Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, White River National Forest, Colorado

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, White River National

Forest, Colorado

AGENCY: Forest Service. USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

in conjunction with revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan

for the White River National Forest located in Eagle, Garfield,

Gunnison, Mesa, Moffat, Pitkin, Rio Blanco, Routt, and Summit counties,

Colorado.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact

statement in conjunction with the revision of its Lands and Resource

Management Plan (hereafter referred to as Forest Plan or Plan) for the

White River National Forest.

[[Page 42231]]

This notice describes the specific portions of the current Forest

Plan to be revised, environmental issues considered in the revision,

estimated dates for filing the environmental impact statement,

information concerning public participation, and the names and

addresses of the agency officials who can provide additional

information.

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

in writing by November 1, 1997. The agency expects to file a draft

environmental impact statement with the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and make it available for public comment in the fall of 1998. The

agency expects to file a final environmental impact statement in the

fall of 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Jerry Hart, Team Leader, White

River National Forest Planning Team, White River National Forest, Box

948, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jerry Hart, Planning Team Leader, (970) 945-2521.

Responsible Official: Elizabeth Estill, Rocky Mountain Regional

Forester at P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, CO 80225-0127.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to part 36 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) 219.10 (g), the Regional Forester for the Rocky

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

environmental impact statement for the revision effort described above.

According to 36 CFR 219.10 (g), land and resource management plans are

ordinarily revised on a 10 to 15 year cycle. The existing Forest Plan

was approved on September 20, 1984.

The Regional Forester gives notice that the Forest is beginning an

environmental analysis and decision-making process for this proposed

action so that interested or affected persons can participate in the

analysis and contribute to the final decision.

The public will be provided many opportunities to discuss the

Forest Plan revision. The public is invited to help identify issues and

define the range of alternatives to be considered in the environmental

impact statement. Forest Service officials will lead these discussions,

helping to describe issues and the preliminary alternatives. These

officials will also explain the environmental analysis process and the

disclosures of that analysis, which will be available for public

review. Written comments identifying issues for analysis and the range

of alternatives will be encouraged.

Issue identification (scoping) meetings are scheduled for September

and October 1997. Alternative development meetings will be held in

early 1998.

Forest plans describe the intended management of National Forests.

Agency decisions in these plans do the following:

* Establish multiple-use goals and objectives (36 CFR 219.11);

* Establish forestwide management requirements (standards and

guidelines) to fulfill the requirements of 16 USC 1604 applying to

future activities (resource integration requirements, 36 CFR 219.13 to

219.27);

* Establish management areas and management area direction

(management area prescriptions) for future activities in that

management area (resource integration and minimum specific management

requirements) 36 CFR 219.11 (c);

* Establish monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR 219.11

(d));

* Determine suitability and potential capability of lands for

resource production. This includes designation of suitable timber land

and establishment of allowable timber sale quantity (36 CFR 219.14

through 219.26);

* Where applicable, recommend designations of special areas such as

Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers to Congress.

The authorization of project level activities on the Forest occurs

through project decision-making, the second stage of forest land

management planning. Project level decisions must comply with National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures and must include a

determination that the project is consistent with the Forest Plan.

In addition to the programmatic decisions described above, the

Forest is considering:

* Making site specific decisions on travel management through

identification of specific management for individual roads and trails,

* Identifying and analyzing vacant range allotments for specific

decision, and

* More specific disclosure related to management of four season

resorts.

Any site specific decisions made from the analysis in the

Environmental Impact Statement will be in separate decision documents

and the responsible official will be the Forest Supervisor.

Need for Changes in the Current Forest Plan

It had been almost thirteen years since the current Forest Plan was

approved. Experience and monitoring have shown the need for changes in

management direction for some resources or programs. Several sources

have highlighted needed changes in the current Forest Plan. These

sources include:

* Public involvement which has identified new information and

public values;

* Monitoring and scientific research which have identified new

information and knowledge gained;

* Forest plan implementation which has identified management

concerns to find better ways for accomplishing desired conditions.

In addition to changing public views about how these lands should

be managed, a significant change in information and the scientific

understanding of these ecosystems has occurred. Some new information is

a product of research, while other information is the result of changes

in technology.

