[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 194 (Thursday, October 7, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54609-54613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26175]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the 
Medicine Bow National Forest, Albany County, Carbon County, Converse 
County, Natrona County, Platte County, WY

AGENCY: USDA 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 Medicine Bow National Forest.

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

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 
Medicine Bow National Forest. This notice describes the proposed 
action, 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: The public is asked to provide comments identifying and 
considering issues, concerns, and the scope of analysis with regard to 
the proposed action, in writing by November 15, 1999. The Forest 
Service expects to file a Draft Environmental Impact Statement with the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and make it available for public 
comment in October of 2000. The Forest Service expects to file a Final 
Environmental Impact Statement in December of 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Jerry E. Schmidt, Forest 
Supervisor, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, 2468 Jackson Street, 
Laramie, Wyoming 82070.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Dee Hines, Forest Planner, (307) 745-
2473.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: 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 of the Land and 
Resource Management Plan (hereafter referred to as Forest Plan or 
Plan--for the Medicine Bow National Forest. 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 
November 20, 1985.
    The Forest Service is the lead agency in this revision effort. The 
state of Wyoming, by and through the Office of Federal Land Policy, is 
a Cooperating Agency (40 CFR 1501.6) by virtue of special expertise. 
The Rocky Mountain Regional Forester is the Deciding Officer and 
Responsible Official.
    Forest plans describe the intended management of National Forests. 
Agency decisions in these plans do the following:
    1. Establish multiple-use goals and objectives (36 CFR 219.11 (b)).
    2. Establish forestwide management standards and guidelines 
applying to future activities (resource integration requirements, 36 
CFR 219.13 to 219.27).
    3. Establish management areas and management area direction 
(management area prescriptions)

[[Page 54610]]

applying to future activities in that management area (resource 
integration and minimum specific management requirements) 36 CFR 
219.11(c).
    4. Establish monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR 
219.11(d)).
    5. 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).
    6. Where applicable, recommend designations of special areas such 
as Wilderness (36 CFR 219.17) and Wild and Scenic Rivers (The Wild and 
Scenic Rivers Act) to Congress.

Need for Change in the Current Forest Plan

    The existing Forest Plan was approved in 1985. In addition to the 
regulatory requirement to revise Forest Plans every 10 to 15 years, our 
experience in implementing the plan and monitoring the effects of that 
implementation indicates that we need to make some changes in 
management direction. Several other sources have also highlighted the 
need for changes in the current Forest Plan. These sources include the 
following:
     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.
    Many concerns about management direction in the current plan result 
from a lack of integration of the various resources areas in the plan. 
An ecosystems-based approach to strategic planning, also called 
ecosystem management, offers an opportunity to address and achieve this 
needed integration. Ecosystem management is the management of natural 
resources to maintain or restore the sustainability of ecosystems, 
thereby providing multiple benefits to present and future generations. 
It recognizes the biological, physical, and human dimension of 
ecosystems.
    Since the Medicine Bow Plan was approved in 1985, the Forest 
Service has adopted a new agenda. This new approach, A National 
Resource Agenda for the 21st Century, will be the foundation for 
national forest management into the 21st century. There are four key 
areas in the new agenda:
    1. Watershed health and restoration.
    2. Sustainable forest ecosystem management.
    3. Forest roads.
    4. Recreation.
    Other developments include the Government Performance and Results 
Act (GPRA) which was passed in 1993. This act directs the preparation 
of periodic strategic plans by federal agencies. The first strategic 
plan for the Forest Service was written in 1997 and centers around the 
following three goals:
    1. Ensure sustainable ecosystems.
    2. Provide multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of 
ecosystems.
    3. Ensure organizational effectiveness.
    Ecosystem management, the Natural Resource Agenda for the 21st 
Century, and the GPRA Strategic Plan each concentrate and focus on 
outcomes and desired resource conditions, the results of management. 
These changes need to be incorporated into the Forest Plan.

Prepearing the Plan and EIS

    An interdisciplinary team is conducting the environmental analysis 
and preparing an environmental impact statement associated with 
revision of the Forest Plan. This interdisciplinary team will also 
prepare the revised Forest Plan. As part of this effort, the 
interdisciplinary team has already developed a list of forestwide 
standards and guidelines; identified 32 management areas; and developed 
the corresponding management area themes, settings, desired condition 
statements, and management area-specific standards and guidelines. 
These will be used to develop alternatives to the proposed action for 
the revised Forest Plan. This material is available at the Medicine Bow 
National Forest headquarters.

