[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58384-58387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21265]



[[Page 58384]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests; Revised Land and 
Resource Management Plans for the Nez Perce and Clearwater National 
Forests

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service intends to prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to revise land and resource 
management plans (forest plans) for the Nez Perce and Clearwater 
National Forests pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5) and USDA Forest 
Service National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning 
regulations (36 CFR part 219). The revised forest plans will supersede 
the current forest plans, which the Regional Forester approved in 1987. 
A Notice of Intent to revise the Clearwater National Forest Plan was 
published May 8, 1995, in the Federal Register, vol. 60, no. 45, p. 
12733. This is a modification of that notice and adds the Nez Perce 
National Forest in this notice in order to provide a proposed action 
covering both forests for public review and comment. This notice 
describes the preliminary issues which will be emphasized, the 
estimated dates for filing the EIS, the information concerning public 
participation, and the names and addresses of the responsible agency 
official and the individual who can provide additional information.

DATES: The agency must receive comments on or before December 29, 2004. 
The Draft EIS is expected to be available for public review by July 
2005. The Final EIS and revised forest plans are expected to be 
completed by October 2006.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Nez Perce and Clearwater National 
Forests, Forest Plan Revision Content Analysis Team, Route 2 Box 191, 
Kamiah, ID 83536 or fax them to: (208) 935-2956. Comments may also be 
submitted using the comment form at http://www.fs.fed.us/cnpz/forest/contact/index.shtml.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elayne Murphy, Forest Plan Revision 
Public Affairs Officer, (208) 935-2513. Additional information will 
also be posted on the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests' 
planning Web page at http://www.fs.fed.us/cnpz/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Regional Forester for the Northern 
Region gives notice of the agency's intent to prepare an EIS to revise 
forest plans for the Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests. This 
notice revises the Notice of Intent for the Clearwater National Forest 
published on May 8, 1995, in Federal Register, vol. 60, no. 45, p. 
12733, by adding the Nez Perce National Forest in order to provide a 
proposed action covering both forests for public review and comment. 
The Regional Forester approved the original forest plans for both the 
Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests in 1987. These plans guide 
the overall management of the Nez Perce and Clearwater National 
Forests. Indicators of the need to revise these plans are: (1) Changes 
in forest conditions; (2) changes in public demands and expectations; 
(3) changes in law, policy or regulatory direction; (4) results of 
monitoring and evaluation of implementation under the current forest 
plans; (5) new science that indicates emerging issues, concerns or 
opportunities that are not adequately addressed in the current forest 
plans.
    Vision for Forest Plan Revision--Over the next 15 years, the agency 
proposes to utilize a variety of management tools to maintain healthy, 
resilient landscapes and watersheds that provide diverse recreation 
opportunities and a sustainable flow of forest products and amenities. 
To achieve this, the agency intends to retain the parts of existing 
forest plans that are current and working well, incorporate new 
information and make improvements where needed. Revised plans will 
reflect the main scientific, social and resource changes. Several major 
changes are proposed.

Change in Format

    Current Forest Plan Direction--Current plans communicate primarily 
through text and tables, supported with single maps of management 
areas.
    Why Change?--Geographic Information System (GIS) technology makes 
it possible to display most information and management direction on 
maps. This visual display is more meaningful for most people.
    Proposed Change--Forest plans will include more visual elements. 
Information and management direction will be displayed with maps 
whenever possible.

Change in Type of Direction

    Current Forest Plan Direction--Current forest plans are detail-
oriented, often providing specific direction for particular areas. In 
many cases they prescribe the management tools that should be used.
    Why Change?--The Northern Region Revision Strategy emphasizes the 
strategic nature of forest plans with an emphasis on desired future 
conditions. Site-specific decisions need to be made through project 
analysis. Managers need the option to use a variety of management 
tools.
    Proposed Change--Focus on developing strategic direction that 
emphasizes desired future conditions and objectives for larger areas of 
land with fewer standards and guidelines.

