[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 28, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52266-52273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25099]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Grand Mesa,
Uncompahgre, Gunnison National Forests, CO
AGENCY: USDA Forest Service.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) in conjunction with revision of the land and resource management
plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison National Forests (GMUG)
located in Delta, Montrose, Gunnison, Mesa, San Miguel, Ouray,
Hinsdale, Saguache, Garfield, and San Juan counties, Colorado.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact
statement in conjunction with the revision of its Land and Resource
Management Plan (hereafter referred to as Forest Plan or Plan) for the
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnision National Forests (GMUG).
This notice describes the specific portions of the current Forest
Plan to be revised, environmental issues considered in the revision,
estimated dates for filing the environmental impact statement,
information concerning public participation, and the names and
addresses of the agency officials who can provide additional
information.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received
in writing by January 31, 2000. The agency expects to file a draft
environmental impact statement with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and make it available for public
[[Page 52267]]
comment in the fall of 2001. The agency expects to file a final
environmental impact statement in the fall of 2002.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Carmine Lockwood, Planning Team
Leader, GMUG National Forests, 2250 Highway 50, Delta, CO 81416.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carmine Lockwood, Planning Team
Leader, at (970) 874-6677, or Carol Howe, Assistant Planner, at (970)
874-6647.
Responsible Official: Lyle Laverty, Rocky Mountain Regional
Forester at P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, CO 80225-0127.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Part 36 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 219.10(g), the Regional Forester for the Rocky
Mountain Region gives notice of the agency's intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the revision effort described above.
According to 36 CFR 219.10(g), land and resource management plans are
ordinarily revised on a 10 to 15 year cycle. The existing Forest Plan
was approved on September 29, 1983. Significant amendments were
completed in 1991 to address land suitability for timber production,
and in 1993 to address land availability for oil and gas leasing.
The Regional Forester gives notice that the Forest is beginning an
environmental analysis and decision-making process for this proposed
action so that interested or affected people can participate in the
analysis and contribute to the final decision.
Opportunities will be provided to discuss the Forest Plan revision
process openly with the public. The public is invited to help identify
issues and define the range of alternatives to be considered in the
environmental impact statement. Forest Service officials will lead
these discussions, helping to describe issues and the preliminary
alternatives. These officials will also explain the environmental
analysis process and the disclosures of that analysis, which will be
available for public review. Written comments identifying issues for
analysis and the range of alternatives will be encouraged.
Issue identification (scoping) meetings will be scheduled for fall
1999. Alternative development meetings will be held in fall 2000.
Public notice of dates, times, and locations for specific meetings will
be provided in local newspapers and posted on the Forest's web site:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/gmug. Additionally, we will send notices and
newsletters to those on the forest plan revision mailing list. Requests
to be placed on this mailing list should be sent to the comment address
stated above.
The United States has a unique legal relationship with Indian
tribal governments as set forth in the Constitution of the United
States, treaties, statutes, Executive orders, and court decisions. As
part of the overall effort to uphold the federal trust responsibility
to tribal sovereign nations to the extent applicable to National Forest
System lands, the Forest Service will establish regular and meaningful
consultation and collaboration with the tribal nations on a government-
to-government basis. The Forest Service will work with governments to
address issues concerning Indian tribal self-government and
sovereignty, natural and cultural resources held in trust, Indian
tribal treaty and Executive order rights, and any issues that
significantly or uniquely affect their communities.
Forest plans describe the intended management of National Forests.
Agency decisions in these plans do the following:
Establish management areas and management area direction
(management area prescriptions) applying to future activities in that
management area (resource integration and minimum specific management
requirements) 36 CFR 219.11(c);
Determine suitability and potential capability of lands
for resource production. This includes designation of suitable timber
land and establishment of allowable timber sale quantity (36 CFR 219.14
through 219.26);
Where applicable, recommend designations of special areas
such as Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers to Congress.
The authorization of project-level activities on the Forest occurs
through project decision-making, the second stage of forest land
management planning. Project-level decisions must comply with National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures and must include a
determination that the project is consistent with the Forest Plan.
In addition to the programmatic decisions described above, the
Forest is considering:
Making site-specific decisions on travel management
through identification of specific restrictions for individual roads
and trails on the Gunnison Forest, and
Identifying and analyzing instream flow requirements for
site-specific decision.
Any site-specific decisions made in conjunction with the Forest
Plan revision EIS would have a separate decision document and the
responsible official would be the Forest Supervisor.
