[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47160-47163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-22599]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

[[Page 47161]]


ACTION: Scoping notice to prepare an Environmental Assessment.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are 
cooperating in the preparation of an environmental assessment on a 
proposal to implement new management direction for the Canada lynx for 
national forests and BLM units within the Northern Rocky Mountain area. 
More specifically, the proposal would amend 18 land and resource 
management plans for national forests in Idaho, Montana, Utah and 
Wyoming, and 18 BLM land use plans in Idaho and Utah. (Hereafter Forest 
Service land and resource management plans and BLM land use plans are 
referred to as land management plans, or plans). The Forest Service is 
the lead agency.
    Forest Service administrative units included in this amendment are 
the Idaho Panhandle, Clearwater, Nez Perce, Kootenai, Flathead, Lolo, 
Lewis and Clark, Helena, Bitterroot, Beaverhead Deerlodge, Gallatin and 
Custer National Forests located in the Northern Region or Region 1; the 
Bighorn, and Shoshone National Forests located in the, Rocky Mountain 
Region or Region 2, and the Salmon-Challis, Targhee, Ashley, and 
Brigder-Teton National Forests located in the Intermountain Region or 
Region 4. BLM administrative units affected by this effort include the 
Salt Lake Field Office in Utah, and the Upper Snake River District, 
Lower Snake River District, and Upper Columbia-Salmon Clearwater 
District in Idaho. A more detailed description of affected BLM plans 
will be provided in the near future in a separate notice as required by 
the Department of Interior.
    The purpose of the proposal is to incorporate management direction 
for the Canada lynx based on new information regarding lynx developed 
since the issuance of the land management plans. If approved, the 
amendment would establish management direction that conserves and 
promotes recovery of the Canada lynx by promoting restoration of lynx 
habitat, and reducing or eliminating adverse effects from management 
activities on these lands, while preserving the overall multiple-use 
direction in existing plans. This direction will ensure compliance with 
the requirements of the National Forest Management Act, the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of analysis should be postmarked 
on or before October 26, 2001. Open houses will be held throughout the 
affected area. Meeting dates may be found in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment, 
Attn: Jon Haber, Project Manager, Northern Region Headquarters, PO BOX 
7669, Missoula, MT 59807.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia Hogan, Public Affairs Officer, 
(406) 329-3300. Information regarding lynx and the planning process can 
also be found on the Northern Region website at http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/lynx.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Canada lynx inhabit moist coniferous forests that experience cold, 
snowy winters and provide a prey base of snowshoe hare. In the United 
States, lynx occur mostly on Federal lands, especially in the west. The 
lynx occupies habitat on national forest lands in Regions 1, 2, 4, 6 
and 9 and BLM lands in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, 
Utah and Wyoming.
    On July 8, 1998 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed 
to list the Canada lynx as a threatened species. The Forest Service and 
BLM responded to the declining status of lynx in 1998 by establishing a 
science team of international experts in lynx ecology to collect and 
summarize scientific data. This effort resulted in the publication of 
``Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States.'' At the same 
time, another team of biologists developed the ``Lynx Conservation 
Assessment and Strategy'' (LCAS). Based on information compiled by the 
science team, the LCAS recommended conservation measures to be applied 
to all federal lands in the conterminous United States. The 
conservation measures of the LCAS focus on managing within the historic 
range of variability, maintaining dense understory conditions for prey, 
minimizing snow compaction, and identifying and maintaining 
connectivity within and between habitat areas.
    In December 1999, the Forest Service and BLM prepared a Biological 
Assessment (BA) of 57 Forest Service and 56 BLM land management plans. 
The BA determined that the plans were likely to adversely affect lynx 
because they did not contain direction to conserve lynx. The agencies 
consulted on the plans by submitting the BA to the USFWS.
    In February 2000, five Regional Foresters and four USFWS Regional 
Directors signed a ``Lynx Conservation Agreement,'' to promote the 
conservation of lynx and its habitat. In August 2000, the BLM Assistant 
Director for Renewable Resources and Planning and USFWS Regional 
Directors in Regions 1 and 6 signed a similar Conservation Agreement. 
Both agreements require the agencies to review and consider the 
recommendations in the LCAS prior to making any new decision to 
undertake actions in lynx habitat. In addition, the agreements say that 
changes in management direction will be made through amendment or 
revision. In March 2001, the Forest Service developed a schedule to 
amend or revise plans to address the lynx.
    The USFWS listed the lynx as threatened, effective April 24, 2000. 
The USFWS concluded that the chief threat to the lynx in the contiguous 
United States was the lack of guidance to conserve the species in 
federal land management plans.
    Formal consultation, as required by the Endangered Species Act, was 
completed on October 25, 2000 when the USFWS issued a Biological 
Opinion on the plans. The USFWS concluded in its opinion that the plans 
as implemented in conjunction with the Conservation Agreement, are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the lynx.
    In accordance with the agreed upon schedule, this Northern Rockies 
Lynx Amendment will implement the planning aspect of the Conservation 
Agreements for 18 national forests in Regions 1, 2, and 4, and four BLM 
units in the states of Idaho and Utah. The national forests included in 
this amendment are: The Idaho Panhandle, Clearwater, Nez Perce, Lolo, 
Kootenai, Flathead, Lewis and Clark, Helena, Bitterroot, Beaverhead-
Deerlodge, Gallatin and Custer National Forests in Region 1; the 
Shoshone and Bighorn National Forests in Region 2; and the Salmon-
Challis, Targhee, Ashley and Bridger-Teton National Forests in Region 
4. The BLM units include the Salt Lake Field Office in Utah, and the 
Upper Snake River District, Lower Snake River District, and Upper 
Columbia-Salmon Clearwater District in Idaho.
    Eleven national forests in the Northern Rocky Mountain area are not 
included in this amendment. In Region 4 the Payette, Boise, Sawtooth, 
Caribou, Wasatch-Cache, and Unita National Forests are currently 
revising their plans. Information from this amendment process may be 
used in developing those plans. In Region 6, the Colville, Umatilla, 
Wallowa-Whitman, Malheur, and Ochoco National Forests will