Proposed Action

    The revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Medicine Bow 
National Forest will be built on principles of ecosystem management. 
This integrated approach will address many of the questions about and 
concerns with the 1985 Plan. The revised Forest Plan and associated 
analysis will also respond to the four points in the new Forest Service 
agenda, a Natural Resource Agenda for the 21st Century. In addition, 
the goals of the GPRA Strategic Plan will be featured in the revised 
plan. Accordingly, the revised Forest Plan will concentrate on desired 
conditions of the resource and the outcomes of management actions.
    The Revised Forest Plan will include a monitoring strategy to 
measure how effectively the Plan meets stated goals and objectives. In 
keeping with the Natural Resource Agenda, this strategy will focus on 
outcomes and desired resource conditions rather than outputs.

Major Revision Topics

    We identified the following six revision topics through annual 
Forest Plan monitoring reports, review of regulations, internal Forest 
Service discussions, and discussions with the public through a series 
of open houses in communities adjacent to the National Forest:
     Biological Diversity.
     Timber Suitability and Management of Forested Lands.
     Recreation Opportunities.
     Roadless Area Allocation and Management.
     Wild and Scenic Rivers.
     Oil and Gas Leasing.
    The following sections discuss the current management direction, 
the need for change, and a proposed action for each of the revision 
topics.

Biological Diversity

Current Direction
    Direction in the current Plan is intended to produce a diversity of 
habitats well-distributed throughout the landscape. This approach to 
managing biological diversity produces a very heterogeneous landscape 
at a fine scale. Patches are small, with a high percentage of edge 
habitat. Patches are areas where the vegetation is similar in species, 
age, and size. Natural disturbance processes are generally controlled 
or suppressed. All habitats, including late successional forests are 
well-distributed but generally in small patches. The current plan 
contains one Research Natural Area and 6 Special Interest Areas which 
feature biological diversity-related features.
Need for Change
    Public interest in biological diversity and how best to maintain it 
has grown substantially since the current Forest Plan was approved in 
1985. Biological diversity or various aspects of it (such as 
threatened, endangered, and sensitive species management or forest 
health) have been issues in environmental analyses in recent years. The 
current plan's emphasis on heterogeneous habitats and exclusion of 
natural disturbance events has caused concerns about sustainability of 
the forested ecosystems.
    Direction in the current plan does not fully reflect the latest 
scientific information on land management planning. This new 
information needs

[[Page 54611]]

to be incorporated into the revised plan, particularly the principles 
of ecosystem management, with attention given to managing the system as 
a whole.
Proposed Action
    The proposed action is to increase the acreage where natural 
disturbance events (fire, insects and disease) are tolerated, increase 
the size of patches on the landscape, and provide increased acreage and 
larger blocks in late successional habitats. These goals would be 
accomplished through several methods, including the following:
     Allocating inventoried roadless areas to prescriptions 
with an emphasis on late successional forests and natural disturbance 
processes.
     Extending rotation ages and emulating natural landscape 
patch size in many areas where timber harvest is allowed.
    The use of fire as a management tool would also be increased, 
especially in ecosystems with a short or moderate fire return interval. 
In addition, the proposed action includes 5, and potentially 6 
additional Research Natural Areas (the current plan has 1). The current 
plan has 6 Special Interest Areas (SIAs); the proposed action adds 11. 
There would be changes to two of the current SIAs. One would be renamed 
and would increase in size; one would become an RNA. Many of the 
resulting 16 proposed SIA's would also feature biological diversity 
goals.