Need for Changes in the Current Forest Plan
It's been approximately sixteen years since the current Forest Plan
was approved. Experience and monitoring have shown the need for changes
in management direction for some resources or programs. Several sources
have highlighted needed changes in the current Forest Plan.
These sources include:
Public involvement which has identified new information
and public values;
Monitoring and scientific research which have identified
new information and knowledge gained;
Forest plan implementation which has identified management
concerns to find better ways for accomplishing desired conditions; and
Changes in law, regulations, and policies.
In addition to changing public views about how these lands should
be managed, a significant change in the information and scientific
understanding of these ecosystems has occurred. Some new information is
a product of research, while other information has resulted from
changes in technology.
Major Revision Topics
Based on the information described above, Plan revision is
warranted in light of the combined effects of these multiple needs for
change. The preliminary revision topics that have been identified to
date are described below.
1. Terrestrial Ecosystem Sustainability and Restoration
Planning Questions
How will the forest be managed to restore or maintain
healthy ecosystems?
Should the forest be managed within historical range of
variability for such things as fire size and frequency, size and
distribution of openings, and mix of plant and animal species?
Are some species or vegetation communities such as aspen
and cottonwood declining?
What are appropriate ways to improve forest health in
addition to harvest and pre-commercial cutting?
How much of the forest should be maintained in old-growth
conditions and how should it be distributed in time and space?
Are large ecological preserves needed to provide adequate
habitat for some species? If so, how large, and
[[Page 52268]]
which conditions should be represented? What type of human activity, if
any, should be allowed in such areas?
What management direction is needed to ensure viable
populations of threatened, endangered, sensitive and other focal
species? How do various resource management regimes and human
activities affect these species?
What role should non-native species play in terrestrial
ecosystems? What should be done about increasing populations of noxious
weeds?
What management direction is needed to identify, protect,
and make available the traditional forest plant and animal products
that American Indians enjoy through exercising their treaty rights, or
other rights? How do various activities occurring on, or excluded from,
National Forest System lands affect the availability of traditional
forest products?
Background
A tremendous amount of new information and research results
regarding managing terrestrial ecosystems for ecological sustainability
has been issued since the Forest Plan was completed in 1983. The
current Plan only partially addresses this subject in piecemeal
fashion.
Several analysis concepts relating to ecological sustainability
have been developed since the 1983 plan, such as: establishing the
range of natural variability, comparing management to natural
disturbance processes, maintaining biological diversity through coarse-
filter and fine-filter assessments, delineating reference landscapes,
and broadening focus from vertebrates to all native species.
Traditional approaches also remain valid, such as conserving habitat
for indicator or focal species, and recovering threatened, endangered,
or sensitive species. The Forest will be analyzed using these
techniques and the Plan revised to reflect the knowledge gained.
New Management Area (MA) Prescriptions have been developed since
the 1983 Plan was approved. There is a need to develop new goals, make
existing goals and objectives more specific, and to evaluate the
present set of Management Areas, boundaries and prescriptions. Several
existing Plan standards lack the sophistication required to account for
key elements of ecological integrity, and variations in temporal and
spatial scales. An improved monitoring strategy is needed to measure
indictors of ecological integrity and sustainability at multiple
scales. There is an opportunity to design monitoring so that it
provides a better foundation for adaptive management.
Particular aspects of this topic identified by past and current
monitoring include: forest and rangeland health, insects and disease,
fragmentation and connectivity of habitats, potential need for
additional reserve areas, successional stage abundance and
distribution, late successional forest structure, prescribed and
natural fire/fuels management, forest cover and plant community
conversions, soil productivity, control of noxious weeds and other
undesirable species, riparian area health and management, and species-
to-habitat relationships. The Plan will revise direction for
threatened, endangered, sensitive, focal, and demand species (an
expansion of the current management indicator species (MIS) approach).
Proposed Actions
Based on monitoring results, preliminary analyses, and public
input, the following actions will be proposed in one or more EIS
alternative:
Define the desired conditions for terrestrial ecosystem
sustainability for appropriate temporal and spatial scales.
Base management practices on understanding and
consideration of natural disturbance processes, including the
intensity, frequency, and magnitude of those disturbance regimes.
Increase use of prescribed fire both within and outside of
Wilderness through natural and human ignitions.
Utilize new methods and treat more acres with active
vegetation management practices to improve forest health.
Apply vegetation treatment areas and patch sizes which
better reflect natural disturbance patterns.
Exclude or modify existing human uses to better protect
species at risk and to maintain or restore biological diversity.
Aggressivly treat noxious weed populations through various
means, including mechanical, biological and chemical control.