[[Page 47162]]

address lynx through a separate process at a late date. The Forest 
Service is currently addressing lynx in the Southern Rocky Mountain 
area through a separate amendment process (Federal Register, Vol. 65, 
No. 127, 40601-40606.)
    BLM units covered in this amendment are limited to those in Idaho 
and Utah. BLM units in Montana and Wyoming will address lynx in 
separate processes and are not included in this proposal.
    The Forest Service and BLM believe that whenever practical, 
management direction should be developed at the local level. However, 
with lynx, new scientific information affecting many plans needs to be 
addressed promptly and consistently. The Forest Service and BLM expect 
this amendment process to expeditiously update the affected plans with 
improved lynx management direction.
    Once this amendment is in place, individual plans may be amended or 
revised, as needed, to respond to local conditions concerning the lynx. 
Seventeen of the 18 national forest plans proposed to be amended by 
this decision will likely be revised within the next few years. (The 
Targhee National Forest revised their plan in 1999). The BLM has 
recently started revision or replacement of existing plans and 
anticipates that all out-of-date plans will be replaced within the next 
few years.
    For these reasons the scope of this multi-plan amendment has been 
narrowly defined to provide consistent management direction that 
conserves and promotes recovery of the Canada lynx on a broad-scale. 
Future changes to individual plans could include changes to the 
direction contained in this amendment. Formal consultation with the 
USFWS would have to be re-initiated if analysis shows an amendment or 
revision is likely to adversely affect lynx.

Purpose and Need

    The purpose and need for the proposed amendments is:
    To establish management direction that conserves and promotes 
recovery of the Canada lynx, by reducing or eliminating adverse effects 
from land management activities on these national forests and BLM 
lands, while preserving the overall multiple-use direction in existing 
plans. This direction will assure compliance with the requirements of 
the National Forest Management Act, the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act, and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
    Direction is needed to guide project level decisions:
    1. To maintain or improve Canada lynx habitat so the lynx can 
recover; and
    2. To avoid or reduce adverse effects from a spectrum of management 
activities.
    To achieve the stated purpose, the selected amendment must provide 
a level of lynx conservation and recovery comparable to the LCAS.
    The Forest Service and BLM expect to consider alternatives for the 
whole planning area, rather than treating each plan individually. Such 
an approach would streamline ESA consultation with USFWS. The Lynx 
Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS concluded that ``* * * if Plans 
are amended or revised incorporating conservation measures in the LCAS, 
or the equivalent thereof * * * the plans would likely not jeopardize 
the continued existence of lynx'' (p. 54).

