[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47859-47866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23178]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project
AGENCIES: Forest Service, USDA; Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Revised notice of intent to prepare environmental impact
statements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP).
The primary purpose for this revised notice of intent is to provide
public notice of the updated completion schedule for the ICBEMP's
environmental impact statements (EIS). The Bureau of Land Management
and Forest Service will continue the interim management strategies
pending completion of the ICBEMP EISs. Due to differences between
Bureau of Land Management (Bureau of Land Management NEPA Handbook
1790-1) and Forest Services (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, at 18.1)
NEPA policies, the Bureau of Land Management is preparing a
supplemental environmental assessment for the continuation of the
PACFISH (see below in Supplementary Information), while the Forest
Service has provided information in this notice, in compliance with
Forest Service policies, to address the continuation of the PACFISH
interim direction.
Due to the complexity of an analysis of this scope, and the
government shutdown in the first part of FY96, the timeframe for
completing the environmental impact statements (EISs) has changed. The
new schedule for release of the draft EISs is Fall 1996, for the public
comment period; the public comment period will be 120 days. The
adjusted schedule for the release of the final EISs and Records of
Decision is Fall 1997.
In February, 1994, the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service
proposed to develop and adopt a coordinated ecosystem management
strategy for national forests and public lands east of the Cascade
Mountains in Oregon and Washington (59 FR 4680, February 1, 1994). The
strategy later became known as the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Project. The ICBEMP strategy will include direction which
will protect and enhance aquatic ecosystems for anadromous fish and
inland native trout and terrestrial ecosystems. It will also address
the social and economic interactions with these biological variables.
The purpose is to carry out President Clinton's mandate of July 1993 to
develop a scientifically sound and ecosystem-based strategy for
management of these lands. The selected alternative may result in
amendment to the Forest Service Regional Guides and/or amendment or
revision of applicable national forest land management plans and Bureau
of Land Management resource management plans.
The original Notice of Intent for the ICBEMP effort was revised on
May 23, 1994, to address changes in the scope of the area to be
considered in the analysis and to establish a public meeting schedule
(59 FR 26624). A third Federal Register notice was published on
December 7, 1994, announcing the preparation of an EIS for the Upper
Columbia River Basin (UCRB) (59 FR 63071). A fourth notice was
published on August 7, 1994, changing the scope of the UCRB planning
area. (60 FR 40153). On August 25, 1994, a fifth Federal Register
notice was published revising the completion date for the Eastside EIS
(60 FR 44298). The Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service will
now produce two EISs, one for eastern Oregon and Washington (Eastside
EIS) and one for Idaho, western Montana, and small portions of Nevada,
Wyoming, and Utah (UCRB).
FOR INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Mealey, Project Management Team, Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Project, 304 North 8th Street, Room 246, Boise,
Idaho 83702, phone 208-334-1770. Gordon Haugen, Columbia River Basin
Fish Coordinator (PACFISH), 333 SW First Street, Portland, Oregon
97208, phone 503-326-4929.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Summary of Public Involvement for the Long-Term Management Strategy
Formal scoping periods, under National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), opened with publication of the Notice of Intent in the Federal
Register to prepare an EIS and conduct planning activity for the
Eastside Ecosystem Management Project on February 1, 1994 and for the
Upper Columbia River Basin on December 7, 1994.
Public meetings, open houses, symposiums, briefings, workshops,
Internet access, toll-free numbers, information centers,
teleconferences, brochures and newsletters provide opportunities for
the public to be involved. Over 350 public meetings and briefings were
held throughout the project area from February 1994 through July 1996.
The teleconference scoping meeting for the UCRB was held
simultaneously in 27 planned locations on January 28, 1995 via
satellite. Local Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service staff
were on hand to facilitate discussions, part of which was devoted to
sharing and responding to comments and concerns from the 27 sites. The
scoping meeting was also broadcast over three public access television
stations. In addition, anyone with access to a satellite dish within
the continental United States was able to view the program and respond
via fax.
Many levels of government participated throughout the planning
process including Federal and State agencies, Counties, Resource
Advisory Councils, Province Advisory Committees, and Tribes. This has
developed into effective partnerships and increased coordination and
understanding between the groups.
Mailing lists for the EISs were compiled from Bureau of Land
Management and Forest Service offices within the ICBEMP area and from
the PACFISH mailing list. As other interested parties requested to be
added to the mailing list the total number of persons on the list rose
to 4,800.
Public involvement has been a vital and continuing aspect of the
Eastside and UCRB planning process. NEPA requirements have been
exceeded by involving people early and often, sharing information as it
became available even if it was in draft form, and using non-
traditional public involvement methods.
This type of public involvement will continue with the release of
the draft EISs and through the Records of Decision. Teleconference,
meetings, and workshops are planned as ways to continue to provide
opportunities for the public to understand and shape the final
management strategy.
The Notices of Intent for Eastside EIS and the UCRB EIS, and the
Charter for the ICBEMP include objectives for the EISs and Scientific
Assessment to develop the basis for management direction to modify and
implement Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds
in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California
(PACFISH).
