Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Rio Grande National Forest; Rio Grande County, Mineral County, Saguache County, Conejos County, Alamosa County, Hinsdale County, San Juan County, and Archuleta County, CO

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Rio

Grande National Forest; Rio Grande County, Mineral County, Saguache

County, Conejos County, Alamosa County, Hinsdale County, San Juan

County, and Archuleta County, CO

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 36 CFR 219.10(g), the Regional Forester for the

Rocky Mountain Region gives revised notice of the agency's intent to

prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the revision of the

Rio Grande National Forest and Land and Resource Management Plan

(Forest Plan) to make specific changes described in the Analysis of the

Management Situation (AMS). A notice of intent was originally published

in the Federal Register on June 7, 1990. According to 36 CFR 219.10(g),

Forest Plans are ordinarily revised on a 10-year cycle. The existing

Rio Grande Forest Plan was approved on January 4, 1985.

DECISIONS TO BE MADE: The Rio Grande National Forest intends to

reexamine the primary decisions made in the Forest Plan by addressing

the issues identified as revision topics. The revision topics are those

areas of the Forest Plan, identified through monitoring, evaluation,

and public involvement, where a potential need for change was

identified. The revision topics are:

1. Biological Diversity

2. Timber Suitability and Management

3. Wilderness, Unroaded, and Other Special Area Considerations

4. Recreation Opportunities and Travel Management

5. Oil and Gas Leasing

The primary decisions made in the Forest Plan are:

Establishment of forest-wide multiple-use goals and objectives, 36 CFR

219.11(b);

Establishment of forest-wide management requirements (standards and

guidelines) to fulfill the requirements of 16 U.S.C. 1604 applying to

future activities (resource integration requirements), 36 CFR 219.13 to

219.27;

Establishment of 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);

Designation of lands suited or not suited for timber production and

other resource management activities, 36 CFR 219.14, 219.15, 219.20,

and 219.21;

Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements, 36 CFR

219.17(b)1;

Recommendations to Congress for the establishment of Wilderness, and

Recommendations regarding Wild and Scenic Rivers, and other special

designations.

No irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources (site-

specific actions) will be made as a result of this decision. Projects

to implement the Forest Plan will involve site-specific environmental

analysis and appropriate documentation.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: The Forest Service continues to invite comments and

suggestions from Federal, State, and local agencies, Native American

tribes, individuals, and organizations on the scope of the analysis to

be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). In

addition, the Forrest Service gives notice that it has begun a full

environmental analysis and decision-making process for this proposal so

that interested or affected people may know how they can participate in

the environmental analysis and contribute to the final decision. Public

meetings were held in November and December of 1993 to discuss

alternatives and to define the range of alternatives to be considered.

Forest Service officials described and explained the preliminary

alternatives the agency has identified and the process of environmental

analysis and disclosure. Written comments are encouraged. Additional

meetings with individuals or groups may be arranged by contacting Ron

Pugh, Forest Planner, 719-852-5941.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis or the

alternatives may be sent in at any time.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Jim Webb, Forest Supervisor, Rio

Grande National Forest, 1803 West Highway 160, Monte Vista Colorado,

81144.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ron Pugh, Forest Planner, 719-852-5941.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The revision topics were identified through

a process of examining the Forest Plan and determining what items may

need to be changed. This process included a number of public meetings

designed to get public input. Newsletters, seminars, and meetings with

local government officials and interest groups have also aided in

identifying the revision topics.

The revision process includes the development of an Analysis of the

Management Situation (AMS) (36 CFR 219.12(e)), which describes the need

and opportunity to alter or retain portions of the existing Forest

Plan. The AMS for the Rio Grande National Forest has been completed.

The public was involved in identifying the need for changes to the

Forest Plan. Copies of the AMS may be obtained by contacting Ron Pugh

at 719-852-5941.

The alternatives shown below are preliminary and continue to be

developed. Some of the preliminary alternatives may not be analyzed in

detail.

Alternative NA (No Action)

Alternative NA is the No-Action alternative. No-Action means that

the current management allocations, activities, and management

direction of the existing Forest Plan (as amended) would continue. All

alternatives, including Alternative NA, have some modifications to

existing direction for clarification, updating to new technology, new

definitions, etc. Due to additional lands becoming Wilderness with the

passage of the 1993 Colorado Wilderness Bill and refinements in the

timber inventory, the tentatively suitable timber land base has changed

from 806,426 acres to 756,108 acres. This new total represents

approximately 39% of the gross acreage of the Forest.