Proposed Action

    The Forest Service in the Northern Region, the Rocky Mountain 
Region, the Intermountain Region, and the Bureau of Land Management 
propose to amend 18 land and resource management plans for national 
forests in Idaho, Montana, Utah and Wyoming, and 18 BLM land use plans 
in Idaho and Utah. The proposed amendment would add management 
direction to these plans. Details of the proposed action may be found 
on the Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/lynx.html.
    The proposal is designed to provide for conservation and recovery 
of the Canada lynx, a threatened species. It is based on management 
recommendations in the ``Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and 
Strategy'' (August 2000), the ``Biological Assessment of the Effects of 
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans and Bureau of Land 
Management Land Use Plans on Canada Lynx'' (December 1999), the ``Lynx 
Biological Opinion'' (October 2000), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service's ``Final Listing Rule,'' Federal Register, Volume 65, Number 
127, 40601-40606 (March 24, 2000).
    The proposed action reorganizes the LCAS conservation measures to 
fit into Forest and BLM land management plan format. The analysis 
procedures specified in the LCAS would be addressed through the use of 
agency directives systems or correspondence, but would not be included 
in the plans.
    An Environmental Assessment is being prepared to evaluate and 
determine the significance of the effects of the proposed action, and 
to look at alternative ways of achieving the purpose and need.

Decision Framework

    The Responsible Officials will decide:
     Whether or not an Environmental Impact Statement is 
warranted.
     Whether or not to amend National Forest and BLM land 
management plans to incorporate direction on lynx conservation and 
recovery, and if so what that direction would contain.
    Due to agency specific planning regulations, the BLM and Forest 
Service will publish separate decision documents for their respective 
amendments.

Responsible Officials

    The responsible officials are Kathleen McAllister, Acting Regional 
Forester, Northern Region, Region 1, PO Box 7669, Missoula, Montana 
59807; Rick Cables, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, Region 2, 
PO Box 25127, Lakewood, CO 80225; Jack Blackwell, Regional Forester, 
Intermountain Region, Region 4, Federal Building, 324 25th Street, 
Ogden, UT 84401; Martha Hahn, BLM State Director for Idaho, 1387 South 
Vinnell Way, Boise, ID 83709; and Sally Wisely, BLM State Director for 
Utah, 324 South State Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84145.
    Kathleen McAllister has been delegated the authority to direct the 
preparation of the environmental analysis.

Public Involvement

    The Forest Service and BLM are seeking comments from individuals, 
organizations, tribal governments, and Federal, State, and local 
agencies that are interested or may be affected by the proposed action. 
While public participation is welcome at any time, comments received 
within 45 days of the publication of this notice will be especially 
useful in the preparation of the Environmental Assessment. Open houses 
associated with the project will be held to provide the public a better 
understanding of the proposed action and to gain an understanding of 
public issues and concerns. The following meetings have been scheduled 
at this time; others may be scheduled as needed:

September 21: Sheridan, Wyoming
September 24: Billings, Montana
September 25: Idaho Falls, Idaho
September 26: Hamilton, Montana
September 27: Helena, Montana
September 27: Great Falls, Montana
September 27: Cody, Wyoming
October 2: Challis, Idaho
October 2: Grangeville, Idaho
October 3: Orofino, Idaho
October 3: Missoula, Montana
October 4: Salmon, Idaho

[[Page 47163]]

October 10: Libby, Montana
October 10: Bozeman, Montana
October 10: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
October 11: Kalispell, Montana
October 17: Dillon, Montana

    Further information regarding the locations, times, changes or 
additions to the open houses will be announced in local newspapers, and 
other news media, and will be available from the local offices of the 
Forest Service and BLM.
    Information from the meetings and public comment will be used in 
preparation of the Environmental Assessment. The purpose of the scoping 
process is to identify issues that can be used to develop alternatives 
and to identify the level and scope of analysis.
    The scoping process will be used to evaluate whether or not an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is warranted. If an EIS is 
warranted then the written comments resulting from this notice will be 
used to determine the scope of alternatives and effects in the EIS.