[[Page 47860]]
A May 1995 mailer sent to the public by the Project, solicited
comments on goals for the development of alternatives. There were seven
primary goals including provisions for long-term direction that would
replace PACFISH and the Inland Native Fish Strategy. Based on public
responses and input from the ICBEMP Interdisciplinary Team, the seven
goals were refined into five. Development of long-term aquatic
conservation strategy became part of Goal 1, which is to sustain and
where necessary restore the health of forest, rangeland, aquatic and
riparian ecosystems.
In September 1995, a mailer outlining seven alternatives was sent
to the public. Several of the alternatives under consideration would
adopt PACFISH as a long-term strategy either as currently described, or
with minor refinements.
Comments and responses on all alternatives, including those
alternatives which adopt PACFISH and INFISH for the long term, plus
alternatives which refine those strategies, will be accepted through
the comment period on the draft EISs.
Summary of Public Involvement for the Interim Strategies
Due to concerns over the possible effects to aquatic and
terrestrial species and their habitats during the development of a
long-term strategy, three sets of interim measures were put in place.
First on August 18, 1993 the Forest Service Region Six adopted the
Eastside Screens as interim direction in Oregon and Washington
establishing riparian, ecosystem, and wildlife standards for timber
sales. On May 24, 1994, this interim direction, with some modification,
was continued through an environmental assessment. Second, on February
24, 1995, direction was adopted to assure protection of habitat for
anadromous fish species within the Columbia River Basin and portions of
California (PACFISH). Third, on July 28, 1995, INFISH was adopted by
the Forest Service to protect habitats for native inland fish. PACFISH
and INFISH direction supersede the direction contained in the Eastside
Screens for riparian area and aquatic management. Eastside Screens for
riparian areas were modified by PACFISH and INFISH for two primary
reasons, first, the Eastside Screens only applied to timber management,
whereas PACFISH and INFISH included other resource management
considerations; second, the Eastside Screens were too restrictive in
that they did not allow for silvicultural practices that may be needed
to benefit riparian plant and animal communities.
As a general rule, all of the Eastside forests (eastern Oregon and
Washington), not covered by the Northwest Forest Plan, are covered by
either the PACFISH or the INFISH standards. However, some forests such
as the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in Oregon have a portion of the
forest covered by the PACFISH, due to the presence of anadromous fish
watersheds, and the remaining portion of the forest is covered by the
INFISH.
PACFISH. Document Title: Decision Notice/Decision Record, Finding
Of No Significant Impact for the Interim Strategies for Managing
Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington,
Idaho, and Portions of California, February 24, 1995.
A Notice of Availability for the PACFISH environmental assessment
and proposed finding of no significant impact was published in the
Federal Register (March 25, 1994, 58 FR 14356), with a 45 day public
comment period. This comment period was extended for two weeks, until
May 23, 1994 (85 FR 23049). The Bureau of Land Management and Forest
Service received over 500 written comments; of which over 90 percent
were from within the geographic range of the proposed action.
EASTSIDE SCREENS. Document Title: Decision Notice for the
Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian,
Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales, USDA Forest Service,
Region 6, Colville, Deschutes, Fremont, Malheur, Ochoco, Okanogan,
Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman, and Winema National Forests in Oregon and
Washington, May 20, 1994.
This Decision Notice identified that the Interim Direction of
August 18, 1993, as modified in the Regional Forester's Plan Amendment
#1, was continued pending completion of the Eastside Ecosystem
Management Strategy, now known as the ICBEMP. The ecosystem management
strategy will be displayed in the ICBEMP Eastside EIS. This interim
direction applied to the design of timber sales in certain riparian
areas (now replaced by the PACFISH and INFISH direction), and applies
to late and old structural forest stands. On December 28, 1993, a
Notice of opportunity to comment was published in every paper of record
in Eastern Oregon and Washington. The Forest Service received 19
comment letters and one citizen petition, bearing about 150 signatures.
These submissions included nearly 270 discrete comments, reflecting a
variety of support for and criticisms of the interim direction.
INFISH. Document Title: Decision Notice and Finding Of No
Significant Impact for the Inland Native Fish Strategy, USDA Forest
Service, July 28, 1995.
In response to growing concerns over the status of inland native
fish communities and their habitats throughout the inland west, the
Forest Service, working with the US Fish and Wildlife Service,
developed an interim conservation strategy referred to as INFISH. The
purpose of INFISH is to provide interim direction, similar to PACFISH,
that applies to those areas not covered by PACFISH or the Northwest
Forest Plan. This interim direction was developed to maintain
management options for inland native fish habitat while the Bureau of
Land Management and Forest Service developed long-term management
strategies. Another purpose of the interim direction was to take
prudent measures to arrest the degradation, and begin the restoration,
of riparian and aquatic ecosystems in watersheds where inland native
fish habitat is present.
Initital outreach for the INFISH project was sent to over 5000
people, of which approximately 1700 desired to remain on the mailing
list. A scoping period was established from March 14 to April 26, 1995.