How Revision Topics Are Affected

1. Biological Diversity: The management of ecosystems is only

partially addressed in the existing Forest Plan. The evolving

principles of ecosystems management would be applied within the context

of the existing Forest Plan.

2. Timber Suitability and Management: Lands currently identified as

suitable (using the revised tentatively suitable land base) would be

scheduled for timber harvest within the context of the evolving

principles of ecosystem management.

3. Wilderness, Unroaded, and Other Special Area Considerations: No

additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System would be

recommended. Land allocations in the current Forest Plan would apply to

the undeveloped areas on the Forest.

4. Recreation Opportunities and Travel Management: Current

management direction would apply. The Forest would be managed to

provide existing levels of primitive and semi-primitive nonmotorized

recreation. The current policy limiting motorized uses to designated

roads and trails would not change.

5. Oil and Gas Leasing: The Rio Grande Forest would respond to

lease requests rather than initiating actions. All legally available

lands would be available for leasing.

Alternative A

Some people think that the best way to perpetuate ecosystems and

forest health is with a ``light touch'' * * * little or no logging, no

new road construction, significantly reducing the miles of existing

roads, etc.

How Revision Topics Are Affected

1. Biological Diversity: The designated Wilderness, areas

recommended for Wilderness designation, and other undeveloped areas

would result in few changes to the composition, structure, and pattern

of vegetation over the short term. Over the long term it is possible

that large fires, insect epidemics, or other natural disturbances could

result in significant changes to the composition, structure, and

pattern of forest vegetation.

2. Timber Suitability and Management: There are no suitable,

scheduled timber lands identified in this alternative. Production of

timber will result only from treatment of the forest to achieve

objectives such as wildlife habitat improvement of recreation

improvements.

3. Wilderness, Unroaded, and Other Special Area Considerations: All

unroaded areas would be recommended for Wilderness designation. These

areas would be managed primarily to allow natural processes to occur

with little human influence.

4. Recreation Opportunities and Travel Management: Primary emphasis

will be on primitive and semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation

opportunities. Some backcountry motorized recreation opportunities will

be provided. However, the travel management emphasis will be on

reducing the miles of open roads.

5. Oil and Gas Leasing: All Forest lands would be administratively

unavailable for oil and gas leasing.

Alternative B

Some people feel that the best way to insure economic stability is

through higher levels of timber harvest and the perpetuation of other

programs that provide monetary returns at the local and national level.

How Revision Topics Are Affected

1. Biological Diversity: Vegetative composition, structure, and

pattern in those areas of the Forest not designated Wilderness or

managed as backcountry will be influenced by a relatively high level of

logging.

2. Timber Suitability and Management: This alternative provides the

largest amount of land suitable and scheduled for timber production.

3. Wilderness, Unroaded, and Other Special Area Considerations:

There are no recommendations for Wilderness designation in this

alternative. Some unroaded areas will be managed to provide backcountry

motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities.

4. Recreation Opportunities and Travel Management: This alternative

will emphasize multi-season, multi-use recreation programs. Recreation

will equally emphasize the various recreation programs which include

motorized and nonmotorized recreation, outfitter guides, special uses,

and any programs that promote out-of-state tourism.

5. Oil and Gas Leasing: This alternative would authorize leasing on

all legally available lands.

Alternative C

Many people feel that the Forest Service can operate more

efficiently if resource management programs would be structured so that

they pay for themselves. Some funding mechanisms will be hypothesized

that are not currently allowed by law.

Allocations in this alternative would be exactly the same as

alternative D, except that the programs would be self-supporting.

How the Revision Topics Are Affected

The effects to revision topics are the same as those for

Alternative D.

Alternative D

This alternative emphasizes a multiple-use approach that is

designed to maintain or improve the economy and quality of life in and

around the San Luis Valley. There is an emphasis on recreation

development using partnerships and cooperative agreements.

How the Revision Topics Are Affected

1. Biological Diversity: Vegetative composition, structure, and

pattern in those areas of the Forest not designated Wilderness or

managed as backcountry will be influenced by a moderate level of

logging.

2. Timber Management and Suitability: This alternative provides a

relatively high amount of land that is suitable and scheduled for

timber production.

3. Wilderness, Unroaded and Other Special Area Considerations:

There are no recommendations for Wilderness designation in this

alternative. A significant number of unroaded areas will be managed to

provide backcountry motorized and nonmotorized recreation

opportunities.