Major Revision Topics

Based on the information sources identified above, the combined

effect of the needed changes demand attention through plan revision.

The revision topics that have been identified so far are described

below.

Biological Diversity

Planning Questions

* How will the forest be managed to restore or maintain healthy

ecosystems?

* How will application of ecosystem management affect management of

the Forest?

* How does compliance with the Endangered Species Act and related

Forest Service policy affect forest management?

Background

Biological diversity is the full variety of life in an area

including the ecosystems, plants and animal communities, species and

genes, and the processes through which organisms interact with one

another and their environment. Humans and human activity are integral

parts of ecosystems and will be considered in the analysis of this

topic. On the White River National Forest, biological diversity has

been reduced through human activity and fire suppression for the past

100 years.

The current Forest Plan only partially addresses the concept of

biological diversity. In revision, biological diversity concepts will

be used for developing integrated forest management strategies for the

physical

[[Page 42232]]

and biological environment. Elements of the integrated analysis

include: (1) Analysis of landscape pattern and ecological health; (2)

Definition of a historic range of variability to establish an

ecological baseline; and (3) Analysis of forested and non-forested

vegetation, riparian areas, soils, geologic hazards, watershed risk,

air quality, late successional stage forests (old growth), risk of

insect and disease infestation, risk of noxious weed growth, wildlife

habitat, needs for fire management, and occurrence of threatened,

endangered and sensitive species. The Forest Service believes

biological diversity will decrease under continued implementation of

the existing Forest Plan. The revision will develop specific methods

for management of biological diversity and provide for monitoring of

management actions to measure progress.

Travel Management

Planning Question

* What travel and transportation opportunities should the Forest

provide to meet current and expected demands?

Background

Travel management is movement of people, goods, and services to and

through the Forest. An economically efficient transportation network is

essential for forest management and the production of goods and

services. Traditional forms of recreation such as driving for pleasure,

hiking, horseback riding, and snowmobiling are showing steady

increases. Mountain-biking, cross-country skiing, all-terrain vehicles,

rafting and kayaking have grown dramatically in the past decade. Winter

travel on and access to the Forest has increased substantially and

conflicts have intensified in some areas. A separation of uses between

motorized and non-motorized recreation activity is an issue. Motorized

and non-motorized recreationists want to maintain or improve their

opportunities to use the Forest. Consideration is being given to the

analysis of site-specific travel management issues in the revision. If

this occurs, a separate decision on these issues would be made by the

Forest Supervisor.

Urbanization

Planning Questions

* How will forest management change in response to continuing

urbanization?

* What role will National Forest System lands play in support of

community infrastructure and development?

Background

The human environment includes the natural and physical environment

and the interdependent relationship of people to that environment.

Commodity and amenity benefits from public lands within the planning

area are major contributors to the social systems and economic base of

many neighboring communities. Fully forty-one percent of the one

hundred thousand jobs in the planning area are related to tourism--a

large portion of which occurs on the Forest.

Concerns related to this topic include: how to maintain public

access to the Forest; how to restore fire to the ecosystem and engage

in vegetation treatment in the urban--wildland interface; how to

maintain domestic grazing so ranching can continue to be an element in

local community character; how to maintain critical wildlife habitat on

public lands; how to maintain water and air quality while continuing

management and; how to support community development through land

adjustments and special use permits.

Recreation

Planning Question

* What range, mix, and emphasis of recreation opportunities will

best meet the demands of a wide variety of current and future users;

while ensuring protection of scenic, biotic and physical resources.

Background

The White River National Forest is one of the top forests in the

nation for recreation opportunities and use. Recreation on the Forest

has a significant economic impact locally and in the state of Colorado.

Concerns exist about the effect of recreation use on the physical and

biological environment. As the four-season-resort concept evolves for

ski resorts, a change in management direction is needed to address a

variety of management issues including conflicts between users,

changing user preferences and the multi-season use of the resorts.

Rapidly increasing winter recreation outside ski resort boundaries is

creating a need to address separation of users. There is a need to

review existing direction to determine how the demand for a wider

variety of summer uses can be met. People want more amenities at

developed recreation sites. The need for capital investment at these

sites must be addressed. Recreation capacities will be analyzed for the

entire Forest and allocations will be made for commercial operators and

individuals. A new scenery management system will be used in the

allocation of lands forest-wide.