Develop a monitoring strategy that will measure
appropriate indicators of ecosystem integrity and ecological
sustainability at multiple scales, and will serve to facilitate
adaptive management.
2. Aquatic Ecosystem Sustainability and Restoration
Planning Questions
How do various activities occurring on the forest affect
water quality and quantity, soil resources, and riparian areas?
Where should limited watershed restoration funds be spent
to provide the greatest return on investment in terms of enhancement or
protection of aquatic ecosystem values?
How can revised Forest Plan management direction further
the implementation of the national ``Clean Water Action Plan and
Policy'' and ``Framework for Developing and Implementing Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDL) in Forest and Rangeland Environments''?
What are the effects of water diversions on various stream
ecosystems? What are the effects of various water storage facilities
(reservoirs, ponds, and tanks) on aquatic ecosystems?
In which drainages should the Forest Plan establish bypass
or minimum instream flows as conditions for issuance or renewal of
special use permits?
On which streams or stream reaches should the Forest
Service pursue settlement of claims for water rights in state court
adjudications in order to protect aquatic ecosystem integrity?
In which stream or lake systems is improved programmatic
direction needed to ensure the viability of aquatic species or to
restore dwindling populations? Which measures should be included?
Background
Watersheds have become the basic unit (at multiple scales) for
assessing ecological conditions, restoration needs, and the
sustainability of management prescriptions. Analysis is needed to
ascertain the appropriate management framework for achieving
maintenance and restoration of watershed integrity. The existing Plan
does not adequately describe management parameters required to ensure
that the characteristic diversity of biological and physical components
and processes are managed to provide watershed conditions within their
approximate range of natural variability. In keeping with changes in
Forest Service management philosophy based on the Clean Water Action
Plan commitments, recommendations from the Committee of Scientists, and
mandates from the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water acts, watershed
health and restoration will be a fundamental priority in the Plan
revision. There is currently a strong body of law, regulation, and
policy to ensure water quality protection (re: agency ``Watershed
Conservation Practices Handbook,'' FSH 2509.25, March 1999). This
direction provides very little discretion as to planning and
implementation of protection measures.
[[Page 52269]]
However, there is a zone of discretion with regard to the level and
intensity of aquatic ecosystem restoration measures that should be
pursued, based on anticipated benefits from investment, other resource
trade-offs, and projected funding levels. These questions warrant
examination as a primary revision topic.
Proposed Actions
The revised Plan will prescribe specifications and constraints
(standards and guidelines) for management practices to:
Maintain and restore watershed function and provision of
beneficial uses.
Protect and recover native aquatic and riparian dependent
species and prevent the introduction and spread of non-native, invasive
species.
Restore aquatic resources, including but not limited to
streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, source waters, wetlands,
riparian areas, and floodplains.
The Plan also proposes to:
Identify current and foreseeable future Forest Service
consumptive and non-consumptive water uses and rights needed to
maintain or restore watershed integrity, including instream flow needs.
Locate and designate reference watersheds and stream
reaches.
Prioritize specific watersheds for restoration by applying
factors such as: past disturbance history; water quality impairment and
riparian condition; inherent instability, disturbance sensitivity, and
restoration capabilities; diversity of native plants, fish, and
animals; special designations such as Wild and Scenic Rivers; recovery
of threatened, endangered, or other sensitive species; ability to
leverage restoration funds through partnerships; and, the opportunity
to work with interested and willing federal, state and tribal
governments, communities, adjacent land managers, and owners.
3. Roadless Areas and Unroaded Areas
Planning Questions
Where are the roadless areas on the Forest, what are their
characteristics, and which qualify for Wilderness recommendation?
How can Congressionally designated Wilderness be managed
to accomplish the principles of the Wilderness Act as related to human
uses and natural processes?
How should roadless areas not recommended for Wilderness
be managed?
Background
Inventoried roadless areas (RARE II and Forest Plan inventoried
areas) and other unroaded areas continue to be areas of high
controversy and debate as to their appropriate and best use. Although
the Colorado Wilderness Acts of 1980 and 1993 (Pub. L. 96-560 and Pub.
L. 103-77) released undesignated roadless lands for other management,
these Acts and federal regulation (36 CFR 219.17) require that these
areas be re-evaluated for Wilderness designation during Forest Plan
revision. Some ``inventoried roadless areas'' have always included
roads. Many more roads have been developed through management practices
and by users in the intervening decades. Actual Wilderness designation
is a Congressional responsibility; Forests can only make
recommendations. One current member of the Colorado Congressional
delegation has draft Wilderness legislation that would increase
Wilderness on the GMUG. Ecological sustainability goals will likely
lead to focused consideration of Wilderness additions in locations on
the margins of existing Wilderness, or in lower elevations where
Wilderness is less well represented.