4. Recreation Opportunities and Travel Management: This alternative

will emphasize multi-season, multi-use recreation programs. Recreation

will equally emphasize the various recreation programs which include

motorized and nonmotorized recreation, outfitter guides, special uses,

and any programs that promote or support out-of-state tourism.

5. Oil and Gas Leasing: Some suitable lands will be leased with

standard lease terms and supplemental stipulations. The discretionary

no-lease stipulation may be used where surface-leasing activity is not

wanted.

Alternative E

Many people feel that the best way to manage the Forest is through

an even distribution of multiple resource uses that are managed within

the capabilities of the Forest's ecosystems. Only areas that have been

developed in the past will be considered for activities such as timber

harvest and recreation developments. Emphasis is placed on the Rio

Grande National Forest Recreation Strategy.

How Revision Topics Are Affected

1. Biological Diversity: Vegetative composition, structure, and

pattern in those areas of the Forest previously developed will be

influenced by a modest level of logging. There will be significant

amounts of the Forest in backcountry nonmotorized and motorized

management prescriptions where ecosystems are expected to function with

only minimal disturbances.

2. Timber Management and Suitability: Lands suitable for timber

production are limited to those areas of the Forest where logging has

taken place in the past.

3. Wilderness, Unroaded, and Other Special Area Considerations:

Selected unroaded areas will be recommended for Wilderness designation.

The majority of the remaining unroaded areas will be managed under

backcountry nonmotorized and motorized prescriptions.

4. Recreation Opportunities and Travel Management: This alternative

will emphasize multi-season, multi-use recreation programs.

5. Oil and Gas Leasing: Areas having special recreation values

would have a discretionary no-lease stipulation applied. These areas

might include backcountry areas, eligible Wild Rivers, certain Special

Interest Areas, Scenic Byways, and dispersed recreation areas.

Alternative F

This alternative emphasizes the protection of biodiversity and

whole ecosystems using the concept of island biogeography and

conservation reserves. Human uses are allowed as long as they are

compatible with protecting biological diversity.

How Revision Topics Are Affected

1. Biological Diversity: This alternative was designed as an

attempt to provide a high level of emphasis on protecting whole

ecosystems. In this context, ecosystems primarily consider biological

and physical attributes, and de-emphasize the social and economic

attributes of ecosystems.

2. Timber Management and Suitability: Lands suitable for timber

production are limited to those areas of the Forest allocated to the

General Forest and Intermingled Rangelands management prescription.

3. Wilderness, Unroaded, and Other Special Area Considerations:

Selected unroaded areas will be recommended for Wilderness designation.

The majority of the undeveloped areas will be managed as ``core

reserves.'' All unroaded areas will remain unroaded.

4. Recreation Opportunities and Travel Management: The primary

emphasis will be on nonmotorized recreation. Recreation is allowed but

not emphasized in core reserve areas. No motorized uses are allowed in

the core reserve areas.

5. Oil and Gas Leasing: Only those Forest lands that have high

potential for oil and gas resources would be analyzed under this

alternative.

The Draft EIS

The responsible official for approving the Forest Plan revision is

Elizabeth Estill, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, USDA Forest

Service, 740 Simms Street, P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, Colorado 80225.

The Forest Supervisor, Rio Grand National Forest, is delegated

responsibility for preparing the environmental impact statement.

The Draft EIS and proposed Revised Forest Plan should be available

for public review in March 1995. After a minimum comment period of 90

days, the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Revised Forest Plan

should be completed by March 1996.

The 90 day public comment period on the Draft EIS will commence on

the day the Environmental Protection Agency publishes a ``Notice of

Availability'' in the Federal Register.

It is very important that those interested in this proposed action

participate during the comment period. To be the most helpful, comments

on the Draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful

if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the Draft EIS or the

merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the Draft EIS.

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 when addressing these points.

Please note that comments you make on the Draft EIS will be regarded as

public information.

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

draft environmental impact statements must structure their

participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is

meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and

contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,

553 (1978). Environmental objections that could have raised at the

draft environmental impact stage but that are not raised until after

completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or

dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F. 2d 1016, 1022

(9th Circuit, 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 comment period so that substantive

comments are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can

meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final

environmental impact statement.

Dated: September 1, 1994.

Elizabeth Estill,

Regional Forester.

[FR Doc. 94-22319 Filed 9-8-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M