Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

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