[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30085]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 7, 1994]
VOL. 59, NO. 234
Wednesday, December 7, 1994
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Upper Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Strategy,
Northern and Intermountain Regions
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[D-990-05-1610-00-UCRB]
Upper Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Strategy, States of
Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada
AGENCIES: Forest Service, USDA; Bureau of Land Management, USDI.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) and conduct planning activity which may amend Forest Service
Regional Guides and will amend Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management land use plans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
propose to develop a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based strategy for
management of the lands under their jurisdiction in the Upper Columbia
River Basin (UCRB) in Idaho, Montana, Utah, Nevada, Wyoming, and a
small part of Washington that is administered by Region 1 of the Forest
Service. This strategy will modify existing land use plans. The
modification will include a coordinated ecosystem management strategy
for National Forest System and BLM public lands. This strategy will be
consistent with the ``Framework for Ecosystem Management in the
Interior Columbia River Basin'' that is being completed by the
Scientific Integration Team of the Eastside Ecosystem Management
Project. The EIS that will accompany this strategy will use the
information from the ``Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management
in the Interior Columbia River Basin'' and information received from
the public as a basis for issue determination and for evaluating
alternative strategies. Additional information may be collected as
necessary.
The strategy will be adopted in the form of decisions about desired
ranges of future conditions for ecosystems, and related standards and
guidelines for management of National Forest System and BLM public
lands on all or parts of the UCRB. The EIS will consider alternative
strategies for management of National Forest System and BLM-
administered lands and their effects in the entire UCRB. At a minimum:
A. The strategy will include direction which will protect and
enhance aquatic ecosystems within the range of threatened or endangered
anadromous fish through amendments to Forest Plans and Resource
Management Plans. This direction will supersede any interim direction
resulting from the Environmental Assessment for the Implementation of
Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in
Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California
(commonly referred to as ``PACFISH'').
B. The strategy also will include other necessary guidance
applicable to the Basin as a whole, or to broad subregions within the
basin. This guidance will address forest ecosystem health; rangeland
ecosystem health; aquatic and riparian ecosystem health; integration of
social and economic considerations; population viability; and the long-
term sustainability of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.
The guidance also will be developed by examining other issues
identified by the public through the scoping process. This guidance
will be adopted as amendments to the Forest Service Regional Guides for
Regions 1 and 4 and/or amendments to Forest Service and BLM land use
plans.
C. The third part of the strategy may identify changes to the ways
current plans are implemented or budgets developed, that can improve
capability to achieve ecosystem management objectives. The strategy may
also help establish priorities for revising forest plans and developing
or amending resource management plans. This part of the strategy does
not require environmental analysis, but may be addressed within the
scope of this EIS.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received
in writing by 30 days following the date of the last scoping meeting to
receive full consideration in the development of alternatives. Dates of
those meetings will be published in local and regional newspapers.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments concerning this proposal to Stephen P.
Mealey, Project Manager, 304 North 8th St., Room 253, Boise Idaho
83702.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Wyke or Cindy Deacon Williams,
EIS Team Co-leaders, 304 North 8th St., Room 253, Boise, Idaho 83702,
phone (208) 334-1770.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this action is to develop and
analyze a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based strategy for management
of lands administered by the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior
(USDI) Bureau of Land Management that are in the UCRB in Idaho,
Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada and that portion of Washington
administered by the Forest Service's Northern Region. The strategy will
focus on ecosystem health, including its forest, rangeland, and
aquatic/riparian, landscape, and social/economic components, with
emphasis on population viability and the sustainability of threatened,
endangered, and sensitive species.
The EIS team will prepare a proposed action that responds to
problems described in the statement of purpose and need. Formal scoping
meetings will follow the development of the proposed action. The
purpose and need statement and proposed action will serve to focus
formal scoping meetings by giving the public a better understanding of
the agencies' early thoughts about, or initial approximations of, what
the UCRB ecosystem strategy might be. The theme of the proposed action
will be the restoration of ecological resiliency in forest, rangeland,
and aquatic/riparian ecosystems within the UCRB. (Aldo Leopold, in his
essay The Land Ethic, defines the health of the land as ``the capacity
of the land for self-renewal.'' We speak of ecological resiliency as
the capacity of an ecosystem, including its physical, biological and
human components, for self-renewal. We do not imply that all human
wants will be satisfied by a resilient ecosystem.) Alternatives to the
proposed action will be developed largely in response to public
comments on the proposed action in formal scoping meetings.