The revision process will include a new inventory of roadless and
unroaded areas, replacing the RARE II and previous Plan inventories as
the basis for future analysis of ``roadlessness.'' A roadless area
inventory will be developed and areas capable of being designated for
Wilderness will be identified. Areas not recommended for Wilderness
will be studied for possible allocation to other management
prescriptions. The issue has become more complex over time and now
includes the need to assess values beyond potential Wilderness, such
as: source drinking water areas, reference areas for research, areas of
high or unique biodiversity, areas where other unfragmented landscapes
are scarce, areas of cultural or historic importance, or areas that
provide unique or important seasonal habitat for wildlife, fish, and
plant species.
The inventory will be conducted according to most recent guidance
defining unroaded areas. Current policy--which is in draft form--
defines unroaded areas as any areas that do not contain classified
roads (a road at least 50 inches wide and constructed or maintained for
vehicle use, Interim Rule, 36 CFR 212, 2/11/99). Assessment methods
will have to be developed to ascertain whether unroaded areas have
sufficient size in a manageable configuration to protect the inherent
values associated with the unroaded condition.
Proposed Actions
The following actions will be proposed in one or more EIS
alternative:
Identify and recommend for Wilderness designation those
roadless areas which meet basic requirements for Wilderness and would
further the goals of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 (note)).
For those roadless and unroaded areas not recommended for
Wilderness designation, provide management prescriptions that allow for
various levels of development.
4. Travel Management
Planning Questions
What travel and transportation opportunities should the
Forest provide to meet current and expected demands?
Where and what type of travel restrictions are needed to
sustain aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem integrity during all seasons
of use?
How can the Forest Service provide a wide range of
recreational opportunities to people who are physically restricted from
traveling by other than motorized means?
What type of transportation system, in terms of amount of
and standards for roads and trails, can the Forest manage and maintain
to an adequate level, particularly considering declining budgets and
greatly reduced road maintenance through timber sale contracts?
Which existing roads and trails should be closed
(permanently or seasonally) and/or decommissioned?
How will travel management policies affect property
inholders and landowners adjacent to the Forest boundary?
How do the GMUG's travel management policies fit with
those of adjacent national forests and other land management agencies,
particularly where routes cross jurisdictions?
Background
Issues and management concerns related to travel management have
increased significantly since completion of the Plan and its
amendments. Use numbers for traditional recreation travel, such as
driving for pleasure, hiking, horseback riding, and motorbiking have
grown steadily. Other modes, such as all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles,
and mountain bikes have dramatically increased over the last decade.
Resource impacts and social conflicts have increased proportionally
with these uses. All user groups want to
[[Page 52270]]
main or increase opportunities for their preferred uses. Plan
monitoring reports have acknowledged existing impacts and the potential
for increased adverse effects on soil, water, wildlife and heritage
resources from increased use, development of unauthorized routes, and
lack of maintenance on existing roads and trails. Semi-primitive areas
are becoming more developed as use increases and new routes appear.
Current agency policy (``Natural Resource Agenda'', Dombeck, 02/03/
99) directs forests to aggressively decommission old unneeded,
unauthorized, and other roads that contribute to environmental
degradation. An economically efficient and environmentally sound
transportation network is essential for active forest management and
the flow of goods and services.
The GMUG has invested a great deal into travel management planning
for the Grand Mesa and Uncompahgre Forests. For the Gunnison Forest
area, we will use Plan revision to conduct comparable analysis and make
consistent decisions. Additional designation and/or separation of
motorized and non-motorized uses will be needed to reduce conflicts.
Site-specific travel management decisions for individual routes will be
included in the revision process; any ground-disturbing closure or
decommissioning actions will receive project-level analysis. The Forest
will consider and apply those portions of the pending ``Road Analysis
Process'' which are specified for forest-level planning, when the
policy becomes final.
Proposed Actions
The following actions will be proposed in one or more EIS
alternative:
Identify a road and trail transportation network that
provides an environmentally sound and socially responsive travel
management system which is consistent across the entire Forest, and
well coordinated with adjacent forests.
Eliminate cross-country motorized travel (``green'' areas)
on those portions of the Forest not previously addressed in recent
travel management plans. Specify travel routes by appropriate modes and
season of use.
Designate permanent or seasonal travel restrictions and
those routes that will be decommissioned. Identify new road and trail
alignments that are needed to enhance travel opportunities or protect
resource values.
