Upper Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Strategy, Northern and Intermountain Regions

SUMMARY: The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

propose to develop a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based strategy for

management of the lands under their jurisdiction in the Upper Columbia

River Basin (UCRB) in Idaho, Montana, Utah, Nevada, Wyoming, and a

small part of Washington that is administered by Region 1 of the Forest

Service. This strategy will modify existing land use plans. The

modification will include a coordinated ecosystem management strategy

for National Forest System and BLM public lands. This strategy will be

consistent with the ``Framework for Ecosystem Management in the

Interior Columbia River Basin'' that is being completed by the

Scientific Integration Team of the Eastside Ecosystem Management

Project. The EIS that will accompany this strategy will use the

information from the ``Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management

in the Interior Columbia River Basin'' and information received from

the public as a basis for issue determination and for evaluating

alternative strategies. Additional information may be collected as

necessary.

The strategy will be adopted in the form of decisions about desired

ranges of future conditions for ecosystems, and related standards and

guidelines for management of National Forest System and BLM public

lands on all or parts of the UCRB. The EIS will consider alternative

strategies for management of National Forest System and BLM-

administered lands and their effects in the entire UCRB. At a minimum:

A. The strategy will include direction which will protect and

enhance aquatic ecosystems within the range of threatened or endangered

anadromous fish through amendments to Forest Plans and Resource

Management Plans. This direction will supersede any interim direction

resulting from the Environmental Assessment for the Implementation of

Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in

Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California

(commonly referred to as ``PACFISH'').

B. The strategy also will include other necessary guidance

applicable to the Basin as a whole, or to broad subregions within the

basin. This guidance will address forest ecosystem health; rangeland

ecosystem health; aquatic and riparian ecosystem health; integration of

social and economic considerations; population viability; and the long-

term sustainability of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.

The guidance also will be developed by examining other issues

identified by the public through the scoping process. This guidance

will be adopted as amendments to the Forest Service Regional Guides for

Regions 1 and 4 and/or amendments to Forest Service and BLM land use

plans.

C. The third part of the strategy may identify changes to the ways

current plans are implemented or budgets developed, that can improve

capability to achieve ecosystem management objectives. The strategy may

also help establish priorities for revising forest plans and developing

or amending resource management plans. This part of the strategy does

not require environmental analysis, but may be addressed within the

scope of this EIS.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received

in writing by 30 days following the date of the last scoping meeting to

receive full consideration in the development of alternatives. Dates of

those meetings will be published in local and regional newspapers.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments concerning this proposal to Stephen P.

Mealey, Project Manager, 304 North 8th St., Room 253, Boise Idaho

83702.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Wyke or Cindy Deacon Williams,

EIS Team Co-leaders, 304 North 8th St., Room 253, Boise, Idaho 83702,

phone (208) 334-1770.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this action is to develop and

analyze a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based strategy for management

of lands administered by the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior

(USDI) Bureau of Land Management that are in the UCRB in Idaho,

Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada and that portion of Washington

administered by the Forest Service's Northern Region. The strategy will

focus on ecosystem health, including its forest, rangeland, and

aquatic/riparian, landscape, and social/economic components, with

emphasis on population viability and the sustainability of threatened,

endangered, and sensitive species.

The EIS team will prepare a proposed action that responds to

problems described in the statement of purpose and need. Formal scoping

meetings will follow the development of the proposed action. The

purpose and need statement and proposed action will serve to focus

formal scoping meetings by giving the public a better understanding of

the agencies' early thoughts about, or initial approximations of, what

the UCRB ecosystem strategy might be. The theme of the proposed action

will be the restoration of ecological resiliency in forest, rangeland,

and aquatic/riparian ecosystems within the UCRB. (Aldo Leopold, in his

essay The Land Ethic, defines the health of the land as ``the capacity

of the land for self-renewal.'' We speak of ecological resiliency as

the capacity of an ecosystem, including its physical, biological and

human components, for self-renewal. We do not imply that all human

wants will be satisfied by a resilient ecosystem.) Alternatives to the

proposed action will be developed largely in response to public

comments on the proposed action in formal scoping meetings.