This EIS will address all BLM lands within the Columbia River Basin
east of Oregon and Washington and all National Forest System lands in
the Columbia River Basin within the agency's Northern and Intermountain
administrative Regions. (This includes National Forest System and BLM
public lands in all of Idaho except the southeast corner that drains
into the Great Basin. It also includes the portion of the Panhandle
National Forest in Washington, that portion of Montana west of the
Continental Divide, a small portion of west-central Wyoming, the north-
west corner of Utah, and the northeastern corner of Nevada.) The
selected alternative may result in amendment to the Forest Service
Regional Guides for the Northern and Intermountain Regions and
amendment of the land use plans for the Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management as follows:
Forest Service: Boise, Bridger-Teton, Caribou, Challis, Humboldt,
Payette, Salmon, Sawtooth, and Targhee National Forests in the
Intermountain Region; and Panhandle, Clearwater, Nez Perce, Kootenai,
Lolo, Flathead, Helena, Deerlodge, and Bitterroot National Forests in
the Northern Region.
Bureau of Land Management: Boise, Burley, Idaho Falls, Salmon,
Shoshone, and Coeur d'Alene Districts in Idaho; Butte District in
Montana; Rock Springs District in Wyoming; Salt Lake District in Utah;
and Elko and Winnemucca Districts in Nevada.
The BLM Challis Resource Area (Salmon District), Bennett Hills
Resource Area (Shoshone District), and Owyhee Resource Area (Boise
District) now are preparing Resource Management Plans (RMPs) that are
expected to incorporate ecosystem management strategies. Similarly, the
Targhee National Forest is revising its forest plan, and the Clearwater
National Forest expects to revise its forest plan. The schedule for the
Clearwater forest plan revision process will be announced at the time a
notice of intent for that purpose is published. These five planning
efforts will continue. The Challis, Bennett Hills, and Owyhee RMPs are
expected to be completed in 1995. The Targhee forest plan revision is
expected to be complete in 1996, and the Clearwater forest plan
revision is expected to be completed sometime after the completion of
the UCRB EIS. To the extent possible, those planning efforts will be
coordinated with development of the UCRB ecosystem management strategy.
The UCRB EIS may lead to a Record of Decision that amends one or more
of those five plans following completion of on-going planning efforts.
If the UCRB EIS is completed prior to completion of any of these five
on-going efforts, adjustments may be made to on-going efforts to ensure
consistency with the UCRB ecosystem management strategy.
BLM lands subject to potential plan amendments through the UCRB
effort total approximately 14 million acres in five states. The
National Forest System lands subject to potential plan amendment total
approximately 31.5 million acres.
Concurrent with this EIS, a basin-wide assessment known as the
``Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior
Columbia River Basin'' is under development. (The ``interior Columbia
River Basin'' has been defined as the lands in the continental United
States tributary to the Columbia River east of the crest of the Cascade
Mountain Range.) This Scientific Assessment will cover broad
ecosystems, and describe social, economic, and biophysical processes
and functions. The natural resources within this broad geographic area
have been altered over time by many factors including drought, fire
suppression, global climate change, livestock grazing, mining, timber
harvest, urbanization, and water uses. The results of the Scientific
Assessment will be used, in part, to analyze the effects of past
management and present management under current land use plans as a
baseline to help determine the need to change management direction, and
to determine the effects of different approaches to ecosystem
management.
The EIS will analyze a number of alternatives. One will be no
action, defined as current land use plan direction without modification
of any decision resulting from the Environmental Assessment for the
Implementation of Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-
producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and
Portions of California (commonly referred to as the ``PACFISH''
strategy). Another will be current management direction as modified by
any decision issued as interim direction resulting from the ``PACFISH''
environmental assessment. As indicated, further alternatives will be
developed in response to issues identified during the public scoping
process as defined in the Council on Environmental Quality's National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations to identify a
range of reasonable alternatives.