Specify whether motorized use is allowed in each land area
(MA) allocation and prescription; provide new goals, standards, and
guidelines.
5. Recreation and Scenery Resources
Planning Questions
What range, mix, and emphasis of recreation opportunities
will best meet the demands of a wide variety of current and future
users; while ensuring protection of scenic, biotic and physical
resources.
How much recreation use can be sustained from both the
ecological integrity and visitor enjoyment perspectives? Do limits need
to be placed on certain areas or types of use during various seasons?
Should potentially conflicting uses, such as mountain
biking and horseback riding occur in the same areas or be segregated?
How should surface water uses, including types and levels
of use on lakes and streams be regulated to maintain quality of the
recreation experiences and protect natural resources?
How should major recreation corridors and scenic byways be
managed? What type of opportunities should be provided in these areas?
What are appropriate development levels for campgrounds,
picnic areas, trailheads, etc.? How many facilities can be adequately
maintained under projected budget levels?
How do national forest and private sector facilities and
services best fit with each other?
How should the Plan revision be used to address allocation
of special uses, capacity and development levels? What program
parameters, such as service day allocations, permit numbers, activities
permitted, location and types of developments, should be established?
Where and how should scenic quality be maintained or
enhanced along major travel routes?
How does scenic quality change over time? What are the
implications of ecosystem dynamics and how should management intervene
prior to or after changes? How much weight should be given to short-
term versus long-term impacts and benefits?
What is the relationship between scenic quality and air
quality? What role should prescribed fire play?
Background
Recreation is a dominant use of the GMUG. Recreationists generate
major economic benefits to local counties and communities, and a high
percentage of recreation opportunities on the Forest are provided or
enhanced by private enterprise. Public perceptions of national forest
management are primarily based on personal experiences and visual
impressions. Forest visitors vary widely in their recreational
interests. A range of recreation settings from pristine to highly
developed is desired. This results in pressures for different land
allocations. Generally expressed public sentiment, attitudes and values
indicate strong desire for protection of natural scenic beauty. The
current Plan discusses both Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)
categories and Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs), but does little to
establish management direction for either recreation or scenic
resources. The existing Plan included an inventory, but very little in
the way of firm direction on ROS allocations; it basically set ranges
of ROS and VQO classes for most Management Areas. These allocations
were based more on compatibility with other management area direction
than on the characteristics of particular land areas. ROS objectives
and consequences were poorly displayed. This topic area is strongly
tied to travel management, as well as timber and other vegetation
management activities.
The VQO framework has been replaced by the scenery management
system. the ROS and scenery management frameworks can be used both to
inventory existing conditions and to make decisions on management
objectives. We will reassess management and public use needs related to
these concepts. The ROS system will be used to describe desired
recreation settings, conditions, compatible user groups, and
appropriate levels of use for specific areas of the Forest. Project
decision-making will have improved efficiency and support (e.g., in
travel management) when the revised Plan clearly establishes the
conditions we are trying to achieve in terms of recreation
opportunities. Improved direction, including distinct descriptions for
both winter and summer conditions, will substantially enhance
recreation management and user experiences. These displays will also
help more clearly define the conflicts and trade-offs between motorized
and non-motorized recreational
Proposed Actions
The Forest will be zoned into various classifications of
``recreation opportunity spectrum'' for summer and winter uses. There
are seven broad classifications which range from primitive through
urban, and they will be associated with a variety of resource
management standards and guidelines in nearly all program areas.
The Forest will be zoned into various classifications of
`'scenic integrity levels,'' ranging form very low
[[Page 52271]]
to very high. These classifications will be associated with a variety
of management implications in nearly all program levels.
The revised Plan will provide updated programmatic
direction for recreation facility developments, maintenance, special
use permitting parameters, and private sector service objectives.
6. Timber Suitability and Forest Management for Commercial Products
Planning Questions
Which portions of the Forest are suitable for timber
harvest?
What volume of timber and mix of products should the
Forest provide? What harvest level is sustainable while ensuring
ecological integrity?
How important to local communities and economies are the
wood products which the Forest provides?
What is the financial efficiency of the Forest's timber
sales program?
Which logging systems should be applied to better enable
forest vegetation treatments over a wider variety of terrain, and
during more stages of stand development?
How should recommended and allowable timber harvest
prescriptions be adjusted, both in terms of type and spatial
application limits, to account for new information relative to historic
range of variation and natural disturbance regimes?
Should logging occur in unroaded areas?