This was followed by mailing the environmental assessment and draft
FONSI in June and several public hearings. Overall, 29 people
testified, and 91 written comments were received.
Supplemental information for the Environmental Assessment (EA)
DOCUMENT TITLE: Implementation of Interim Strategies for Managing
Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington,
Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH)
CONTINUATION OF PACFISH. When the Decision Notice/Decision Record
for PACFISH was signed it was the intent of the Bureau of Land
Management and Forest Service that long-term direction would be
provided by the ICBEMP within 18 months, and the effects analysis in
the EA was based on this assumption. The Bureau of Land Management and
Forest Service designed PACFISH as an interim measure to preserve
options until the ICBEMP is put in place. Because the ICBEMP has taken
longer than expected to develop, the Bureau of Land Management and
Forest Service have decided to keep the PACFISH interim direction in
place for the same extended period.
This scheduling notice does not address in detail the other interim
[[Page 47861]]
measures, INFISH and Eastside Screens, because of important differences
between these interim strategies and PACFISH. INFISH was implemented
for an approximately 18 month period beginning in August 1995. (60 FR
33927, August 4, 1995). Accordingly, the revised schedule for the
implementation of the ICBEMP does not extend INFISH appreciably beyond
the approximate time-period originally anticipated. Meanwhile, the
Decision Notice for the Eastside Screens expressly implemented the
interim direction until the Eastside EIS is completed, May 20, 1994
Decision Notice (pg. 4).
In February 1995, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management,
and the Chief of the Forest Service jointly approved the PACFISH
aquatic conservation strategy which amended specific Forest Service
land management plans in portions of California, Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington states. This strategy is found in the above titled
environmental assessment. This aquatic conservation strategy was
applied to those federal lands supporting anadromous salmonids not
included under the guidance of the Northwest Forest Plan. As stated in
the Decision Notice/Decision Record, for the Forest Service, the
PACFISH forest plan and regional guide amendments remain in place until
superseded by further plan amendment or revision which was projected to
occur in September, 1996.
The purpose of the interim direction is to maintain management
options for anadromous fish habitat while the Bureau of Land Management
and Forest Service developed long-term management strategies. Another
purpose of the interim direction is to take prudent measures to arrest
the degradation and begin the restoration of riparian and aquatic
ecosystems in watersheds where anadromous fish habitat is present or
easily could be reestablished (EA, pp. 6-8).
The responsible officials considered the ability of the selected
alternative (alternative 4 of the EA) to meet the stated purpose and
needs for the action (EA pp. 6-9); to comply with applicable laws,
regulations, executive orders, and policies; and to respond to issues
and public comments about the alternative strategies. A critical factor
relevant to this decision was the ability of the selected alternative
to respond to the issues identified in the EA (pp. 21-22); issues still
relevant today.
The PACFISH standards and guidelines (EA Appendix C, Alternative 4)
serve to provide adequate environmental safeguards for proposed and
ongoing projects and activities that pose an unacceptable risk within
riparian habitat conservation areas or that degrade riparian habitat
conservation areas. There are no new types of ongoing projects or
activities, not already addressed in the PACFISH EA, to consider. With
respect to the Forest Service, the selected alternative did not
constitute a significant amendment under current planning regulations
for the following reasons: (1) Its application is for a limited time;
(2) it resulted in only minor modifications to standards and guidelines
in existing plans; (3) it did not modify the goals and objectives of
existing plans; and (4) it did not alter long-term levels of goods and
services projected in existing plans. For the several Bureau of Land
Management Districts, Resource Areas or planning areas, the interim
PACFISH strategy was found consistent with approved plans and did not
require or constitute a plan amendment.
The Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service received a
biological opinion, through the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 7
consultation process, from the National Marine Fisheries Service dated
January 23, 1995, supporting implementation of the PACFISH strategy.
The National Marine Fisheries Service, through its PACFISH biological
opinion, found that the proposed action was not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of listed Snake River salmon under its
jurisdiction nor result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat.
The interim strategy provides direction to ensure land management
actions will not lead to jeopardy of listed anadromous fish stocks, or
limit options while long-term management strategies are being developed
through geographically specific analyses conducted by the ICBEMP.
With respect to those National Forest System lands, covered by
PACFISH in California, PACFISH will remain in place until replaced by
long-term strategies on affected watersheds of the Lassen and Los
Padres National Forests. As indicated in Appendix 1 of the PACFISH EA,
this will be accomplished through (1) Minor adjustments of the Los
Padres National Forest Plan/Riparian Conservation Strategy, and (2)
direction for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds of the
Lassen National Forest contained in the California Spotted Owl EIS.