Timber Suitability and Management of Forested Lands

Current Direction
    The current Forest Plan allocates approximately two-thirds of the 
tentatively suited lands in 7 management area prescriptions to timber 
management. Timber management is practiced across these 7 management 
areas, with differing management emphases and intentions.
Need for Change
    The following indicate a need for change in the management of 
forested lands:
     Projected harvest levels in the current plan are not being 
achieved.
     There is concern over what constitutes sustainable harvest 
levels.
     Reevaluation of the tentatively suited lands is required 
at 10 years (36 CFR 219.12(k)(5)(ii)).
     Allocation of existing roadless areas to timber management 
prescriptions continues to be very controversial.
     Silvicultural prescriptions specified in various 
management areas are in conflict with other multiple use management 
activities in those areas.
     Current forest conditions indicate treatments for products 
other than sawlogs are needed.
Proposed Action
    Under the proposed action, timber harvest would continue in areas 
with an existing network of roads and past timber management 
activities. Timber management would not take place in areas where trees 
were not harvested in the past. Forest management actions would stress 
sustainable forest ecosystems and healthy watersheds. Timber stands 
would be managed as vigorous green forests. These forest health goals 
would be achieved through a variety of even- and uneven-aged 
silvicultural practices, including an emphasis on products other than 
sawlogs. Management intensity would vary across those lands allocated 
to timber production through a mix of silvicultural prescriptions and 
rotation ages.

Recreation Opportunities

Current Direction
    The current plan emphasizes roaded natural recreation opportunities 
which are accommodated by an extensive road system. Following project 
implementation, many roads have been closed but not obliterated to 
allow their use in future management activities. These road closures, 
combined with the Forest's off-road policy, have facilitated a new road 
system created by users.
    Under the current plan, there was an increase in semi-primitive ROS 
class opportunities. A key concern is the sporadic distribution of 
these opportunities which precludes true semi-primitive experiences.
Need for Change
    Recreation opportunities have not kept pace with increasingly 
diverse demands, and these demands are expected to increase as the 
population increases. Recreation-related controversy (i.e., conflicts 
between recreationists and management activities, conflicts between 
recreation users) have increased over the last 15 years. In many cases, 
management actions in the current Forest Plan are in conflict with the 
recreation objectives for a given management area.
    Motorized use has changed since the current plan was signed. In 
particular, there is more off-highway vehicle use on the Forest, 
creating a need to re-evaluate current travel management policies. 
Rather than imposing blanket restrictions, motorized uses and their 
distribution need to be addressed through management area allocations.
Proposed Action
    Under the proposed action, recreation opportunities would 
accommodate new and diverse demands. This would be achieved by the 
following:
     Increasing the amount of semi-primitive ROS classes.
     Connecting semi-primitive areas by way of new and existing 
roads and trails.
     Increasing and improving dispersed recreation 
opportunities using existing roads and trails and those developed for 
other management actions.
     Improving the settings in and around current facilities 
and providing opportunities and readily available amenities from these 
sites.
    The proposed action would maintain current dispersed recreation 
opportunities, and include consideration for these opportunities in 
future management activities. It would also include specific management 
area allocations for both motorized and nonmotorized activities. In 
addition, the proposed action would include direction to improve public 
access.
    The proposed action would not include additional developed 
facilities, rather the focus would be on improvements and bringing 
current facilities up to standard. Renovation of current facilities 
would focus on accessibility, improving setting amenities and other 
recreation opportunities, and providing areas for larger recreational 
vehicles.

Roadless Area Allocation and Management

Current Direction
    The President signed the Wyoming Wilderness Act of 1984 (PL 98-550) 
which designated three new wilderness areas on the Medicine Bow 
National Forest, in addition to the existing Savage Run Wilderness 
(14,930 acres). Areas designated by the 1984 Act include the Platte 
River Wilderness (22,749 acres), the Encampment River Wilderness 
(10,124 acres), and the Huston Park Wilderness (30,726 acres). The Act 
also released all remaining areas (those areas not designated as 
wilderness by the Act) to multiple-use management. The current plan 
allocates many of these remaining roadless areas to prescriptions which 
allow road building.
Need for Change
    Inventory of roadless areas is a requirement in the revision 
process (36 CFR 219.17). Management of inventoried roadless areas 
continues to be controversial. These conflicts are a

