Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ID918-1610-00-UCRB]

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

AGENCIES: Forest Service, USDA; Bureau of Land Management, USDI.

ACTION: Notice of availability of draft environmental impact

statements.

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

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) have prepared two draft environmental impact statements (EISs)

(the Eastside Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Upper

Columbia River Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statement) as part of

the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (Project). The

proposed action of the Project is to develop a scientifically sound,

ecosystem-based strategy for management of the lands under the

jurisdiction of the Forest Service and BLM in the Project area. The

Project area includes lands east of the crest of the Cascade Mountains

within the Columbia River basin (with the exception of those National

Forest System lands within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem) and the

Klamath and Great Basins within the State of Oregon. The Eastside Draft

EIS applies to approximately 30 million acres of Forest Service- and

BLM-administered lands within Oregon and Washington. The Upper Columbia

Rover Basin Draft EIS applies to approximately 42 million acres of

Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands within the Columbia River

basin in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. These draft EISs

are based, in part, on the work of the Science Integration Team of the

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, summarized in the

Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the

Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins,

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR,

September, 1996.

Both draft EISs describe and analyze two ``no action'' alternatives

and five ``action'' alternative intended to respond to the statement of

purpose of, and need for, the Project and to the issues identified

through public scoping.

The Record of Decision that will eventually complete the National

Environmental Policy Act process of which these two draft EISs are a

part, may amend Forest Service Regional Guides and is expected to amend

existing Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plans and BLM

Resource Management Plans and Management Framework Plans in the Project

area by the adoption of an ecosystem-based management strategy.

DATES: A 120-day comment period begins with the publication in the

Federal Register of the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of the

filing of these two draft EISs. Comments on the draft EISs must be

submitted or postmarked no later than October 6, 1997. Those who do not

comment on one or both of the draft EISs or otherwise participate in

this EIS process may have limited options to appeal or protest the

final decision. Public outreach to explain the draft EISs and to assist

the public with commenting on the two draft documents will be conducted

throughout the Project area during the comment period. Notice of dates

and locations of these efforts will be given through mailings and local

media.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Eastside Draft EIS may be obtained from

ICBEMP, 112 E. Poplar Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362 or by calling (509)

522-4030. Copies of the Upper Columbia River Basin Draft EIS may be

obtained from ICBEMP, 304 N. 8th Street, Room 250, Boise, ID 83702 or

by calling (208) 334-1770, ext. 123. The Draft EISs will also be

available in late June via the internet (http://www.icbemp.gov).

Comments on the Eastside draft EIS should be submitted in writing

to ICBEMP, 112 East Poplar Street, P.O. Box 2076, Walla Walla, WA

99362. Comments on the Upper Columbia River Basin draft EIS should be

submitted in writing to ICBEMP, 304 N. 8th Street, Room 250, Boise, ID

83702. If your comments are in regard to both draft EISs, they may be

sent to either office. Comments may also be made electronically by

accessing the Project home page (http://www.icbemp.gov), where a

comment form will be available by late June for submitting comments.

Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will

be available for public review at the above addresses during regular

business hours (7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at Walla Walla and 8:00 a.m. to

5:00 p.m. at Boise, Monday through Friday, except holidays), and may be

published as part of the final environmental impact statement.

Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to

withhold your name or street address from public review or from

disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this

prominently at the beginning of your written comments. Such requests

will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from

organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying

themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or

businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their

entirety. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and

considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments may not have

standing to appeal the decision under 36 CFR 217 (Forest Service) or

standing to protest the proposed decision under 43 CFR 1610.5-2 (Bureau

of Land Management).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

EIS Team Leader Jeff Walter, 304 N. 8th Street, Room 250, Boise, ID

83702, telephone (208) 334-1770 or EIS Deputy Team Leader Cathy

Humphrey, 112 East Poplar Street, P.O. Box 2076, Walla Walla, WA 99362,

telephone (509) 522-4030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The statement of the purpose of, and need

for, the proposed action (development of a scientifically sound,

ecosystem-based management strategy) is key information. The purpose

and need, along with the issues identified through public scoping,

framed the alternative management strategies considered in these two

Draft EISs. The purpose and

[[Page 32077]]

need also provide guideposts for selection of a preferred alternative.