With respect to the Bureau of Land Management's lands covered by
PACFISH in California, an analysis was made comparing the interim
management goals, standards and guidelines, to the Redding Resource
Area's management plan. Bureau of Land Management is actively
participating with the State, National Marine Fisheries Service and
others in developing a Coastal Salmon Initiative, which will include
conservation guidelines and protection measures. It is expected the
Initiative will be ready for the National Marine Fisheries Service to
use in preparing an ESA Section 4(d) rule in early 1997. The Resource
Area's management plan goals meet or exceed those established by
PACFISH. In the Carmel Creek watershed of the Hollister Resource Area,
management of Bureau of Land Management lands is also consistent with
PACFISH. The extremely small portion of public land anadromous salmonid
streams in that Resource Area are in very good condition and no
management changes were necessary. Public comments on the adequacy of
current Bureau of Land Management management and long-term management
needs for anadromous fisheries were solicited in two public forums held
jointly with the Forest Service in 1995. No comments critical of either
Resource Area's management direction were received.
With respect to Bureau of Land Management administered lands in
Oregon and Washington, an analysis was made comparing the interim
Pacfish management goals, standards and guidelines to the four approved
Resource Management Plans for the Pacfish area in the Prineville, Vale
and Spokane Districts. These plans included the Prineville Direct's Two
Rivers and John Day Resource Management Plans, the Vale District's
Baker Resource Management Plan and the Spokane District's Spokane
Resource Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management staff in these
areas are actively participating with the States of Oregon and
Washington as well as the National Marine Fisheries Service whenever
any new projects are proposed or existing use permits, leases or
agreements are revised in areas with known or potential andromous fish
habitat. Individual Bureau of Land Management or non-Bureau of Land
Management proposed actions have been modified or deferred to allow
review and approval by National Marine Fisheries Service under the ESA.
The four Resource Management Plans management goals, objectives and
management standards or standard operating procedures meet or exceed
those established by Pacfish and/or were not inconsistent with Pacfish
so that full implementation over the last 18 months did not require any
Resource
[[Page 47862]]
Management Plan amendments. In many portions of the Pacfish area there
are only very small portions of public lands adjacent to Pacfish
streams and they are generally in good condition and no management
changes were necessary. Public comments on the adequacy of current
Bureau of Land Management management and comments on ongoing project
environmental analyses indicate Pacfish and related concerns are being
adequately addressed and resolved.
With respect to Bureau of Land Management administered lands in
Idaho, an analysis was made comparing interim PACFISH management goals,
standards and guidelines to the four approved Management Framework
Plans and one Resource Management Plan (Resource Management Plan) in
effect for the PACFISH areas in the Challis, Lemhi, and Cottonwood
Resource Areas of the Upper Columbia-Salmon Clearwater District
Management Framework Plan, Ellis-Pahsemeroi Management Framework Plan
and Mackay Management Framework Plan; Lemhi Resource Area: Lemhi
Resource Management Plan/EIS; and the Cottonwood Resource Area: Chief
Joseph Management Framework Plan. Bureau of Land Management staffs in
these areas actively participate with the State of Idaho, as well as
the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service
whenever any new actions are proposed or ongoing actions are revised in
areas with designated critical salmon habitat. All Bureau of Land
Management or applicant-proposed actions are reviewed for PACFISH
compliance and either found to be in compliance or modified, mitigated
or deferred. All actions carried forward that are not in compliance
must be considered may effect for listed salmon and/or their designated
critical habitats. These actions are evaluated by a team of Bureau of
Land Management, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Fish and
Wildlife Service biologists, and if appropriate, consulted with
National Marine Fisheries Service under section 7 of the ESA. Existing
Land Use Plan management goals, objectives and management actions
comply with those established by the PACFISH or were consistent with
PACFISH over the interim period. Public comments on the adequacy of
interim period Bureau of Land Management management and comments on
ongoing environmental analysis indicate the PACFISH and related
concerns are being adequately addressed and resolved.
Public comments on the adequacy of interim period Bureau of Land
Management and comments on ongoing environmental analysis indicate
PACFISH and related concerns are being adequately addressed and
resolved. Based upon the data the Bureau of Land Management has at this
time, the Bureau of Land Management anticipates that it will make a
decision to extend PACFISH, and will notify the public of its decision
and its implementation strategy.
Analysis Process
The Forest Service has applied the criteria set out in the
implementing regulations for the NEPA from the Federal Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1) and the Forest Service
Handbook at 1909.15 FSH 18.1 for determining the need to provide
additional documentation of environmental impacts pursuant to NEPA. The
question here is whether there are new circumstances or information
that are significant or, in other words, would cause a substantial
difference in the analysis of environmental effects documented in the
EA for the PACFISH. Also considered was whether the interim direction
is still adequate to meet the identified resource needs. The long-term
continuation of PACFISH, or an aquatic conservation strategy which
replaces it, is being considered in the ICBEMP.
In the case of PACFISH, this evaluation was initiated to determine
if there have been any significant changed circumstances or significant
new information over the past 18 months relevant to the estimation of
effects described in the EA. This analysis focuses on the premise that
PACFISH interim direction is intended to maintain management options in
the near future and not preclude implementation of options which may be
considered as part of the ICBEMP and its associated EISs while
permitting certain management activities to continue.