Roadless Area Management

Planning Questions

* What are the roadless area on the Forest and which qualify for

wilderness recommendation?

* How should roadless areas not recommended for wilderness be

managed?

Background

During the revision process, the Forest Service is required (36 CFR

219.17) to evaluate all roadless areas for potential wilderness

designation. This process will produce an inventory of roadless areas

meeting minimum criteria for Wilderness according to the 1964

Wilderness Act. Wilderness designation is a Congressional

responsibility; the Forest Service only makes recommendations.

The Forest has large amounts of land which could be considered

roadless because they have minimal development and little evidence of

human use. All of the Forest, except designated wilderness, will be

inventoried for roadless potential. Recommendations for wilderness

designation will be made for those inventoried areas which meet the

suitability and need criteria.

Special Areas

Planning Questions

* How can Congressionally designated Wilderness be managed to

accomplish the principles of the Wilderness Act as related to home use

and natural processes?

* What are the significant cave resources and how will they be

protected?

* What areas on the Forest qualify for Research Natural Area (RNA)

establishment to meet regional and national objectives?

* How will the Forest address protection of heritage resources?

* What other areas qualify for special area designation?

* What rivers on the Forest are eligible for addition to the

National Wild and Scenic River (WSR) System?

Background

The planning area includes many unique and outstanding combinations

of physical and biological resources, and areas of social interest.

These are collectively referred to as ``special areas.''

Special area designations may include Wilderness; Wild and Scenic

Rivers; Research Natural Areas; and special

[[Page 42233]]

recreational areas with scenic, historical, geological, botanical,

zoological, paleontological, archaeological, or other special

characteristic. These special areas will influence land allocation and

management in the revision.

The Forest manages all or part of eight Wilderness Areas totalling

over 750,000 acres. Issues include the level of human use and the loss

of biological diversity due to past fire suppression.

Seventy-four caves are known to occur within or near the Forest

boundary. Caves will be protected to meet the intent of the National

Cave Resources Protection Act.

The Forest Service has recognized a lack of ecosystems protected as

Research Natural Areas. Twenty-six areas are being inventoried to

determine their potential for establishment.

There are three scenic byways on the Forest and a number of natural

trails. Proposals are under consideration for additional trails. Byways

and trails will be designed in the revision and made part of the

management of the Forest.

The Forest currently has four sites listed in the National Register

of Historic Places. Heritage resources must be protected by law. The

Forest is part of the traditional homeland of the Ute Nation and there

is an increased awareness of sacred sites. Protection of these sites

will be part of revision.

The purpose and authority for study of Wild and Scenic Rivers is in

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 1, 1968, as amended. Rivers

and streams determined eligible for potential inclusion in the Wild and

Scenic River System will be examined. Currently, 77 river segments

totaling over 700 miles have been identified for study to determine if

they are eligible for addition to the system. The next step in the

process, suitability analysis, will not be done as part of the revision

process.

Timber Suitability and Management

Planning Questions

* What areas of the Forest are suitable for timber harvest?

* What volume of timber should the Forest provide?

* What is the financial efficiency of the Forest's timber sales

program?

Background

In the plan revision process, the Forest Service is required (36

CFR 219.14) to determine which lands are not suited for timber

production. This allows an estimate to be made of the potential of the

Forest to produce a continuous supply of timber. Preliminary analysis

shows the tentatively suited timber lands on the Forest are similar to

those identified in the current plan. Alternative levels of commercial

timer harvest will be identified in the revision.

Of significant concern to the Forest Service is the biological

condition of forested vegetation. The Forest Service believes it will

be necessary to use prescribed fire and timber harvest as tools in its

effort to restore a healthy vegetative condition. Others believe the

best way to restore this condition is to minimize human intervention

and to allow natural processes to restore diversity.

What to do with this Information

This revision effort is being undertaken to develop management

direction to:

*Provide goods and services to people;

*Sustain ecosystem functions.

*Collaborative stewardship,'' which is defined as caring for the

land and serving the people by listening to all constituents and living

within the limits of the land, will be used in the revision effort.