Change in Focus

    Current Forest Plan Direction--Direction was developed to achieve 
various levels of goods and services (outputs). Links to resource 
capabilities were not well established.
    Why Change?--Management emphasis has evolved over the years. 
Ecological principles are the basis for management actions. Outputs are 
the result of sound ecosystem management practices.
    Proposed Change--Focus on developing management strategies that 
result in healthy, resilient ecosystems where outputs are within long-
term resource capability and sustainability.

Change From Management Areas to Geographic Areas

    Current Forest Plan Direction--The size, design, and resource use 
emphasis of management areas in current forest plans make them 
difficult to locate on-the-ground. They also create challenges for 
integrated management of vegetation, aquatic resources, wildlife, 
recreation and other resources.
    Why Change?--Changing from the use of management areas to 
geographic areas with locatable boundaries and names that make sense to 
the public (place-based) will make it easier to display the activities 
and uses that will take place in specific areas of the national 
forests. The change facilitates an integrated approach to resource 
management. It also makes it easier for the public to focus their 
comments on locations.
    Proposed Change--Delineate the forests into twenty-seven geographic 
areas using locatable features such as streams, roads, or ridgelines. 
Identify the unique features within each geographic area as well as the 
desired future conditions, goals and objectives. Depict where various 
uses and activities are appropriate using a map, or series of maps, and 
tables.

Change in Emphasis

    Several major changes are proposed as a result of the Analysis of 
the Management Situation (http://www.fs.fed.us/cnpz/), based on 17 
years of forest plan implementation and monitoring, as well as recent 
scientific,

[[Page 58385]]

social, and resource changes. This analysis suggested five primary 
management revision topics: (1) Access management with a focus on 
motorized and non-motorized travel; (2) watersheds and aquatic 
ecosystems; (3) terrestrial ecosystems; (4) noxious weeds and (5) 
special designations and areas including management of roadless areas, 
historic sites, Research Natural Areas, and Wild and Scenic rivers.

Revision Topics

(1) Access Management

    Forest plan revision will focus on improving management direction 
for motorized and non-motorized access to the two national forests. The 
primary focus will be to protect and maintain natural resources while 
allowing motorized and non-motorized access. The scope of the analysis 
will encompass roads, trails and cross-country travel during the non-
winter and winter seasons.
    Current Forest Plan Direction--Current forest plans contain 
direction that provides for both motorized and non-motorized access. 
Both plans allow motorized use on designated routes (roads and trails) 
as well as cross-country travel on thousands of acres except in areas 
important for wildlife habitat, special recreation areas and designated 
Wilderness.
    Why Change?--Access to national forest lands is one of the most 
controversial topics in forest management today. Management strategies 
in 1987 forest plans need to be changed due to large increases in 
recreation demand, evolving technology (e.g. larger, more powerful off-
highway vehicles and snowmobiles), increasing conflicts between 
motorized and non-motorized users and resource impacts to watersheds 
and wildlife resulting from cross-country travel by motorized users.
    The distribution of motorized and non-motorized opportunities needs 
to be reviewed and updated to allow for public and tribal access while 
conserving or restoring forest resources.
    Proposed Action--Modify access management direction to specify 
where motorized and non-motorized use (both non-winter and winter) is 
allowed, restricted or prohibited. The modifications will be applied on 
an area (zoning) basis and will not address individual routes. This 
proposed emphasizes improving recreation opportunities on authorized 
summer and winter motorized routes; however, it is anticipated there 
will be a decrease in areas open for summer motorized use and in areas 
available for winter snowmobile use.