This EIS will address all BLM lands within the Columbia River Basin

east of Oregon and Washington and all National Forest System lands in

the Columbia River Basin within the agency's Northern and Intermountain

administrative Regions. (This includes National Forest System and BLM

public lands in all of Idaho except the southeast corner that drains

into the Great Basin. It also includes the portion of the Panhandle

National Forest in Washington, that portion of Montana west of the

Continental Divide, a small portion of west-central Wyoming, the north-

west corner of Utah, and the northeastern corner of Nevada.) The

selected alternative may result in amendment to the Forest Service

Regional Guides for the Northern and Intermountain Regions and

amendment of the land use plans for the Forest Service and Bureau of

Land Management as follows:

Forest Service: Boise, Bridger-Teton, Caribou, Challis, Humboldt,

Payette, Salmon, Sawtooth, and Targhee National Forests in the

Intermountain Region; and Panhandle, Clearwater, Nez Perce, Kootenai,

Lolo, Flathead, Helena, Deerlodge, and Bitterroot National Forests in

the Northern Region.

Bureau of Land Management: Boise, Burley, Idaho Falls, Salmon,

Shoshone, and Coeur d'Alene Districts in Idaho; Butte District in

Montana; Rock Springs District in Wyoming; Salt Lake District in Utah;

and Elko and Winnemucca Districts in Nevada.

The BLM Challis Resource Area (Salmon District), Bennett Hills

Resource Area (Shoshone District), and Owyhee Resource Area (Boise

District) now are preparing Resource Management Plans (RMPs) that are

expected to incorporate ecosystem management strategies. Similarly, the

Targhee National Forest is revising its forest plan, and the Clearwater

National Forest expects to revise its forest plan. The schedule for the

Clearwater forest plan revision process will be announced at the time a

notice of intent for that purpose is published. These five planning

efforts will continue. The Challis, Bennett Hills, and Owyhee RMPs are

expected to be completed in 1995. The Targhee forest plan revision is

expected to be complete in 1996, and the Clearwater forest plan

revision is expected to be completed sometime after the completion of

the UCRB EIS. To the extent possible, those planning efforts will be

coordinated with development of the UCRB ecosystem management strategy.

The UCRB EIS may lead to a Record of Decision that amends one or more

of those five plans following completion of on-going planning efforts.

If the UCRB EIS is completed prior to completion of any of these five

on-going efforts, adjustments may be made to on-going efforts to ensure

consistency with the UCRB ecosystem management strategy.

BLM lands subject to potential plan amendments through the UCRB

effort total approximately 14 million acres in five states. The

National Forest System lands subject to potential plan amendment total

approximately 31.5 million acres.

Concurrent with this EIS, a basin-wide assessment known as the

``Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior

Columbia River Basin'' is under development. (The ``interior Columbia

River Basin'' has been defined as the lands in the continental United

States tributary to the Columbia River east of the crest of the Cascade

Mountain Range.) This Scientific Assessment will cover broad

ecosystems, and describe social, economic, and biophysical processes

and functions. The natural resources within this broad geographic area

have been altered over time by many factors including drought, fire

suppression, global climate change, livestock grazing, mining, timber

harvest, urbanization, and water uses. The results of the Scientific

Assessment will be used, in part, to analyze the effects of past

management and present management under current land use plans as a

baseline to help determine the need to change management direction, and

to determine the effects of different approaches to ecosystem

management.

The EIS will analyze a number of alternatives. One will be no

action, defined as current land use plan direction without modification

of any decision resulting from the Environmental Assessment for the

Implementation of Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-

producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and

Portions of California (commonly referred to as the ``PACFISH''

strategy). Another will be current management direction as modified by

any decision issued as interim direction resulting from the ``PACFISH''

environmental assessment. As indicated, further alternatives will be

developed in response to issues identified during the public scoping

process as defined in the Council on Environmental Quality's National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations to identify a

range of reasonable alternatives.

Issues that are expected to be addressed in detail through the

development and analysis of alternatives (in addition to the management

of anadromous fish habitat) include ecosystem health and its forest,

rangeland, and aquatic/riparian components with emphasis on population

viability and long-term sustainability of threatened, endangered, and

sensitive species. The use of public lands and resources in the

production of goods and services within the context of sustainability

will also be examined. The evaluation of these alternatives and others

will consider people's expectations for public lands and resources,

along with the capability of the ecosystems to provide and sustain

these values through time. Information will be used from the basin-wide

Scientific Assessment, Tribal governments, state and local governments,

other federal agencies, and other appropriate sources.