Framework for Alternatives to be Considered

A range of alternatives will be considered when revising the Forest

Plan. The alternatives will address different options to resolve

concerns raised as revision topics listed above and to fulfill the

purpose and need. A reasonable range of alternatives will be evaluated

and reasons will be given for eliminating some alternatives from

detailed study. A ``no-action alternative'' is required by law. The no-

action alternative under this analysis will assume continuation of the

existing Forest Plan without revision. Additional alternatives will

provide a range of ways to address and respond to public issues,

management concerns, and resource opportunities identified during the

scoping process. In describing alternatives, desired vegetation and

resource conditions will be defined. Resource outputs will be estimated

in the Forest Plan based upon achieving desired conditions. Preliminary

information is available to develop alternatives; however, additional

public involvement and collaboration will be done for alternative

development.

Involving the Public

An atmosphere of openness is one of the objectives of the public

involvement process, where all members of the public feel free to share

information with the Forest Service on a regular basis. All parts of

this process will be structured to maintain the openness.

The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and assistance

from individuals, organizations and federal, state, and local agencies

who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action (36 CFR

219.6). The Forest Service is also looking for collaborative approaches

with members of the public who are interested in forest management.

Federal and state agencies and some private organizations have been

cooperating in the development of assessments of current biological,

physical, and economic conditions. This information will be used to

prepare the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The range of

alternatives to be considered in the DEIS will be based on public

issues, management concerns, resource management opportunities, and

specific decisions to be made.

Public participation will be solicited by notifying in person and/

or by mail known interested and affected publics. News releases will be

used to give the public general notice, and public scoping

opportunities will be offered in numerous locations. Public

participation activities will include (but are not limited to) requests

for written comments, open houses, focus groups, field trips, and

collaborative forums.

Public participation will be sought throughout the revision process

and will be especially important at several points along the way. The

first formal opportunity to comment is during the scoping process (40

CFR 1501.7). Scoping includes: (1) Identifying potential issues, (2)

from these, identifying significant issues or those that have been

covered by prior environmental review, (3) exploring alternatives in

addition to No Action, and (4) identifying potential environmental

effects of the proposed action and alternatives. Scoping meetings are

currently scheduled from 4:30 pm to 7:30 pm in the following locations:

September 18, 1997: Days Inn, 950 Cowen Drive, Carbondale, Co.

September 23, 1997: First Choice Inn, 51359 US Highway 6 & 24

Glenwood Springs, Co.

September 25, 1997: Kilowatt Korner, 233 6th Street, Meeker, Co.

September 30, 1997: Rifle Fire Station, 1850 Railroad Ave., Rifle

Co.

October 2, 1997: Avon Library, 200 Benchmark Rd., Avon, Co.

October 7, 1997: Eagle Library, 600 Broadway, Eagle, Co.

October 9, 1997: Four Points Inn, 137 Union Blvd., Lakewood, Co.

October 14, 1997: Hilton Inn, 743 Horizon Dr., Grand Junction, Co.

[[Page 42234]]

October 16, 1997: Summit Middle School, 0156 Summit County Road

1030, Frisco, Co.

October 21, 1997: Inn at Aspen, 38750 Highway 82, Aspen Co.

Release and Review of the EIS

The DEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and be available for public comment in the fall of 1998.

At that time, the EPA will publish a notice of availability for the

DEIS in the Federal Register. The comment period of the DEIS will be 90

days from the date the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the

Federal Register.

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

the DEIS 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; Vermong Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.

v. NRDC. 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that

could be raised at the DEIS stage but are not raised until after

completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 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 three-month 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 FEIS.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues

and concerns on the proposed actions, comments on the DEIS should be as

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

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

adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and

discussed in the statements. 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.

After the comment period ends on the DEIS, comments will be

analyzed, considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in

preparing the Final EIS. The FEIS is schedules to be completed in the

fall of 1999. The responsible official will consider the comments,

responses, environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS, and

applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making decisions

regarding these revisions. The responsible official will document the

decisions and reasons for the decisions in a Record of Decision for the

revised Plan. The decision will be subject to appeal in accordance with

36 CFR 217.

Dated: July 30, 1997.

Elizabeth Estill,

Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region.

[FR Doc. 97-20631 Filed 8-5-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M