(2) Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystem Management

    New information and increased awareness of physical watershed 
condition and aquatic animals indicate a need to strengthen forest plan 
direction to conserve and restore aquatic resources. Findings from 
landscape-scale science assessments at the river basin, subbasin, and 
watershed scales brought to light new information regarding aquatic 
ecosystem conditions across the basin. The results of these assessments 
provide information to consider when revising land management 
objectives to better meet conservation and restoration goals.
    Current Forest Plan Direction--State and Federal designations under 
the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act have resulted in 
changes in the amounts, types, locations, and timing of a variety of 
uses, including the utilization of forest products. The Clearwater and 
Nez Perce forest plans were amended in 1995 to incorporate riparian and 
stream protections to halt watershed degradation and begin recovery of 
aquatic ecosystems with an emphasis on recovery needs of federally 
listed fish species. This change in Forest plan management direction 
reduced timber harvest and road construction potential relative to the 
1987 estimated levels. The 1995 forest plan amendments, referred to as 
PACFISH and INFISH, are interim direction intended to remain in effect 
until forest plans are amended or revised. Since the current Forest 
plans were approved, approximately 1,559 miles of stream segments 
within the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forest have been listed as 
``impaired,'' per Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
    Why Change?--There is a need to develop strategic management and 
monitoring direction to address current State of Idaho water quality 
impaired waters, and future streams and water bodies that are added or 
removed from the 303(d) list. There is a need to integrate goals and 
objectives of aquatic, riparian, upland forest, shrubland and grassland 
components that better reflect expected outputs and allowed uses to 
achieve watershed management goals while meeting commitments under the 
Endangered Species Act.
    Proposed Actions--
     Contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered 
species by adopting the majority of the interim management direction 
contained in INFISH and PACFISH, with minor modifications, such as 
revised riparian management objectives.
     Establish aquatic conservation areas and associated 
direction. Priorities will be assigned to areas with the highest 
potential for improvement.
     Integrate State of Idaho Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 
programs with management direction.

(3) Terrestrial Ecosystem Management

    Current Forest Plan Directions--The use of fire for resource 
benefits is available on portions of the forests. Road construction and 
timber harvest is allowed on most of the roaded base and over half of 
the Inventories Roadless Areas (IRAs). Exceptions were those IRAs 
proposed for Wilderness and those allocated to management for high 
quality fish habitat, recreation uses, and some big-game winter ranges. 
Planned harvest was designed to optimize timber production and 
regenerate timber stands. Soil restoration needs were not identified in 
the current forest plans.
    Why Change?--Both forests desire the flexibility to make more 
extensive use of fire to restore ecosystem functions, and reduce 
firefighting costs and risks to firefighter safety. During 17 years of 
forest plan implementation, small portions of some IRAs were developed 
through road construction and timber harvest; however, this level of 
development was much less than anticipated. Limited development was due 
to new scientific information, public concerns, decreasing budgets, 
changing priorities and changing national direction. Vegetation has 
changed due to wildfires, insect and disease outbreaks, fire exclusion, 
timber harvest, and drought. Terrestrial wildlife habitat needs were 
not fully integrated in management objectives. Changes have occurred in 
plants and animals listed as threatened, endangered or sensitive. 
Existing management indicator species have not been the best indicators 
of landscape management actions. Implementation monitoring indicates a 
need to adjust soil management direction in the plans.
    Proposed Actions--
     Update vegetation goals, objectives and standards to 
reflect a desired range of variation for species composition (species 
representation), structure (density and size), and disturbance 
(primarily insects, white pine blister rust, and fire).
     Emphasize timber harvest that stimulates the effects of 
natural disturbances to meet ecosystem goals. Recalculate suitable 
acres and allowable sale quantity using updating silvicultural 
prescriptions and yield tables to reflect vegetation goals, objectives 
and standards. It is anticipated road construction and

[[Page 58386]]

timber harvest will be reduced in IRAs. Timber harvest will be the 
primary tool in the roaded front country.
     Allow wildland fire use in more backcountry areas and 
expand the use of prescribed fire in undeveloped areas, including 
Wilderness.
     Incorporate soil productivity/soil restoration goals, 
objectives and standards.
     Update management indicator species direction to better 
reflect the effects of management actions and desired future 
conditions. Increase the integration of terrestrial wildlife habitat 
needs into the vegetation and fuels management strategies for both 
forests.
     Fully integrate forest plan direction to contribute to the 
recovery needs of federally listed terrestrial, aquatic and plant 
species, and prevent Forest Service sensitive species from becoming 
listed under the Endangered Species Act.

