[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 10, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61242-61246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29354]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Bighorn 
National Forest located in Sheridan, Johnson, Big Horn, and Washakie 
Counties, Wyoming

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 
in conjunction with revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan 
for the Bighorn 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 
Bighorn 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 January 31, 2000. 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 February of 2001. The Forest Service expects to file a Final 
Environmental Impact Statement in February of 2002.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Abigail R. Kimbell, Forest 
Supervisor, Bighorn National Forest, 1969 South Sheridan Avenue, 
Sheridan, Wyoming 82801.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Daniels, Forest Planner, (307 672-
0751) or Joel Strong, Alternate Planning Team Leader (307 672-0751).

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 Bighorn 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 October 4, 1985.
    The United States has a unique legal relationship with Native 
American tribal governments as set forth in the Constitution of the 
United States, treaties, statutes, Executive orders and Court 
decisions. The Forest Service will establish regular and meaningful 
consultation and collaboration with the tribal nations on a government 
to government basis.
    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) 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 Ribers Act) to Congress.

Need for Change In The Current Forest Plan

    Since our existing Forest Plan was approved in 1985, experience in 
implementing the plan and monitoring the effects of that implementation 
indicates that we need to make some changes in management direction.

[[Page 61243]]

Several other sources have also highlighted the need for changes in the 
current Forest Plan. These sources include:
     Public involvement which has identified new information, 
issues and public values.
     Monitoring and scientific research which have identified 
new information and knowledge gained.
     Forest plan implementation which has identified management 
concerns, particularly, the inability of current standards and 
guidelines to be met while providing projected outputs of forest 
products in our existing plan.
     New Management Area (MA) Prescriptions have been developed 
since the 1985 Plan was approved. These need to be adapted with goals 
and objectives clearly defined. Management Area boundaries need to be 
evaluated and mapped.

Preparing the Plan and EIS

    An interdisciplinary team is conducting the environmental analysis 
and will prepare 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 will develop a list of forestwide standards and 
guidelines; identify draft management areas; and develop the 
corresponding management area themes, settings, desired condition 
statements, and management area-specific standards and guidelines. 
These will then be used to develop alternatives to the proposed action 
for the revised Forest Plan.

The Proposed Action

Major Revision Topics

    We have identified the following five major revision topics through 
annual Forest Plan monitoring reports, review of regulations, internal 
Forest Service discussions, and discussions with the public:

 Biological Diversity
 Timber Suitability and Management of Forested Lands
 Roadless Area Allocation and Management
 Special Areas
 Travel Dispersed and Recreation Management

    The topics represent areas where we identified a significant need 
for change (discussed above) or where regulations require analysis. 
There will also be secondary revision topics that are also important 
issues, however they are not likely substantial or widespread enough to 
be major drivers in the alternative themes. Management of riparian 
lands on the Forest, elk security, and designation of areas appropriate 
for utility lines and hydro electric power production are examples of 
other issues that will be addressed.
    The Forest Service has recently adopted a new resource agenda. This 
new approach, A Natural Resource Agenda for the 21st Century, will be 
the foundation for National Forest Management into the 21st century.
    There are four key elements in the agenda:

(1) Watershed health and restoration
(2) Sustainable forest ecosystem management
(3) Forest Roads
(4) Recreation

    Another important development was passage of 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 written in 
1997, focuses on three goals:

(1) Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems
(2) Provide Multiple Benefits for People Within the Capabilities of 
Ecosystems
(3) Ensure Organizational Effectiveness

    The revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Bighorn 
National Forest will be built on principles of integrated ecosystem 
management. This appraoch will address many of the concerns and 
monitoring recommendations identified with the 1985 Plan.
    Watershed health, and restoration will be important components of 
the analysis and Plan. Sustainable forest ecosystems and forest roads 
will also be important considerations as the Plan is revised. Finally, 
recreation will be featured in the special area and travel management 
revision topics.
    The Revised Forest Plan will include a monitoring strategy to 
measure how effectively the Plan meets stated goals and objectives. In 
keeping with GPRA and the Natural Resource Agenda, this strategy will 
focus on outcomes and desired resource conditions rather than outputs.
    As part of the proposed action, the following changes are suggested 
for each of the revision topics:

Biological Diversity

    Current 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 heterogenous 
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 in generally small patches. The 
current plan contains two Research Natural Area which feaure biological 
diversity related features.
    Need for Revision: The following concerns with biological diversity 
have been identified from monitoring and public scoping and indicate a 
need for change.
     Public interest in biological diversity and how best to 
maintain it has grown substantially since the Forest Plan was approved 
over a decade ago.
     Biological diversity or various aspects of it (such as 
threatened, endangered, and sensitive species management and forest 
health) have been significant 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 to be incorporated into the revised plan, 
particularly the principles of ecosystem management, with attention 
given to managing on more of a landscape scale.
    Proposed Action: The proposed action is based on monitoring, 
preliminary analysis, and public input and includes the following 
actions which will be disclosed in one or more of the draft EIS 
alternatives:
     Allocating larger blocks of roadless areas to 
prescriptions with an emphasis on late successional forests and natural 
disturbance processes.
     Emulating natural landscape patch size in many areas where 
timber harvest is allowed.
     Increased use of prescribed fire both within and outside 
of Wilderness through natural and human ignitions.
     Aggressive treatment of noxious weed populations through 
various means, including mechanical, biological and chemical control.
     Exclude or modify some existing uses to better protect 
species at risk and to maintain or improve species viability and 
biological diversity.

