[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 89-90]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-33331]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Cibola
National Forest and Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle and McClellan
Creek National Grasslands, Located in Colflax, Harding, Mora, Union,
Catron, Sierra, Socorro, Bernalillo, Sandoval, Lincoln, Torrance,
Valencia, McKinley and Cibola Counties, NM; Gray, Hemphill, and Dallam
Counties, Texas; Roger Mills and Cimarron Counties, OK
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 36 CFR 219.10(g), the Regional Forester for the
Southwestern Region gives notice of the agency's intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Cibola National Forest
Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). According to 36 CFR
219.10(g), Forest Plans are ordinarily revised on a 10-year cycle. The
existing Cibola Forest Plan was approved on July 15, 1985, and has
eight amendments.
The responsible official for approving the Forest Plan revision is
Charles W. Cartwright, Jr., Regional Forester, Southwestern Region,
USDA Forest Service, 517 Gold Avenue, SW, Albuquerque, New Mexico
87102. The Forest Supervisor, Cibola National Forest, is delegated
responsibility for preparing the Environmental Impact Statement.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received
in writing by March 11, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Jeanine A. Derby, Forest
Supervisor, Cibola National Forest, 2113 Osuna Road NE, Suite A,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87113-1001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jimmy E. Hibbetts, Planning Staff or
Barney Lyons, Team Leader, (505) 761-4650.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Land and Resource Management Plan
defines the long-term direction for managing the Cibola National Forest
and the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National
Grasslands. The revised Forest Plan will take an ecological approach to
achieve multiple-use management of the National Forest and National
Grasslands.
The Cibola National Forest identified revision topics through a
process by examining the Forest Plan and determining items that need to
be changed. The Five Year Evaluation and Monitoring Reports for 1986 to
1990 and 1991 to 1996 were also used to identify revision topics. This
process included a number of public meetings, newsletters and meetings
with local government officials and interest groups. Over 3000 letters
were sent to Congressional, governmental, and tribal agencies,
organizations, businesses, and individuals. These contacts all aided in
identifying the revision topics. Criteria was used to screen potential
changes into five possible categories of action:
Revision Topics
Implementation Topics
Legislation Topics
Topics for responsible Government Entities
Research Topics
The Revision Topics are those areas of the Forest Plan, identified
through monitoring, evaluation and public involvement, where a
potential need for change was identified. The Revision Topics are:
Balancing Land Capability with Resource Demand
Watershed Condition Assessment and Water Uses, Rights, Quality, and
Availability Assessment
Biological Diversity
Native American Collaboration
Land Grant Community Collaboration
Land Uses
Oil and Gas Leasing
Population Growth and Social Demographics
Rural Community Economics
[[Page 90]]
Scenery Management Systems
Urban Interface
Wilderness Management
Recreation Management
Fire Management
Response to Legal Mandates
Access Management
Range Management
The Cibola National Forest intends to examine the primary decisions
made in the Forest Plan by addressing the preliminary issues and
focusing on revision topics. The following five significant preliminary
issues have been identified through public comments:
Biological Consequences of Forest Management
Livestock Grazing
Recreation/Wilderness/Travel Management
Watershed Conditions
Balancing Land Capability with Resources Demands
The primary decisions to be made in the Forest Plan are:
(a) Establishment of Forest-wide multiple-use goals and objectives,
including a description of the desired condition of the National Forest
and Grasslands and identification of the quantities that are expected
to be produced or provided during the RPA planning period (36 CFR
219.11(b)).
(b) Establishment of multiple-use prescriptions and associated
standards and guidelines for each management area including proposed
and probable management practices such as planned timber sale programs
(36 CFR 219.11(c)).
(c) Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR
219.11(d)).
(d) Establishment of Forest-wide standards and guidelines to
fulfill the requirements of 16 U.S.C. 1604 (The National Forest
Management Act) applying to the future activities (resource integration
requirements (36 CFR 219.13 through 219.27)).
(e) Establishment of land administratively available for oil and
gas leasing and the stipulations that must be applied to specific lease
areas in order that the Bureau of Land Management can authorize leases
for oil and gas production, subject to review (36 CFR 228.102(d) and
228.102(e)).
(f) Establishment of land suitable for timber production, grazing
capability and suitability and other resource activities (16 USC
1604(k) 36 CFR 29.14, 219.15, 219.20 and 219.21).
(g) Recommendations for the establishment of wilderness and other
special designations such as research natural areas (36 CFR 219.17(a)
and 219.25).
Alternatives required by implementing regulations of the National
Forest Management Act will be considered during the planning process.
An alternative addressing the Resource Planning Act program tentative
resource objectives, a ``no- action'' alternative that reflects the
current level of goods and services, and a wide range of alternatives
will be developed to respond to issues, management concerns or resource
opportunities identified during the planning process (40 CFR 1501.7,
1502.14(c)).
The Forest Service continues to invite comments and suggestions
from Federal, State, and local agencies, Native American tribes,
individuals and organizations on the scope of the analysis to be
included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). In
addition, the Forest Service gives notice that it is beginning a full
environmental analysis and decision making process for this proposal so
that interested or affected people may know how they can participate in
the environmental analysis and contribute to the final decision. Public
meetings will be conducted throughout the planning process and
newsletters will be sent out periodically.
Forest Service personnel will describe and explain the preliminary
alternatives the agency has identified and the process of environmental
analysis and disclosure to be followed. Written comments are
encouraged. Additional meetings with individuals or groups may be
arranged by contacting Karen Carter, Public Affairs Officer, (505) 761-
4650.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and proposed Revised
Forest Plan should be available for public review in May 1999. After a
minimum comment period of 90 days, the Final Environmental Impact
Statement and Revised Forest Plan should be completed by March 2000.
The 90 day public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement will commence on the day the Environmental Protection Agency
publishes a ``Notice of Availability'' in the Federal Register.
It is very important that those interested in this proposed action
participate at that time. To be the most helpful, written comments on
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement should be as specific as
possible and may also address the adequacy of the statement or the
merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statements
(see The Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing
the procedural provisions of the national Environmental Policy Act at
40 CFR 1503.3). Please note that comments you make on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement will be regarded as public information.
In addition, Federal court decisions have established that
reviewers of Draft Environmental Impact Statements must structure their
participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is
meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewers' position and
contentions (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,
553 (1978)). Environmental objections that could have been raised at
the draft stage may be waived or dismissed by the courts if not raised
until after completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(City of Angoon v. Hodel, (9th Circuit, 803 F.2d 1018, 1022 (1986) and
Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490F. 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 90
day 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 Final Environmental Impact
Statement.
Dated: December 26, 1996.
Robert V. Clayton,
Acting Regional Forester.
[FR Doc. 96-33331 Filed 12-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