The purpose of this action is to create a coordinated approach and

to select a management strategy that best achieves a combination of the

following: (1) Restore and maintain long-term ecosystem health and

ecological integrity. (2) Support economic and/or social needs of

people, cultures, and communities, and provide sustainable and

predictable levels of products and services from lands administered by

the Forest Service or BLM, including fish, wildlife, and native plant

communities. (3) Update or amend current Forest Service and BLM

management plans with long-term direction primarily at the regional and

sub-regional levels. (4) Emphasize adaptive management over the long

term. (5) Provide consistent direction at regional and sub-regional

levels that will assist managers in making project decisions at a local

level in the context of broader ecological considerations. (6) Help

restore and maintain habitats and viability of plant and animal

species, especially for threatened, endangered, and candidate species

and of special interest to Tribes. This would be done primarily by

moving toward desired ranges of landscape conditions on a sub-regional

and regional basis. (7) Provide opportunities for cultural,

recreational, and aesthetic experiences. (8) Replace interim direction

(PACFISH, INFISH, and Eastside screens) primarily with ecosystem-based

long-term, regional and subregional strategies, to provide a broader

context for local direction. (9) Identify where current policy,

regulation, or law may act as barriers to implementing the strategy or

achieving desired conditions.

The need for this action is to restore and maintain long-term

ecosystem health and ecological integrity; and to support the economic

and/or social needs of people, cultures, and communities, and

sustainable and predictable levels of goods and services from National

Forest System and Bureau of Land Management lands.

Using the issues identified through public scoping to establish the

scope of the alternatives, the interdisciplinary team developed five

action alternatives intended to respond to the statement of the purpose

and need. Alternatives 1 and 2 are variations of ``no action''.

Alternatives 3 through 7 are alternative ecosystem-based management

strategies. The themes of the seven alternatives are as follows:

Alternative 1: Continues management specified under existing Forest

Service or BLM land-use lands.

Alternative 2: Applies recent interim direction (PACFISH, INFISH,

and Eastside Screens as the long-term strategy for lands administered

by Forest Service or BLM. All other direction from existing plans would

continue. Direction in Alternative 1 would apply to areas not covered

by interim direction.

Alternative 3: Updates existing Forest Service or BLM plans in

response to changing conditions. Minimizes changes to local plans,

addressing only priority conditions that most hinder effectiveness or

legal conditions. Provides a broader dimension and more integrated

management regarding priority large-scale issues than Alternatives 1 or

2.

Alternative 4: Aggressively restores ecosystem health through

active management using an integrated ecosystem management approach.

Priority is placed on forest, rangeland, and watershed health. Actions

are designed to produce economic benefits whenever practical.

Alternative 4 is the agencies' preferred alternative.

Alternative 5: Emphasizes production of goods and services

consistent with ecosystem management principles. Areas are targeted for

specific uses based on biological capability and economic efficiency.

Other uses may occur but conflicts would be resolved in favor of the

priority use.

Alternative 6: Emphasizes an adaptive management approach to

restore and maintain ecosystems while providing for social and economic

needs. Takes a slower, more cautious approach than other alternatives

and implies the use of experimental processes, local research, and

extensive monitoring.

Alternative 7: Emphasizes reducing risks to ecological integrity

and species viability by establishing a system of reserve lands

administered by the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management.

Reserves are selected for representation of vegetation and rare animal

species. Management activities are limited within reserves and are

similar to Alternative 3 outside reserves.

Dated: June 6, 1997.

Nancy Graybeal,

Deputy Regional Forester.

Dated: June 6, 1997.

William L. Bradley,

Deputy State Director for Resource Planning, Use and Protection.

[FR Doc. 97-15379 Filed 6-11-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-11-M, 4310-GG-M