Preliminary Issues

    Some preliminary issues have been identified and are listed below. 
Other issues may be identified once scoping is completed.
    Snowshoe hares, the lynx primary prey, require dense sapling cover. 
The adoption of new management direction may affect some areas where 
precommercial thinning may take place. The direction would defer 
precommercial thinning within lynx habitat until the stands no longer 
provide snowshoe hare habitat. This would benefit snowshoe hare by 
providing a necessary habitat component, but may result in increases in 
insect and disease damage to trees, and potentially in the long-term 
increased risk of stand replacing wildfires.
    Lynx utilize down logs or root wads as den sites. The adoption of 
new management direction may affect timber harvest practices in order 
to provide habitat for lynx denning. The direction would provide 
limitations on salvage harvest under certain conditions. This would 
provide necessary habitat for lynx denning, but may result in increased 
fuel buildup in some areas.
    Young aspen and lodgepole stands provide good quality habitat for 
snowshoe hares. In addition, shrub-steppe habitats provide an important 
habitat component in areas with naturally fragmented forests, 
particularly for movement and dispersal. The direction would require 
that livestock be managed to ensure that new growth of aspen and 
lodgepole pine is not impeded, and that certain habitat conditions in 
shrub-steppe habitats, riparian areas and willow carrs be maintained. 
This would provide necessary forage for snowshoe hares, and movement 
cover for lynx, but may reduce the area or timing of livestock grazing.
    Packed trails created by snowmobiles, cross-country skiers, dog 
sleds etc. may serve as travel routes for potential competitors and 
predators of lynx, especially coyotes. The adoption of new management 
direction may affect these kinds of recreational uses. The direction 
would only allow increases in groomed or designated and/or permitted 
over-the-snow routes, and designated snow play areas where grooming or 
designation would serve to consolidate use and result in no net 
increase of snow compacted areas. This would benefit the lynx by 
limiting predator access, but could also result in limiting 
opportunities to increase winter recreation.
    Ski areas and four-season resorts may affect lynx denning, 
foraging, security habitats and the ability for lynx to move between 
areas. The direction requires certain types lynx habitat be retained 
and that expansion not create barriers to lynx movement and dispersal. 
This would provide necessary habitat components, but could result in 
limitations on ski area expansion or new developments.
    Highways, land development and other uses can fragment large tracts 
of land and the movement of lynx between blocks of habitat. The 
adoption of new management direction may affect activities within areas 
of National Forest and BLM lands that link blocks of lynx habitat. The 
direction requires that activities maintain and restore habitat 
connectivity, through use of highway crossings, retaining public 
ownership, and ensuring that new developments do not impair 
connectivity. This would benefit the lynx by providing movement 
corridors, but may affect opportunities for additional development or 
type of development on public lands.
    Based on public comments, the issues will be refined and used to 
develop alternatives and determine the scope of the environmental 
analysis.

Estimated Dates for Filing

    The Forest Service and BLM expects the Environmental Assessment to 
be released for public, agency, and tribal government comment in early 
2002, with a final decision expected in the fall of 2002.

The Reviewer's Obligation To Comment

    The Forest Service and BLM believe it is important to give 
reviewers notice at this early stage of several court rulings related 
to public participation in the environmental review process. First, 
reviewers 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 during comment of environmental 
assessment but that are not raised until after a decision is issued may 
be waived or dismissed by the courts (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 45-day comment period 
so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the 
Forest Service and BLM at a time when it can meaningfully consider them 
and respond to them in the final environmental assessment.
    To assist the Forest Service and BLM in identifying and considering 
issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the 
environmental assessment should be as specific as possible. It is also 
helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the 
analysis. Comments may also address the adequacy of the environmental 
assessment or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed 
in the statement. 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.

    Dated: August 30, 2001.
Monica J. Schwalbach,
Acting Deputy Regional Forester.
[FR Doc. 01-22599 Filed 9-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M