For the analysis, the Forest Service addressed four questions
(listed below), as well as the information stated in the PACFISH EA for
the selected alternative (Alternative 4), and by comparing that
information to information gathered over the past 18 months from the
implementation of the PACFISH interim direction; this information
included: (a) Inter-agency (Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Fish and Wildlife Service) PACFISH
Field Reviews, (Jan. 1996, Forest Service CRB files); (b) Bureau of
Land Management and Forest Service Field implementation reports (April
15, 1996, Forest Service CRB files); and (c) Analysis of ICBEMP science
team and economic data.
1. Are the circumstances, information, and/or the assumptions upon
which the EA is based, still valid and germane? If not, are the changed
circumstances, information, and/or the assumptions sufficiently minor
as not to warrant a change in the interim programmatic direction in
order to maintain options which may be considered as part of the
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project?
Environmental Assessment. The PACFISH strategy was developed in
response to new information which documented broad declines in
naturally reproducing anadromous fish, and widespread degradation of
the habitat upon which these anadromous fish are dependent.
To protect quality anadromous fish habitats, arrest habitat
degradation, and begin restoration of anadromous fish habitat, as well
as respond to a wide array of new scientific information on the status
of various other anadromous fish stocks and the condition of aquatic
and riparian habitat, the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service
re-evaluated all management projects and activities in anadromous
watersheds not covered by the Northwest Forest Plan. Such action was
needed to ensure that management actions implemented before completion
of the ICBEMP EISs would not have adverse environmental effects that
would result in jeopardizing the continued existence of anadromous fish
stocks or otherwise limit the range or number of reasonable
alternatives evaluated in the geographically-specific environmental
analyses. This interim strategy was designed to bridge the time gap
between existing land management plans and the adoption of a long-term
strategy.
Response. Information obtained, to date, through the ICBEMP science
reports verifies that the circumstances, information, and assumptions
documented in the PACFISH EA are still valid and germane. The ICBEMP
information also supports the need, on a broad-scale, for the
continuation of interim direction to address the serious condition of
anadromous fish within the Columbia River Basin. While the ICBEMP
broad-scale information is not specific enough for analysis at the
local level (i.e. site-specific project or watershed level) it does
provide a basis for analysis of the interim PACFISH direction. This
information (documents in publication) indicates the continuation of
the PACFISH interim direction would continue to meet the original
purpose and need of protecting critical habitats and maintaining
options
[[Page 47863]]
during development of a long-term management strategy. In addition, all
field units have completed an evaluation of ongoing activities.
Discussions with the ICBEMP Aquatic Science Team affirmed that
PACFISH is still a technically sound fish habitat conservation strategy
from which to operate until the ICBEMP decision-making process is
concluded.
2. Is the methodology and analytical approach used in the EA still
reasonable?
The PACFISH interim direction was developed for short-term use at
the site-specific project level. Bureau of Land Management and Forest
Service personnel have reviewed the methodology and analytical
approaches used in the analysis for the PACFISH EA, and have determined
that they are still valid and appropriate. These same methodologies and
analytical approaches would be used again if needed.
3. Are the environmental effects which actually occurred
essentially the same as those identified in the EA? If there have been
unanticipated effects, are the unanticipated effects sufficiently minor
as to warrant neither reopening the NEPA process nor changes in the
interim programmatic direction?
Environmental Assessment. Environmental consequences were evaluated
for the physical, biological, and human environments. Analyses of
environmental consequences were based on estimates of the effects of
predicted changes in federal actions as a result of implementation.The
following rationale, summarized from the nine assumptions used by the
PACFISH Interdisciplinary Team, described on pages 37-38 of the EA, was
used for determining the effects.
--The mitigation measures may result in the delay or modification of
projects and activities. New project decisions will be preceded, as
appropriate, by site-specific NEPA analysis.
--The affected environment is the present environment. Analyses in the
EA considered trends and changes associated primarily with ongoing and
proposed timber harvesting, livestock grazing, and recreation uses
during the interim period.
--Environmental effects were based solely on the implementation of
direction within the geographic scope of PACFISH. Management direction
applied only to lands within anadromous watersheds that are
administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.
--The effects of implementing the PACFISH direction were considered
only for the interim period. Because recovery processes within riparian
and aquatic habitats are gradual, short-term adjustments in management
practices would not result in dramatic habitat improvement during the
interim period.
--The effect of modifications in management practices were analyzed
based on the size, number, and distribution of riparian habitat
conservation areas; as well as in the breadth of standards and
guidelines, the scope of projects and activities covered, and the
degree to which watershed analysis would be conducted.
--Projects and activities within the range of listed anadromous fish,
and for which ESA consultation with the National Marine Fisheries
Service has been completed were considered to be in compliance with any
interim direction alternative.
Modifications resulting from PACFISH were predicted to account for
reductions in recreation visitor days, timber harvest, and permitted
grazing within certain streamside areas. Where grazing and timber
harvest have caused impacts, adoption of alternative 4 would provide
improved soil stability, additional stream shading, and continuing
supplies of large woody debris to affected streams. Where grazing has
contributed to unstable stream banks, loss of vegetative cover and
shade, and increased sedimentation, the trend of such habitat
degradation would be reversed.
