Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Cibola National Forest and Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National Grasslands, Located in Colflax, Harding, Mora, Union, Catron, Sierra, Socorro, Bernalillo, Sandoval, Lincoln, Torrance, Valencia, McKinley and Cibola Counties, NM; Gray, Hemphill, and Dallam Counties, Texas; Roger Mills and Cimarron Counties, OK

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Cibola

National Forest and Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle and McClellan

Creek National Grasslands, Located in Colflax, Harding, Mora, Union,

Catron, Sierra, Socorro, Bernalillo, Sandoval, Lincoln, Torrance,

Valencia, McKinley and Cibola Counties, NM; Gray, Hemphill, and Dallam

Counties, Texas; Roger Mills and Cimarron Counties, OK

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

Southwestern Region gives notice of the agency's intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Cibola National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). According to 36 CFR

219.10(g), Forest Plans are ordinarily revised on a 10-year cycle. The

existing Cibola Forest Plan was approved on July 15, 1985, and has

eight amendments.

The responsible official for approving the Forest Plan revision is

Charles W. Cartwright, Jr., Regional Forester, Southwestern Region,

USDA Forest Service, 517 Gold Avenue, SW, Albuquerque, New Mexico

87102. The Forest Supervisor, Cibola National Forest, is delegated

responsibility for preparing the Environmental Impact Statement.

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

in writing by March 11, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Jeanine A. Derby, Forest

Supervisor, Cibola National Forest, 2113 Osuna Road NE, Suite A,

Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87113-1001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jimmy E. Hibbetts, Planning Staff or

Barney Lyons, Team Leader, (505) 761-4650.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Land and Resource Management Plan

defines the long-term direction for managing the Cibola National Forest

and the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National

Grasslands. The revised Forest Plan will take an ecological approach to

achieve multiple-use management of the National Forest and National

Grasslands.

The Cibola National Forest identified revision topics through a

process by examining the Forest Plan and determining items that need to

be changed. The Five Year Evaluation and Monitoring Reports for 1986 to

1990 and 1991 to 1996 were also used to identify revision topics. This

process included a number of public meetings, newsletters and meetings

with local government officials and interest groups. Over 3000 letters

were sent to Congressional, governmental, and tribal agencies,

organizations, businesses, and individuals. These contacts all aided in

identifying the revision topics. Criteria was used to screen potential

changes into five possible categories of action:

Revision Topics

Implementation Topics

Legislation Topics

Topics for responsible Government Entities

Research 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:

Balancing Land Capability with Resource Demand

Watershed Condition Assessment and Water Uses, Rights, Quality, and

Availability Assessment

Biological Diversity

Native American Collaboration

Land Grant Community Collaboration

Land Uses

Oil and Gas Leasing

Population Growth and Social Demographics

Rural Community Economics

[[Page 90]]

Scenery Management Systems

Urban Interface

Wilderness Management

Recreation Management

Fire Management

Response to Legal Mandates

Access Management

Range Management

The Cibola National Forest intends to examine the primary decisions

made in the Forest Plan by addressing the preliminary issues and

focusing on revision topics. The following five significant preliminary

issues have been identified through public comments:

Biological Consequences of Forest Management

Livestock Grazing

Recreation/Wilderness/Travel Management

Watershed Conditions

Balancing Land Capability with Resources Demands

The primary decisions to be made in the Forest Plan are:

(a) Establishment of Forest-wide multiple-use goals and objectives,

including a description of the desired condition of the National Forest

and Grasslands and identification of the quantities that are expected

to be produced or provided during the RPA planning period (36 CFR

219.11(b)).

(b) Establishment of multiple-use prescriptions and associated

standards and guidelines for each management area including proposed

and probable management practices such as planned timber sale programs

(36 CFR 219.11(c)).

(c) Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR

219.11(d)).

(d) Establishment of Forest-wide standards and guidelines to

fulfill the requirements of 16 U.S.C. 1604 (The National Forest

Management Act) applying to the future activities (resource integration

requirements (36 CFR 219.13 through 219.27)).

(e) Establishment of land administratively available for oil and

gas leasing and the stipulations that must be applied to specific lease

areas in order that the Bureau of Land Management can authorize leases

for oil and gas production, subject to review (36 CFR 228.102(d) and

228.102(e)).

(f) Establishment of land suitable for timber production, grazing

capability and suitability and other resource activities (16 USC

1604(k) 36 CFR 29.14, 219.15, 219.20 and 219.21).

(g) Recommendations for the establishment of wilderness and other

special designations such as research natural areas (36 CFR 219.17(a)

and 219.25).

Alternatives required by implementing regulations of the National

Forest Management Act will be considered during the planning process.

An alternative addressing the Resource Planning Act program tentative

resource objectives, a ``no- action'' alternative that reflects the

current level of goods and services, and a wide range of alternatives

will be developed to respond to issues, management concerns or resource

opportunities identified during the planning process (40 CFR 1501.7,

1502.14(c)).

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 Forest Service gives notice that it is beginning 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 will be conducted throughout the planning process and

newsletters will be sent out periodically.

Forest Service personnel will describe and explain the preliminary

alternatives the agency has identified and the process of environmental

analysis and disclosure to be followed. Written comments are

encouraged. Additional meetings with individuals or groups may be

arranged by contacting Karen Carter, Public Affairs Officer, (505) 761-

4650.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and proposed Revised

Forest Plan should be available for public review in May 1999. After a

minimum comment period of 90 days, the Final Environmental Impact

Statement and Revised Forest Plan should be completed by March 2000.

The 90 day public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement 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 at that time. To be the most helpful, written comments on

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement should be as specific as

possible and may also address the adequacy of the statement or the

merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statements

(see The Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing

the procedural provisions of the national Environmental Policy Act at

40 CFR 1503.3). Please note that comments you make on the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement will be regarded as public information.

In addition, Federal court decisions have established that

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 reviewers' position and

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

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

the draft stage may be waived or dismissed by the courts if not raised

until after completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement

(City of Angoon v. Hodel, (9th Circuit, 803 F.2d 1018, 1022 (1986) and

Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490F. 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 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 Final Environmental Impact

Statement.

Dated: December 26, 1996.

Robert V. Clayton,

Acting Regional Forester.

[FR Doc. 96-33331 Filed 12-31-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M