Issues that are expected to be addressed in detail through the
development and analysis of alternatives (in addition to the management
of anadromous fish habitat) include ecosystem health and its forest,
rangeland, and aquatic/riparian components with emphasis on population
viability and long-term sustainability of threatened, endangered, and
sensitive species. The use of public lands and resources in the
production of goods and services within the context of sustainability
will also be examined. The evaluation of these alternatives and others
will consider people's expectations for public lands and resources,
along with the capability of the ecosystems to provide and sustain
these values through time. Information will be used from the basin-wide
Scientific Assessment, Tribal governments, state and local governments,
other federal agencies, and other appropriate sources.
The direction being developed through this process will serve as an
ecosystem management strategy to move from current conditions to more
ecologically sustainable and socially desirable conditions, leaving
options available for future generations. The strategy will, at least,
establish desired ranges of future conditions for broad forest,
rangeland, and aquatic/riparian habitat types and inter-related social,
economic and landscape systems. Achievement of desired ranges of future
conditions by practices and activities developed and implemented at the
national forest and BLM district level, will result in restoration of
ecosystem health and restoration of ecological processes that maintain
ecosystems over time. Ecosystem restoration to, and maintenance within,
sustainable ranges by identifying appropriate goals and objectives and
management practices, can also help promote viability of associated
social and economic systems. The strategy will be based on integration
of social values, ecological capabilities, and economic relationships,
and will recognize treaty rights reserved by various Native American
Tribes on ceded lands and will fulfill United States government trust
responsibilities to the Tribes. The strategy will (1) assure habitat
condition needed to support species viability within the context of
desired ecosystem function and structure; (2) address the needs of
species and habitats of concern (currently listed or being considered
for listing under the Endangered Species Act or designated as sensitive
species by the Forest Service or BLM); (3) support the needs of dynamic
ecosystems that change over time and space; and (4) recognize the role
that disturbance mechanisms play in the evolution and maintenance of
ecosystems.
Scoping meetings are tentatively planned for Coeur d'Alene, Moscow,
Orofino, Grangeville, McCall, Salmon, Challis, Idaho Falls, Pocatello,
Twin Falls, Ketchum, and Boise in Idaho; Missoula, Libby, Kalispell,
Hamilton, Helena, and Butte, in Montana; Jackson, Wyoming; Salt Lake
City, Utah; and Elko, Nevada. Specific dates, times and locations for
the meetings will be announced in local newspapers of general
distribution.
The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service will act as
joint lead agencies to prepare the EIS. The two agencies will consult
with Tribal Governments and coordinate with state and local governments
and other federal agencies. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service will be consulted pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act.
The responsible officials for National Forest System lands will be
the Regional Foresters for the:
--Intermountain Region, Federal Building, 324 25th Street, Ogden, Utah
84401; and
--Northern Region, P.O. Box 7669, Missoula, Montana.
The responsible officials for public lands administered by the Bureau
of Land Management will be the State Directors for:
--Idaho, 3380 Americana Terrace, Boise, Idaho 83706;
--Montana, Granite Tower, 222 N. 32nd Street, Billings, Montana 59101;
--Wyoming, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003;
--Utah, 324 South State Street, Suite 301, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111;
and
--Nevada, P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada 89520.
The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency in October, 1995, and will be available for public
review at that time. A public comment period of 90 days will be
provided for the draft EIS.
The UCRB EIS Team (Team) believes 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 of
draft EISs 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 draft EIS stage but that are not
raised until after completion of the final EIS 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 proposed action
participate by the close of the 90-day comment period on the draft EIS,
so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the
Team at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to
them in the final EIS.
To assist the Team in identifying and considering issues and
concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should be as
specific as possible. It also is helpful if comments refer to specific
pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments also may address the
adequacy of the draft EIS 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.
It is expected that the final EIS will be filed with the
Environmental Protection Agency approximately 6 months after the draft
EIS is published. The record of decision for National Forest System
Lands will be issued with the final EIS and will be subject to Forest
Service appeal regulations (36 CFR 217). The BLM's proposed plan
amendment decision will be published with the final EIS and will be
subject to BLM protest regulations (43 CFR 1610.5-2). The BLM's record
of decision will be published following resolution of any protests.
David F. Jolly,
Regional Forester, Northern Region.
Dale N. Bosworth,
Regional Forester, Intermountain Region.
Alan R. Pierson,
Acting State Director, Idaho.
Larry E. Hamilton,
State Director, Montana.
[FR Doc. 94-30085 Filed 12-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