Protection measures prescribed for timber, road management,
minerals management, recreation, and grazing related activities, as
well as other activities, would be applied throughout the area of the
proposed action. Where such measures are applied, risks to riparian and
aquatic resources would be reduced. Where site-specific analysis or
watershed analysis indicate other protection measures are necessary
they would still be designed to achieve riparian management objectives.
The potential cumulative effects of the PACFISH interim direction
were limited by the nature of the interim direction itself. No ground-
disturbing actions were authorized, funded, or carried-out by the
PACFISH decision. The interim programmatic nature of PACFISH does not
constitute any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources.
Such commitment of resources can only be made through long-term
permanent amendments to land management plans, or through site-specific
project decisions. In the programmatic environmental assessment for
PACFISH, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service merely
considered the impacts of various interim strategies for protecting
anadromous fish habitat. The intended effect of the interim direction
was to maintain the environmental status quo while long-term management
strategies are being developed.
The standards and guidelines presented in PACFISH were intended to
limit or mitigate the effects of human activity on anadromous fish
habitat on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service administered
lands. The interim direction is not the sole or final direction for
anadromous fish habitat protection for Bureau of Land Management and
Forest Service administered lands. Cumulative effects are also being
assessed through specific project and activity analysis efforts. At the
programmatic level of this interim direction, detailed analysis of
specific cumulative effects was not possible. Such analysis would
require speculation as to the scope, character, and environmental
consequences of future project and activity decisions.
Response. The implementation monitoring summaries from each of the
administrative units were received in January of 1996. These summaries
identified the following: (1) That approximately 1200 projects were
either completed, planned or in the process of being completed; (2)
that PACFISH default riparian habitat conservations areas (EA at
Appendix C, pp. C-6 and C-7) were applied to over 600 of these
projects; (3) that riparian habitat conservations areas were either
modified through watershed analysis or site specific analysis on the
remaining projects; and (4) that watershed analysis was conducted for
less than 10 percent of the projects and effectiveness monitoring was
either conducted or planned on approximately 300 projects.
Implementation monitoring to date has not identified management
actions that would lead to noncompliance with PACFISH direction. The
direct and indirect effects of implementing the PACFISH interim
direction have been essentially the same as those described in the
PACFISH EA, and therefore, are assumed to continue as previously
projected. Projects which could reasonably be deferred or re-designed
to avoid or mitigate impacts were treated accordingly.
The programmatic cumulative effects are consistent with, or less
than, those estimated in the EA. The cumulative effects of interim
PACFISH direction were reviewed and considered in relation to projects,
reasonably
[[Page 47864]]
foreseeable policies of other agencies, and possible effects of long-
term management. The short term nature of PACFISH makes it difficult to
determine measurable changes in cumulative effects. However, the
cumulative effects of project level implementation of PACFISH standards
and guidelines have resulted in benefits to fish habitat, a condition
expected to remain with continuation of PACFISH. Activities anticipated
during continuation of PACFISH are similar to those which have occurred
during implementation and are not expected to have different effects.
The following provides additional analysis based on recent
information about environmental consequences.
Watershed Resources. The EA, page 45, states although improvements
to watersheds and water resources would be noticeable at a few sites,
measurable improvement in habitat condition during the interim period
would not likely to substantial because recovery processes are gradual.
As discussed above, implementation monitoring of projects shows that
there is good compliance with the PACFISH management direction. As
stated in the EA, basin-wide effectiveness monitoring has not been
conducted for a sufficient time to show marked improvement. Given the
long timeframes required for improvement, the projected environmental
consequences for the physical environment are not expected to change
through the continuation of the PACFISH direction.
Non-Forested Vegetation. The EA projected most effects to be caused
by grazing with some localized areas affected by recreation. The EA
stated that application of the proposed management direction would
improve ecological conditions but for upland areas this might take 5-10
years before it is measurable, although recovery within riparian areas
may be faster. Range allotments identified as posing an unacceptable
risk have been subjected to PACFISH management direction. Initial
implementation monitoring results show that riparian conditions are
improving but that it will take more time to show definitive results on
a broad scale for PACFISH. The continuation of PACFISH would not change
the effects to the range management program from that described in the
PACFISH EA.
Forested Vegetation. Forested vegetation changes slowly except when
catastrophic fire, insect or disease events cause rapid change. This
was discussed on pages 50-51 of the EA. For the preferred alternative,
the EA anticipated harvesting would not generally be allowed within the
riparian habitat conservation areas except as allowed for in TM-1
standard which provided for salvage after catastrophic events. The EA
disclosed that this would result in higher risks for tree mortality but
the inherent risk would not change over such a short timeframe.
During the time period since the approval of the PACFISH EA there
have been numerous salvage sale projects. While these projects did not
require PACFISH standards and guidelines be applied, Forests were
directed to apply management prescriptions that would not cause adverse
effect on anadromous fish habitat. An interagency review has been
conducted, the results of which will be useful for determining effects
to the environmental baseline. These projects have been designed and
conducted either using the default PACFISH direction or under direction
developed with site specific analysis and Section 7 consultation
procedures in drainages with listed stocks. As projected, the completed
sales did not salvage as much material as might have occurred prior to
PACFISH, though the PACFISH interim direction does allow for salvage
after appropriate analysis has been completed. The original projection
that the inherent risk would not change is still correct and is
applicable to the continuation of the PACFISH direction.