Are new roads needed for harvesting? If so, to what
standards should they be built? Should roads be maintained or
obliterated after logging use? Should logging roads be open or closed
to the general public?
What are the appropriate specifications and constraints
(standards and guidelines) for logging? What kinds of restoration
practices should occur after logging and road building?
Background
Timber management continues to be one of the most controversial
agency activities, as well as one of the most important for some local
communities. The debate surrounding timber harvesting is generally
waged in terms of related issues, such as biodiversity, community
sustainability, and roadless areas. However, this topic remains
significant in its own terms because of statutory mandates (e.g., the
1897 Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 473), and the National Forest Management
Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600(note))), emphasis in current research and
public dialogue (e.g., ``Committee of Scientists Reports'', 3/16/99;
proposed legislation to ban logging on NFS lands, H.R. 2789), and the
intensity of public emotion. The determination of lands suited and not
suited for timber production and ASQ is required by NFMA (sec.
6(g)(2)(A)) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 219.14).
The 1991 significant amendment to the Forest Plan addressed most of
the ``timber'' elements of the vegetation management debate. Timber
demand was re-evaluated, and the suitable timber base and allowable
sale quantity (ASQ) were recomputed using FORPLAN. Below-cost sales and
the economic suitability of timber were key topics addressed in the
amendment. Much of this analysis remains current, though stumpage
prices, among other elements, have changed significantly. The Forest
has completed new inventories since the 1991 timber amendment was
adopted which will be useful in determining timber suitability. Plan
implementation and monitoring have shown that portions of the suited
base may have been inappropriately classified based on current
standards. Updating the 1991 analysis is needed to account for new
ecological and economic criteria, and other social aspects of the
timber program.
The amended Plan for the GMUG identified 544,730 acres that are
suitable for timber production and set an ASQ that averages 38.7
million board feet (MMBF) of wood products per year for the decade
beginning in 1992. Programmed sale quantity, the amount expected to be
offered for sale, is equal to the ASQ. In addition, the Forest
estimated sales of 7 MMBF per year of non-chargeable products, mostly
personal-use firewood. Actual volume sold has fallen well short of the
projected levels. There are several reasons for this, the greatest of
which is insufficient budget and skyrocketing timber project planning
costs and time frames.
Traditional objectives for timber management have been supplanted
with broader objectives for vegetation and fuels management to achieve
integrated ecological goals. Plan revision must describe multiple land
classifications for timber removal, including: lands not suitable for
timber production, lands where timber harvest is permitted to
accomplish other resource objectives, and lands where timber production
is an objective.
Proposed timber sales in currently unroaded areas have generated
much controversy. This revision topic overlaps with the Roadless Area
and Unroaded Area allocation and management. Harvesting aspen,
harvesting mature / late-successional stands or large trees,
regeneration harvest methods, patch size, logging systems, and cost
efficiency of timber sales, are elements of this topic.
Proposed Actions
The Forest land base will be classified into various
categories of suitability for timber production within each Plan
alternative, including lands: tentatively suited for timber production;
not appropriate for timber production because they're occupied by
administrative sites; not appropriate for timber production due to
minimum management requirements that limit activities; not appropriate
for timber production because of other multiple-use objectives; not
cost efficient for timber production over the planning horizon; and,
net suited lands appropriate for timber production.
Allowable sale quantity and long-term sustained yield
capacity will be identified for each Plan alternative.
Programmatic direction (standards and guidelines) will be
revised for harvest prescriptions and logging systems and road
management.
Secondary Revision Topics
Preliminary topics discussed in this section are also important
issues to be addressed in the Plan revision. However, they are likely
not substantial or widespread enough to be major drivers in the EIS
alternative themes or forest-wide management area prescriptions and
standards.
1. Special Areas
Planning Questions
Which area on the Forest quality for Research Natural Area
designation?
Which rivers, or river segments, on the Forest are
potentially eligible for addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System?
Which portions of the Forest qualify for other special
area designations?
Should landscapes containing cultural or historic resource
properties that are potentially eligible for, or already listed on, the
National Register of Historic Places receive special land management
prescriptions?
What is the appropriate balance between providing for
historic site preservation, or conservation, and recreational
enjoyment, and allowing other activities that can affect the use of the
cultural or historic site and its setting? What are the appropriate
specifications and constraints (standards and guidelines) for
activities
[[Page 52272]]
affecting cultural properties and their setting?
What kinds of cooperation are needed between the Forest
Service, the tribes, other agencies, and private individuals to protect
these areas?
Background
The planning area includes several unique or outstanding areas and
resources of outstanding physical, biological, or social interest.
