues, management concerns, resource 
management opportunities, and specific decisions to be made.
    Public participation will be solicited by notifying in person and/
or by mail known interested and affected publics. News releases will be 
used to give the public general notice, and public scoping 
opportunities will be offered in numerous locations. Public 
participation activities will include (but will not be limited to) 
requests for written comments, open houses, focus groups, field trips, 
and collaborative forums.
    Public participation will be sought throughout the revision process 
and will be especially important at several points along the way. The 
first formal opportunity to comment is during the scoping process (40 
CFR 1501.7). Scoping includes (1) Identifying potential issues, (2) 
from these, identifying significant issues or those that have been 
covered by prior environmental review, (3) exploring alternatives in 
addition to No Action, and (4) identifying the potential environmental 
effects of the proposed action and alternatives.

Release and Review of the EIS

    We expect the DEIS to be filed with the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and to be available for public, agency, and tribal 
government comment in the fall of 2001. At that time, the EPA will 
publish a notice of availability for the DEIS in the Federal Register. 
The comment period on the DEIS will be 90 days from the date the EPA 
publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.
    The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important 
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public 
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of 
the DEIS must participate in the environmental review of the proposal 
in such a way that their participation is meaningful and alerts an 
agency to the reviewer's position and contentions: Vemont Yankee 
Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC. 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, 
environmental objections that could be raised at the DEIS stage but are 
not raised until after completion of the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (FEIS) may be waived or dismissed by the courts; City of 
Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin 
Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). 
Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those 
interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 
three-month comment period, so that substantive comments and objections 
are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can 
meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the FEIS.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns relating to 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. In addressing these points, 
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.
    After the comment period on the DEIS ends, comments will be 
analyzed, considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in 
preparing the Final EIS. The FEIS is scheduled to be completed in the 
summer of 2002. The responsible official will consider the comments, 
responses, environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS, and 
applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making decisions 
regarding these revisions. The responsible official will document the 
decisions and reasons for the decisions in a Record of Decision for the 
revised Plan. The decision will be subject to appeal in accordance with 
36 CFR 217.

    Dated: September 7, 1999.
Lyle Laverty,
Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, USDA Forest Service.
[FR Doc. 99-25099 Filed 9-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-HJ-M