Fishery Resources. The EA projected that because alternative 4
would broaden the application of management direction by including new
standards and guidelines to all proposed projects and activities, and
some ongoing projects and activities within riparian habitat
conservation areas or that degrade riparian habitat conservation areas,
and because large riparian habitat conservation areas would be
established in all key watersheds, increased protection of riparian and
aquatic habitat would occur. Although there would be no permanent
cessation of activities in riparian habitat conservation areas, some
actions would be modified or deferred during the interim period,
resulting in a reduction of adverse effects on riparian and aquatic
habitats within riparian habitat conservation areas.
The application of the interim management direction has provided
the protection anticipated. Effects on fisheries populations and
habitat improvement will take a prolonged time of monitoring to show
measurable results. This also applies for the continuation of PACFISH.
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species/Wildlife Resources.
Since the signing of the PACFISH EA, steelhead trout populations in the
Snake River Basin and the upper Columbia River Basin have been proposed
for federal listing under the ESA (61 FR 41541, August 9, 1996).
Steelhead trout populations in the middle Columbia River Basin were not
included as proposed species, but will be monitored for possible
inclusion. This species of anadromous fish is located throughout the
PACFISH area. Steelhead trout were addressed by the EA as one of the
anadromous fish PACFISH was designed to benefit. The EA projected that
effects on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and wildlife
resources from implementing more constraining standards and guidelines
would be minor but mostly positive. Results from the inter-agency field
reviews and field implementation reports show this to be true. A
similar trend is expected for the continuation of PACFISH.
Social. The EA projected that the social effects of the preferred
alternative would be relatively small for small isolated communities
(EA, page 60). This has been confirmed by the social analysis developed
for the ICBEMP effort. The effects on cultural resources, wild and
scenic rivers, Indian tribes, and social effects are as predicted by
the EA and are projected to be similar for the continuation of PACFISH
direction.
Economic. The focus of the economic effects discussion in the EA
was to identify the additional or incremental effects that might be
expected as a result of interim direction. Because of ESA requirements
and the presence of listed anadromous fish stocks, both Bureau of Land
Management and Forest Service field units in the Snake River Basin
generally were already operating under more stringent management
requirements than were called for under current plans. These units had
already experienced reductions in many activities and output levels as
a result of consultation and other ESA provisions. Estimated effects of
implementing alternative 4 were reductions in timber harvesting,
livestock grazing, and recreation visitor day use.
In general the economic impacts are more modest than forecasted in
1994. The continuing low prices for timber and beef have resulted in
lesser impacts from the PACFISH decision for those industries than
stated in the PACFISH EA; the low prices for timber and beef affected
the outputs of all forests. For various reasons, timber harvest fell
slightly between 1994 and 1995 by an average of 9 percent. The major
difference in total impacts is the lack of recreation impacts observed
over the past 2 years. The original economic analysis (late 1994 and
early 1995)
[[Page 47865]]
assumed seasonal or permanent closures of both developed and dispersed
sites in areas affected by the PACFISH strategy. Such closures did not
occur, although some National Forests closed roads and implicitly
limited access. Another difference is that some of the projected range
impacts have not occurred. The original analysis assumed that as
allotment management plans were completed, there would be a drop in the
number of animal unit months. The completion of allotment management
plans has been a slow process with few changes to numbers of animal
unit months, although there have been changes to season of use and
grazing patterns. The costs of various programs have increased for the
Forest Service. A sample from the majority of National Forests involved
in PACFISH suggest cost increases on the order of 12, 8, and 4 percent
for administration of the timber, range, and recreation programs
respectively.
The ICBEMP information indicates that the assumptions used for the
economic effects determinations in the PACFISH EA are still correct.
The estimates for effects for cut and sold timber volumes, and the
estimated effects to the livestock grazing program are within those
projected in the PACFISH EA. These effects would remain the same under
the continuation of PACFISH.
4. Is the range of alternatives for interim direction still
reasonable for meeting the purpose and need (i.e., changes in
information, circumstances, and or assumptions do not lead to issues
that would warrant development of an alternative not already considered
in the EA but which would meet the purpose and need)?
Although the range of alternatives in the ICBEMP DEISs are greater
and more diverse than the PACFISH EA alternative range, the former
documents are intended to consider long-term strategies which could
involve major changes in federal land use allocations and management
direction. In contrast, the PACFISH EA and associated decisions were
intended to consider a more limited range of interim actions that could
be readily implemented while preserving future management options. The
long-term management strategy would clearly consider actions which
would be major federal actions (as defined by the CEQ guidelines for
implementing NEPA), while the PACFISH EA provides more modest interim
actions designed to preserve options with minimal effects on the other
federal land uses and resource allocations during the time needed to
complete the ICBEMP decision-making process. The range of PACFISH EA
alternatives are still reasonable and appropriate for continuing
interim policies, standards, and guidelines.