The direction being developed through this process will serve as an

ecosystem management strategy to move from current conditions to more

ecologically sustainable and socially desirable conditions, leaving

options available for future generations. The strategy will, at least,

establish desired ranges of future conditions for broad forest,

rangeland, and aquatic/riparian habitat types and inter-related social,

economic and landscape systems. Achievement of desired ranges of future

conditions by practices and activities developed and implemented at the

national forest and BLM district level, will result in restoration of

ecosystem health and restoration of ecological processes that maintain

ecosystems over time. Ecosystem restoration to, and maintenance within,

sustainable ranges by identifying appropriate goals and objectives and

management practices, can also help promote viability of associated

social and economic systems. The strategy will be based on integration

of social values, ecological capabilities, and economic relationships,

and will recognize treaty rights reserved by various Native American

Tribes on ceded lands and will fulfill United States government trust

responsibilities to the Tribes. The strategy will (1) assure habitat

condition needed to support species viability within the context of

desired ecosystem function and structure; (2) address the needs of

species and habitats of concern (currently listed or being considered

for listing under the Endangered Species Act or designated as sensitive

species by the Forest Service or BLM); (3) support the needs of dynamic

ecosystems that change over time and space; and (4) recognize the role

that disturbance mechanisms play in the evolution and maintenance of

ecosystems.

Scoping meetings are tentatively planned for Coeur d'Alene, Moscow,

Orofino, Grangeville, McCall, Salmon, Challis, Idaho Falls, Pocatello,

Twin Falls, Ketchum, and Boise in Idaho; Missoula, Libby, Kalispell,

Hamilton, Helena, and Butte, in Montana; Jackson, Wyoming; Salt Lake

City, Utah; and Elko, Nevada. Specific dates, times and locations for

the meetings will be announced in local newspapers of general

distribution.

The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service will act as

joint lead agencies to prepare the EIS. The two agencies will consult

with Tribal Governments and coordinate with state and local governments

and other federal agencies. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the

National Marine Fisheries Service will be consulted pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act.

The responsible officials for National Forest System lands will be

the Regional Foresters for the:

--Intermountain Region, Federal Building, 324 25th Street, Ogden, Utah

84401; and

--Northern Region, P.O. Box 7669, Missoula, Montana.

The responsible officials for public lands administered by the Bureau

of Land Management will be the State Directors for:

--Idaho, 3380 Americana Terrace, Boise, Idaho 83706;

--Montana, Granite Tower, 222 N. 32nd Street, Billings, Montana 59101;

--Wyoming, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003;

--Utah, 324 South State Street, Suite 301, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111;

and

--Nevada, P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada 89520.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental

Protection Agency in October, 1995, and will be available for public

review at that time. A public comment period of 90 days will be

provided for the draft EIS.

The UCRB EIS Team (Team) believes it is important to give reviewers

notice at this early stage of several court rulings related to public

participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of

draft EISs must structure their participation in the environmental

review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to

the reviewer's position and contentions. [Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978)]. Also, environmental

objections that could be raised at the draft EIS stage but that are not

raised until after completion of the final EIS may be waived or

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

(9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp.

1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980)]. Because of these court rulings, it is

very important that those interested in this proposed action

participate by the close of the 90-day comment period on the draft EIS,

so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the

Team at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to

them in the final EIS.

To assist the Team in identifying and considering issues and

concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should be as

specific as possible. It also is helpful if comments refer to specific

pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments also may address the

adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated

and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the

Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the

procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

It is expected that the final EIS will be filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency approximately 6 months after the draft

EIS is published. The record of decision for National Forest System

Lands will be issued with the final EIS and will be subject to Forest

Service appeal regulations (36 CFR 217). The BLM's proposed plan

amendment decision will be published with the final EIS and will be

subject to BLM protest regulations (43 CFR 1610.5-2). The BLM's record

of decision will be published following resolution of any protests.

David F. Jolly,

Regional Forester, Northern Region.

Dale N. Bosworth,

Regional Forester, Intermountain Region.

Alan R. Pierson,

Acting State Director, Idaho.

Larry E. Hamilton,

State Director, Montana.

[FR Doc. 94-30085 Filed 12-6-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P