(4) Noxious Weed Management

    The establishment and spread of noxious weeds has greatly 
accelerated across the range and forestlands of both national forests. 
There is a need to update current management direction to adequately 
address noxious weeds and their effects on ecosystem composition, 
structure and function and their effects on commercial and non-
commercial use of forest resources.
    Current Forest Plan Direction--Current direction regarding noxious 
weed invasion and the loss of native, non-forest plant species is 
incomplete. Some direction for cooperatively managing weeds exists, but 
newly developed strategies have not been incorporated into existing 
forest plans. There is incomplete direction for establishing integrated 
weed management programs.
    Why Change?--Noxious weeds are crowding out native vegetation. 
Noxious weed management has become one of the agency's top priorities. 
Inter-government and agency cooperative weed management strategies have 
been developed. Cooperative weed management areas now exist. 
Prevention, education, control and restoration programs are growing.
    Proposed Actions--
     Update the forest plans by incorporating the Salmon River, 
Clearwater River and Palouse weed management area strategies as 
direction for noxious weed management.
     Develop objectives and standards to integrate noxious weed 
prevention, education and control. Maintain or increase the restoration 
of native, non-forested lands within the two national forests.

(5) Special Designations and Areas

    The public is interested in the designation of special areas such 
as Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers or Research Natural Areas. Tribal 
governments are interested in areas with historic and cultural 
significance. There is ongoing national controversy about the 
management of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) and recommending areas 
to be included in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 
Similarly, Forest Service recommendations for additions to the National 
Wild and Scenic Rivers System generate intense local, regional and 
national interests.
    Current Forest Plan Direction--Current forest plans provide 
direction for a variety of special areas. On the Clearwater National 
Forest six roadless areas are recommended for designation as 
Wilderness. No areas are recommended for Wilderness designation on the 
Nez Perce National Forest. The Clearwater plan allows motorized use in 
recommended Wilderness, particularly during winter months. This is 
inconsistent with direction for the Great Burn area on the adjacent 
Lolo National Forest. Seven rivers on the Clearwater National Forest 
and thirteen river segments on the Nez Perce National Forest are 
recommended additions to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Nine areas 
on the Clearwater National Forest and eight areas on the Nez Perce 
National Forest are recommended as Research Natural Areas. 
Approximately 85,000 acres in three distinct Geographic Display Areas, 
are designated as Multi-Resource Development Areas (MRDAs) in the Nez 
Perce forest plan. These areas were incorporated into a variety of 
management areas. The management areas provided direction for a variety 
of uses and activities including timber harvest, road construction and 
protection of important wildlife and visual resources.
    Why Change?--Planning regulations require each national forest to 
review and adjust areas to be recommended as Wilderness, Wild and 
Scenic Rivers, Research Natural Areas or other special areas. Portions 
of both Forests have been inventoried as roadless and need to be 
evaluated for recommendation as designated Wilderness. Rivers and 
streams need to be evaluated to determine which ones should eventually 
be recommended as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Potential 
Research National Areas need to be analyzed and recommended in the 
revised plan. Direction for other special areas needed to be reviewed 
and updated.
    Proposed Actions--
     Update the areas inventoried as roadless and determine 
which ones will be recommended to Congress for designation as 
Wilderness. Bring forward Wilderness recommendations from the 1987 
Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forest plans with boundary 
adjustments.
     Develop consistent interim management direction for 
roadless areas recommended for designation as Wilderness. Prohibit 
motorized and mechanized uses in recommended Wilderness.
     Update direction for management of roadless areas not 
recommended for Wilderness. Determine where motorized and non-motorized 
uses will be allowed.
     Review and update potential eligible rivers and streams 
for recommendation to be included in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
     Review and update management direction for the Multi-
Resource Development Areas adjacent to the Gospel-Hump Wilderness.