[[Page 54612]]

result of varying resource demands on the roadless areas.
Proposed Action
    The proposed action is to complete an inventory of roadless areas, 
evaluate these areas to determine wilderness potential (36 CFR 219.17), 
and allocate most of the roadless areas to varying management area 
prescriptions which retain the roadless character. Exceptions might be 
made on the Laramie Peak unit where ecosystem health goals may require 
more active management with limited road building.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Proposed Action
    In the current plan, there is no management area used specifically 
for Wild and Scenic Rivers. Designation of the North Platte and 
Encampment Rivers was recommended to Congress. Congress has not acted 
to officially designate either river, however they remain under the 
wilderness prescription, and their unique qualities are safeguarded by 
the wilderness standards and guidelines.
Need for Change
    The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended (December 31, 1992) and 
Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 8, direct the Forest Service 
to evaluate rivers for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River 
System during forest planning. Proposed designation of two eligible 
rivers, the North Platte and the Encampment, has not been acted on by 
Congress. These two rivers, as well as other rivers on the forest, need 
to be evaluated to determine their eligibility for inclusion in the 
Wild and Scenic River System.
Proposed Action
    The proposed action is to allocate all eligible rivers to wild and 
scenic river prescriptions accordingly. Two rivers, the North Platte 
and the Encampment, qualified for inclusion in the wild and scenic 
rivers program and would be protected under wild and scenic management 
prescriptions until a suitability determination is made. Both rivers 
have stretches that would qualify under the wild river prescription as 
well as scenic river prescription. Suitability determinations would be 
made with future site-specific analysis when the need arises.

Oil and Gas Leasing

Current Direction
    In the current plan, most of the analysis area is available for 
leasing, but no lands are authorized for leasing. Current Forest Plan 
standards and guidelines are followed, and leases would be issued on a 
lease by lease basis.
Need for Change
    In 1987, Congress passed the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing 
Reform Act (Leasing Reform Act). The Leasing Reform Act requires 
analysis that was not conducted for the 1985 Forest Plan.
Proposed Action
    The proposed action is to make most land available for leasing with 
specified stipulations. Stipulations would vary according to resource 
needs and the desired conditions of associated management areas.

Involving the Public

    The Regional Forester gives notice that the Forest is beginning an 
environmental analysis and decision making process for this proposed 
action. We encourage any interested or affected people to participate 
in the analysis and contribute to the final decision.
    We will provide opportunities for open public discussion of the 
proposed action including changes to the revision topics. We encourage 
the public to comment on this specific proposal. Focusing on the 
proposal will generate specific scoping comments on the revision topics 
and decisions to be made, and make the revision process more effective. 
The Analysis of the Management Situation contains baseline information, 
including the 32 management areas and the No Action Alternative, to 
help evaluate how the proposed action and the alternatives address the 
revision topics and the six decisions (listed previously) made in 
forest plan revisions. This information will be available in late 1999.
    We will develop a broad range of alternatives (including the No 
Action Alternative) to the proposed action based on the comment 
received and on further analysis. Accordingly, we expect the 
alternative considered and the final decision to vary from what is put 
forth in the proposed action.
    Public participation is invited throughout the revision process and 
will be especially important at several points during the process. We 
will make information available through periodic newsletters, news 
releases, the Internet (http://www.fs.fed.us/mrnf/rev/medrev/
medrev.htm), and various public meetings. The first public meetings 
will be held after the Analysis of the Management Situation is 
completed in late 1999. Meeting dates will be well published through 
the media mentioned above.

Cooperative Agencies

    The state of Wyoming, by and through the Office of Federal Land 
Policy, is a Cooperating Agency (40 CFR 1501.6) by virtue of special 
expertise in the areas of social assessment, public participation, and 
wildlife management.

Release and Review of the EIS

    The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is expected to be 
filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be 
available for public comment in October of 2000. 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 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 contention; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. 
v. NRDC. 435 U.S. 519,553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that 
could be raised at the DEIS stage but are not raised until after 
completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) may be 
waived or dismissed by the courts; City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F. 2d 
1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc., v. Harris, 
490 F. Supp. 1335, 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 on the proposed action, comments on the DEIS should be as 
specific as possible. It is also, helpful if comments refer to specific 
pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the 
adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and 
discussed in the statements. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council 
on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural 
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in 
addressing these points.

[[Page 54613]]

    After the comment period ends on the DEIS, comments will be 
analyzed, considered, and responded by the Forest Service in preparing 
the Final EIS. The FEIS, is scheduled to be completed in December of 
2001. The responsible official will consider the comments, responses, 
environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS, 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 
decision will be subject to appeal in accordance with 36 CFR Part 217.

    Dated: September 23, 1999.
Tom L. Thompson,
Acting Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region.
[FR Doc. 99-26175 Filed 10-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M