Collectively these are known as ``special areas.'' Potential formal
designations of special areas may include Wilderness (which was also
discussed under Primary Topic 3, above); Wild and Scenic Rivers;
Research Natural Areas; and special recreational areas with scenic,
historical, geological, botanical, zoological, paleontological,
archaeological, or other special characterists. These special areas
will influence land allocation and management in the revision. In some
cases the Plan will make the designation as a special area, and in most
cases it will simply make recommendations to another authority (e.g.,
U.S. Congress). Some areas received special designation after the last
Plan was approved, such as, Tabeguache Area, Roubideau Area, Fossil
Ridge Recreation Management Area and Wilderness, Powderhorn Wilderness,
and other Wilderness additions, and have never been incorporated into
the Plan or been given programmatic direction other than for travel
management.
Ten areas have been inventoried to determine their potential for
establishment as Research Natural Areas. The Plan revision will address
establishment of RNA's including an assessment of the needs for
additions to the RNA network.
There are five scenic byways on the Forest and a number of national
trails. Proposals are under consideration for additional trails.
There are currently several historic properties on the Forest
recognized to National Register of Historic Places. Heritage resources
must be protected by law.
The Forest is part of the traditional homeland of the Ute Nation
and there is an increased awareness of the sacred sites. Protection of
these sites will be part of revision.
The purpose and authority for study of Wild and Scenic Rivers is in
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 1, 1968, as amended. The GMUG
includes two rivers (the East River) and Taylor River listed on the
National Rivers Inventory. Both rivers were evaluated during
development of the original Forest Plan and determined not to be
eligible for the Wild and Scenic River System. Other rivers and streams
with potential for designation (e.g., portions of the Gunnison and San
Miguel) are located off of National Forest System lands.
2. Coal, Leasable Minerals, and Mining
Planning Questions
What lands are suitable for oil and gas leasing? What
stipulations should be included in leases? What lands should be
withdrawn from mineral entry because of conflicts with other National
Forest uses?
What types of activities or practices are suitable? What
mitigation measures are needed? What kinds of restoration practices
should occur after mining and oil and gas exploration or development?
How should mineral and energy exploration and development
be balanced with other considerations, such as heritage resources,
aesthetics, human health, and ecosystem health and sustainability? What
are the effects of exploration, development, and associated road
construction on other uses of the Forest?
What are the effects of mining and oil and gas activities
beyond the local area?
What kind of direction is needed for recreational planning
or dredging?
What special considerations are needed in Wilderness?
What are the economic impacts in the local community of
mining and coal, oil, and gas exploration and development?
Background
The 1993 Oil and Gas Leasing EIS established standard, controlled
surface use, and no surface occupancy stipulations, in addition to
determining the availability of land for leasing. No similar effort has
been undertaken for coal or uranium. Leasing decisions continue to be
made on a case-by-case basis, when in fact, many of the leasing
stipulations for oil and gas (e.g., protection of riparian areas)
appear to apply equally well to coal, uranium, and other resource
programs. The Forest Service needs to determine what areas are suitable
and available for oil, gas, coal, and uranium leasing and what
stipulations should be placed on exploration and development. The
revised Plan will develop separate stipulations for coal and uranium
leases.
Most of the Forest is available for locatable (or ``hard rock'')
mineral exploration and development under the Mining Law of 1872,
unless areas are specifically withdrawn. The Plan revision will update
programmatic guidance to minimize adverse environmental impacts on
Forest surface resources during mining operations for locatable
minerals.
3. Landownership Adjustment
Planning Questions
Which areas of the Forest need strengthened programmatic
direction to guide land ownership pattern adjustments?
How can goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for
lands adjustment be improved to prioritize agency action, enhance
management efficiency, and assist local communities?
Background
Landownership adjustment is generally considered a tool to
accomplish resource or socioeconomic objectives, rather than a driving
issue in and of itself. However, land exchange activity on the GMUG has
far exceeded predictions of the existing Plan. Exchange proposals
continue to generate intense controversy, particularly when they
involve land within or near resort communities, where land values are
high and open space is at a premium. Plan revision offers an
opportunity to develop agreements about desired future patterns of land
ownership that could be achieved through exchanges or purchases. Access
to public land is often a related concern where private land
development is happening, or likely will occur, adjacent to the Forest.
What To Do With This Information
This revision effort is being undertaken to develop management
direction that will help attain the three basic agency goals of
ecological sustainability, social and economic sustainability, and
collaborative public involvement.