Proposed Topics Not Identified As Revision Topics

    Preliminary topics discussed in this section are also important 
issues to be addressed during plan revision. However, they are likely 
not substantial or widespread enough to be major issues in the EIS 
alternatives or forest-wide management area direction.

Heritage Resources

    Laws and regulations provide most of the management direction for 
this resource. The Analysis of the Management Situation identified the 
need to update heritage resource definitions and modify management 
direction to better incorporate new information and changed conditions 
as needed.

Lands

    Existing direction provides for land ownership adjustments to 
consolidate lands and provide for better management of forest 
resources. Existing direction will be reviewed and updated as needed.

Air Quality

    The 1990 and 1999 amendments to the Clean Air Act and the formation 
of the Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group have changed forest management 
practices.
    Decisions regarding wildland fire use are made within the 
guidelines of the Airshed Group Operating Plan. Forest plan direction 
needs to be reviewed and

[[Page 58387]]

updated to reflect the strategic intent of that operating plan.

Minerals

    The existing forest plan direction will be reviewed and modified as 
needed to improve direction related to mining laws and public need for 
mineral resources. Improved direction could provide for management of 
discretionary and non-discretionary mineral activities. It may also 
address the relationship between areas with mineral potential and uses 
and surface resources of concern where there is existing or potential 
conflict.

Range Management

    Allotment management plans and current policy provide most of the 
needed direction. Forest plan direction needs to be reviewed and 
updated to reflect current policy and information.

Administrative Sites

    An updated forest facility master plan will provide an assessment 
of facility conditions and develop forest-wide priorities for funding 
facility improvements and new construction.

Issues Not Addressed In Forest Plan Revision

    Issues addressed adequately in the current forest plan will not be 
revisited. Issues that relate to site-specific actions are better 
addressed during project analysis. Some issues, while important, are 
beyond the authority of the Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests. 
Issues that do not pertain to decisions to be made in forest plans are 
excluded from further consideration. In addition, some issues, though 
related to forest plan revision, may not be undertaken at this time, 
but addressed later as a future forest plan amendment.

Range of Alternatives

    The Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests will consider a range 
of alternatives when revising the forest plans. Alternatives will 
provide different ways to address and respond to issues identified 
during the scoping process. A ``no-action alternative'' reflecting the 
effects of continuing current management is required. The range of 
alternatives will be defined within legal parameters, resource 
capability, and sustainability over the long-term.

Inviting Public Participation

    The Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests are now soliciting 
comments and suggestions from Federal agencies, governments, 
individuals and organizations on the scope of the analysis to be 
included in the draft environmental impact statement for the revised 
forest plan (40 CFR 1501.7). Government-to-government consultation with 
tribal governments is ongoing. Comments should focus on (1) the 
preliminary topics proposed to be emphasized in revising the forest 
plan, (2) possible means of addressing concerns associated with these 
topics, (3) potential environmental effects and other management 
outcomes that should be included in the analysis, and (4) any possible 
impacts associated with the proposal based on an individual's civil 
rights (race, color, national origin, age, religion, gender, 
disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital or family 
status). The Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests will encourage 
public participation in the environmental analysis and decision-making 
process.
    Along with the release of this NOI, the Nez Perce and Clearwater 
National Forests are providing for additional public engagement through 
direct mailings, the Web site, and meetings when requested by 
individuals, groups or agencies. For further information, contact your 
local Forest Service office or Elayne Murphy at (208) 935-2513.

Release and Review of the Draft EIS (DEIS)

    The DEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and to be available for public comment in July 2005. At 
that time, the EPA will publish a notice of availability in the Federal 
Register. The comment period on the DEIS will extend 90 days from the 
date the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the Federal 
Register. The Final EIS and decision are expected in October 2006.

    Dated: September 16, 2004.
Kathleen A. McAllister,
Deputy Regional Forester.
[FR Doc. 04-21265 Filed 9-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M