Timber Suitability and Management of Forested Lands

    Current Direction: Currently the Forest Plan allocates 
approximately 92% of the tentatively suited lands in management area 
prescriptions to timber management. Timber

[[Page 61244]]

management is practiced across these management areas, with differing 
management emphases and intentions. The current Plan originally set the 
allowable sale quantity (ASQ) for the Bighorn National Forest at 149 
million board feet per decade (14.9 million board feet per year). 
Actual volume sold has fallen well short of the projected levels. Since 
1995 the amount of green sawtimber that can be offered for sale has 
been administratively ``capped'' at 4.8 million board feet annually 
until the Forest Plan is revised. Less than 20% of the suited lands are 
outside of inventoried roadless areas.
    Need for Revision: The following indicate a need for change in the 
management of forested lands:
     Projected harvest levels in the current plan are not being 
achieved.
     Current projected harvest levels and certain prescribed 
standards and guidelines, particularly associated with visuals and 
wildlife are not compatible.
     Reevaluaton 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 often in conflict with other multiple use 
objectives.
     Current forest conditions indicate treatments for products 
other than sawlogs are needed.
    Proposed Action: The following actions will be proposed in one or 
more of the EIS alternatives.
     The Forest land base will be classified into various 
categories of suitability for timber production within each 
alternative.
     The allowable sale quantity and long-term sustained yield 
capacity will be identified for each Plan alternative. Recent analysis 
indicates that the current ASQ cannot be sustained.
     New and revised goals, objectives, standards, and 
guidelines will be proposed for harvest prescriptions and logging 
systems.
     Recommended and allowable timber prescriptions will be 
adjusted, both in terms of harvest methods and spatial limits, to 
account for recent information relative to the historic range of 
variation and natural disturbance regimes on the Bighorns.

Roadless Area Allocation and Management

    Current Direction: The President signed the Wyoming Wilderness Act 
of 1984 (PL 98-550) which designated the 189,039 Cloud Peak Wilderness 
on the Bighorn National Forest. 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. 
Approximately 69 percent of the Forest is now classified as roadless.
    Need for Revision: 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 
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 the roadless areas to varying management 
area prescriptions with an emphasis on late successional forest and 
natural disturbances.

Special Areas

    The Bighorn National Forest includes several unique or outstanding 
areas or resources of physical, biological, or social interest. 
Collectively these are referred to as ``special areas''. They may 
include Wilderness (also discussed above); Wild and Scenic Rivers; 
Research Natural Areas; and other special areas with scenic, 
historical, cultural, geological, archaeological, or other outstanding 
characteristic.
    Current Direction: In the current plan, there is one management 
area designated specifically for Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Little Big 
Horn and Tongue Rivers were determined to be eligible as potential 
additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Designation of 
the Little Big Horn as Wild and Scenic was recommended to Congress. 
Congress did not act to officially designate the river, however both 
remain under the wild and scenic management prescription and their 
unique qualities are currently safeguarded by specific standards and 
guidelines.
    As mentioned above the Cloud Peak Wilderness area currently 
consists of 189,039 acres. The Forest Plan was amended in 1998 to 
revise the standards and guidelines used to manage this Wilderness.
    The current plan designated two Research Natural Areas (RNAs), Bull 
Elk Park (718 acres) and Shell Canyon (730 acres). Several additional 
areas have been inventoried for possible additions in cooperation with 
the University of Wyoming.
    Based on current data, there is a heritage resource for every 92 
acres of land surveyed, or approximately 7 sites per section on the 
Bighorn National Forest. These range from the nationally recognized 
Medicine Wheel National Historic Landmark, to numerous lesser known 
historic and prehistoric sites and properties. Another important 
component of the Forests heritage resources is the recognition and 
protection of Native American Indian spiritual sites.
    Need for Revision: 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 portions of two eligible rivers, the Little Big Horn and 
the Tongue, 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 into the Wild and Scenic River System.
    The Forest Service is also required, where applicable, to recommend 
designations of other special areas such as additions to Wilderness (36 
CFR 219.17).
    Authority to establish RNA's is delegated to the Chief of the 
Forest Service at 7 CFR 2.60(a) and 36 CFR 251.23 and shall be made 
during the planning process. Several potential additions have been 
recently inventoried.
    Better direction needs to be established for the management of the 
abundant cultural and historic resources on the Bighorn National 
Forest. Of particular need is to incorporate the Heritage Protection 
Plan around Medicine Mountain, including the Medicine Wheel National 
Historic Landmark.
    Proposed Action:
     Rivers and streams determined to be eligible for potential 
inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System will be examined. The 
next step in the process, the suitability analysis and recommendation 
to Congress, will not be done as part of this revision.
     Existing roadless areas will be examined for possible 
recommendation as additions to the Cloud Peak Wilderness Area.
     Areas on the Forest that have been recently inventoried 
for RNA values will be examined and considered as possible additions to 
the RNA program to help meet regional and national goals.
     The protection and management of cultural and historic 
resources will be revised and updated. Of particular need is an 
increased awareness of Native American sacred sites.