Endangered Species Act Consultation
On August 29, 1996, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest
Service re-initiated consultation, under section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act, with the National Marine Fisheries Service per the terms
of the January 23, 1995, Biological Opinion for PACFISH. The Biological
Opinion states at page 33, consultation shall be re-initiated in the
event that consultation on the geographically-specific EISs in eastern
Oregon, Washington, and Idaho is not completed by 18 months from the
effective date of the [record of decision] for PACFISH.
Conclusion
The Forest Service reviewed the interagency information from the
area covered by PACFISH, and information from field reviews indicating
that it is still a technically sound fish habitat conservation strategy
from which to operate until the ICBEMP decision-making process is
completed. Through this review the Forest Service concluded that: (1)
the data and/or assumptions upon which the EA was based are still valid
and germane; (2) the methodology and analytical approach used in the EA
are still reasonable; (3) the effects experienced are within those
identified in the EA, and reasonably foreseeable future effects are
consistent with those estimated in the EA, and are not significant; and
(4) the range of alternatives in the EA is still reasonable.
The available evidence indicates that the direction provided by
PACFISH is sufficient to provide resource protection until long-term
direction is in place, that the analysis contained in the EA is still
valid, and that the factors leading to a finding of no significant
impact are still correct and appropriate. Consequently, the PACFISH
interim direction will continue until implementation of the ICBEMP
decisions.
NEPA Findings. Under the Forest Service Handbook, 1909.15 at 18.1,
the Forest Service may conduct interdisciplinary reviews and
consideration of new information in the context of the overall program
or project to determine whether or not the new information warrants
reopening the NEPA process. The analysis, documented above, fulfills
that review and consideration. The analysis indicates there is not
significant new information or changed conditions that would warrant
reopening the NEPA decision-making process for PACFISH. The range of
alternatives, estimation of effects, and the finding of no significant
impact are still valid. The science used to develop the PACFISH
strategy is still valid.
PACFISH & NFMA Significance. The PACFISH Decision Notice contains a
finding that the PACFISH amendments were not NFMA significant
amendments (36 CFR 219.(10)(f); Decision Notice, pp 8-11). The Decision
Notice reviewed the significance factors and concluded:
Timing: Because PACFISH will be in place only until the current
analysis of a longer-term strategy is completed they do not constitute
significant amendments of the Regional Guides and forest plans.
Location and Size: The area in the planning unit affected by the
interim standards and guidelines is not so large in size as to mandate
a significant amendment.
Goals, Objectives, Outputs: PACFISH does not significantly alter
the long-term relationships between levels of goods and services
projected by the forest plans. Any short term temporary reductions in
outputs do not foreclose opportunities to achieve such outputs in later
years.
Management Proscriptions: The desired future conditions and long-
term levels of goods and services projected in current plans would not
be substantially changed by the interim strategy.
Other Factors: Other factors include the ability of the Forest
Service to adapt to changing conditions and protect anadromous salmonid
species for a short period of time until a longer-term strategy can be
analyzed and adopted.
Furthermore, the situation with regard to the NFMA significance of
the PACFISH amendments remains largely the same. First, the original
analysis contemplated that PACFISH would remain in place until the EISs
were completed to provide protection for anadromous salmonid species.
The only difference is that the interim direction is being continued
while the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service complete the
EISs for the long-term strategy and consider and respond to public
comments on the draft proposals. Second, the area potentially impacted
remains the same. Third, the potential impact of the amendments upon
levels of goods and services and desired future conditions projected in
the forest plans also remains unchanged. The original analysis
contemplated that short term changes from estimated levels of possible
outputs of goods and services would not foreclose opportunities to
achieve such outputs in later years. This is still true. Likewise, the
desired future
[[Page 47866]]
conditions projected in the forest plans would not be substantially
changed by continuation of PACFISH until the EISs area completed.
Finally, we note that the certain salmon and other ESA listed species
remain imperiled. PACFISH was undertaken to ensure the Bureau of Land
and Forest Service would do no harm to the salmon while continuing to
manage the national forests for multiple use resources. This objective
remains unchanged. Thus, the situation with regard to the NFMA
significance remains largely the same as it was at the time of the
original analysis and decision.
PACFISH amended Regional Guides and forest plans to provide interim
protection for anadromous salmonid species pending the completion of a
EISs for longer-term direction. As an interim measure PACFISH will
continue to ensure that the Bureau of Land Management and Forest
Service do not foreclose multiple use management options while the
longer-term strategy is being developed. The significance of these
measures to sustain multiple use management were thoroughly analyzed in
the original PACFISH EA and Decision Notice/Decision Record. The
continuation of PACFISH as direction intended to remain in place
pending completion of the longer-term strategy does not alter the
conclusions reached in the original analysis of NFMA significance.
Dated: September 4, 1996.
Robert W. Williams,
Regional Forester.
Dated: September 5, 1996.
Elaine Y. Zielinski,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 96-23178 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M; 4310-84-M