The Forest's role and responsibilities in promoting social and
economic sustainability include: utilizing an effectively structured
planning process that helps build public understanding of the
interconnectedness of communities, economies and the Forest and its
resources; applying continuous, open, and collaborative planning
processes which enable well-reasoned community deliberation of
sustainable choices; examining opportunities to help local communities
meet specific needs; and providing for a wide variety of uses, values,
products and services through decision-making and Plan implementation.
Early public participation will identify the topics to be addressed
in
[[Page 52273]]
Plan revision. The preceding discussion of preliminary revision topics
is based upon our assessment of Plan monitoring and evaluation results;
public and agency input during project planning and Plan amendment
efforts; and socioeconomic, demographic and political changes. We
expect this list to change as people engage in the planning process.
Framework for Alternatives To Be Considered
A range of alternatives will be considered when revising the Forest
Plan. The alternatives will address different options to resolve
concerns raised as the revision topics listed above. A reasonable range
of alternatives will be evaluated and reasons given for eliminating
some alternatives from detailed study. A ``no-action alternative'' is
required, meaning that management would continue under the existing
Plan. Alternatives will provide different ways to address and respond
to public issues, management concerns, and resource opportunities
identified during the scoping process. In describing alternatives,
desired vegetation and resource conditions will be defined. Resource
outputs will be estimated in the Forest Plan based on achieving desired
conditions. Preliminary information is available to develop
alternatives; however, there will be additional public, agency, and
tribal government involvement and collaboration for alternative
development.
Consulting and Collaborating With Tribal Governments
The Forest Service will establish regular and meaningful
consultation and collaboration with tribal nations on a government-to-
government basis. The agency will work with tribal governments to
address issues concerning Indian tribal self-government and
sovereignty, natural and cultural resources held in trust, Indian
tribal treaty and Executive order rights, and any issues that
significantly or uniquely affect their communities. Correspondence,
meetings, and field trips will be used in this effort.
Involving the Public
An atmosphere of openness is one of the objectives of the public
involvement process, in which all members of the public feel free to
share information with the Forest Service regularly. All parts of this
process will be structured to maintain this openness.
The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and assistance
from individuals, organizations, tribal governments, and federal,
state, and local agencies who are interested in or may be affected by
the proposed action (36 CFR 219.6). The Forest Service is also looking
for collaborative approaches with members of the public who are
interested in forest management. Federal and state agencies and some
private organizations have been cooperating in the development of
assessments of current biological, physical, and economic conditions.
This information will be used to prepare the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS). The range of alternatives to be considered in the
DEIS will be based on public issues, management concerns, resource
management opportunities, and specific decisions to be made.
Public participation will be solicited by notifying in person and/
or by mail known interested and affected publics. News releases will be
used to give the public general notice, and public scoping
opportunities will be offered in numerous locations. Public
participation activities will include (but will not be limited to)
requests for written comments, open houses, focus groups, field trips,
and collaborative forums.
Public participation will be sought throughout the revision process
and will be especially important at several points along the way. The
first formal opportunity to comment is during the scoping process (40
CFR 1501.7). Scoping includes (1) Identifying potential issues, (2)
from these, identifying significant issues or those that have been
covered by prior environmental review, (3) exploring alternatives in
addition to No Action, and (4) identifying the potential environmental
effects of the proposed action and alternatives.
Release and Review of the EIS
We expect the DEIS to be filed with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and to be available for public, agency, and tribal
government comment in the fall of 2001. At that time, the EPA will
publish a notice of availability for the DEIS in the Federal Register.
The comment period on the DEIS will be 90 days from the date the EPA
publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of
the DEIS must participate in the environmental review of the proposal
in such a way that their participation is meaningful and alerts an
agency to the reviewer's position and contentions: Vemont Yankee
Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC. 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also,
environmental objections that could be raised at the DEIS stage but are
not raised until after completion of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) 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
three-month 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 FEIS.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
and concerns relating to the proposed actions, comments on the DEIS
should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer
to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also
address the adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of the alternatives
formulated and discussed in the statements. In addressing these points,
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.
After the comment period on the DEIS ends, comments will be
analyzed, considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in
preparing the Final EIS. The FEIS is scheduled to be completed in the
summer of 2002. The responsible official will consider the comments,
responses, environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS, and
applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making decisions
regarding these revisions. The responsible official will document the
decisions and reasons for the decisions in a Record of Decision for the
revised Plan. The decision will be subject to appeal in accordance with
36 CFR 217.
Dated: September 7, 1999.
Lyle Laverty,
Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, USDA Forest Service.
[FR Doc. 99-25099 Filed 9-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-HJ-M