[[Page 61245]]

Travel and Dispersed Recreation Management

    Current Direction: The demand on the Bighorn Forest for motorized 
use is significant. Four-wheel drive and all terrain vehicle (ATV) 
interests want continuing opportunities for off-road and primitive road 
use. Other recreationists participating in nonmotorized recreation 
activities are demanding fewer roads and trails be open to motorized 
use. The existing 1985 Forest Plan incorporated the 1983 travel 
management plan and map by reference. This travel map has been updated 
and corrected periodically since 1985.
    Dispersed recreation includes all those activities that occur 
outside developed site i.e. campgrounds and picnic areas. Currently, 
approximately 60% of total recreation user days on the Forest is 
dispersed recreation. Estimates indicate this use is increasing at 
about 2% per year. This level of demand is limiting opportunities for 
dispersed camping, particularly on weekends and high use times of the 
year.
    Need for Revision: Issues and management concerns related to travel 
management have increased significantly since the 1985 Plan was signed. 
Use figures for traditional recreation travel, such as pleasure 
driving, horseback riding, and motorbiking have grown steadily. Other 
used and demands, such as all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and 
mountain bikes have dramatically increased over the last decade. 
Resource impacts and user conflicts have increased proportionately with 
the increased demand. There is very little specific direction in the 
existing plan for travel management.
    Likewise, many activities associated with dispersed recreation use 
are creating unacceptable impacts on the land. These include the 
destruction of riparian areas around dispersed camping sites and 
popular fishing streams, impacts on water quality at popular dispersed 
recreation sites resulting from the improper disposal of litter, 
garbage, and human waste. The destruction of vegetation and the 
development of ``human browse lines'' from collecting firewood in 
heavily used areas, recreational stock damage, including tree girdling, 
root exposure, soil compaction, and the widening and pioneering of new 
roads and trails, often in environmentally sensitive areas are also 
management concerns.
    Proposed Action: The following actions will be proposed in one or 
more EIS alternatives:
     Identify an updated road and trail transportation network 
that provides an environmentally sound and socially responsive travel 
management system which is consistent across the Forest and well 
coordinated with adjacent private and public lands.
     Designate permanent or seasonal travel restrictions on 
those routes that will be decommissioned. Identify new road and trail 
locations or alignments that are needed to enhance travel needs or 
protect recourse values.
     Clearly specify whether or under what conditions motorized 
use is allowed in each management area (MA) prescription; provide 
appropriate standards and guidelines.
     Provide the programmatic Forest wide direction and 
``Framework'' for a site specific travel management plan that is 
responsive to the issues developed in the revision process. A separate 
decision will be made on the site specific travel plan.
     Eliminate cross-country motorized travel except on 
designated routes.
     Adoption of those portions of the pending ``Roads Analysis 
Process'' which are specified for forest-level planning, when the 
policy becomes final.
     The revision of dispersed recreation standards and 
guidelines will be considered concurrently with travel management 
proposals to insure consistency.
     Begin a pilot program of ``designated dispersed camping'' 
ie camping only at designated sites that provide no facilities. 
Construct toilets and/or require self-contained units in highly 
impacted 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 
following proposed action and changes to the revision topics. We 
encourage the public to comment on this specific proposal. Focusing on 
the following 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 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 the spring of 2000.
    We will develop a broad range of alternatives (including the No 
Action Alternative) to the proposed action based on the comments 
received and on further analysis. Accordingly, we expect the 
alternatives 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 on the Forests web site, (www.fs.fed.us./r2/
bighorn) and various public meetings. The first public meeting will be 
held after the Analysis of the Management Situation is completed in the 
spring of 2000. Meeting dates will be well published through the media 
mentioned above.

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 February 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 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 (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 proposal 
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.

[[Page 61246]]

    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.
    After the comment period ends on the DEIS, 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 
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 217.

    Dated: November 1, 1999.
Lyle Laverty,
Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region.
[FR Doc. 99-29354 Filed 11-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M