Revised Land and Resource Management Plans for Some National Forest System Lands in Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Revised Land and Resource Management Plans for Some National

Forest System Lands in Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and

Wyoming

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

in conjunction with the revision of land and resource management plans

for several National Grasslands (NG) and Forests (NF) on the Northern

Great Plains.

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

The ``planning area'' includes these National Forest System lands:

[[Page 8681]]

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

Administrative unit National grassland/forest State Counties

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

Cluster NF............................... Little Missouri NG.......... ND Billings, Dunn, Golden,

Valley, McHenry, McKenzie,

Slope.

Cedar River NG.............. ND Grant, Sioux.

Sheyenne NG................. ND Ransom, Richland.

Grand River NG.............. SD Corson, Perkins.

Nebraska NF.............................. Oglala NG................... NE Dawes, Sioux.

Nebraska NF................. NE Blaine, Dawes, Sioux,

Thomas.

Samuel R. McKelvie NF....... NE Cherry.

Buffalo Gap NG.............. SD Custer, Fall River, Jackson,

Pennington.

Fort Pierre NG.............. SD Jones, Lyman, Stanley.

Medicine Bow-Routt NF.................... Thunder Basin NG............ WY Campbell, Converse, Crook,

Niobrara, Weston.

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

SUMMARY: This planning effort is called the ``Northern Great Plains

Management Plans Revisions.'' Land and Resource Management Plans

(hereafter referred to as Management Plan or Plans) will be prepared

for each participating administrative unit, while one environmental

impact statement for all affected units will be issued.

This notice describes the specific portions of the current

Management Plans to be revised, environmental issues considered in the

revisions, 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 July 31, 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 June 1998. The agency

expects to file the final environmental impact statement in May 1999.

ADDRESS: Send written comments to: Dave Cawrse, Team Leader, Northern

Great Plains Planning Team, USDA Forest Service, 125 North Main Street,

Chadron, NE 69337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dave Cawrse, Planning Team Leader, (308) 432-0300.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: Hal Salwasser, Northern Regional Forester at 200

East Broadway, Missoula, MT 59807; and Elizabeth Estill, Rocky Mountain

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Part 36 Code of Federal

Regulation (CFR) 219.10 (g), the Regional Foresters for the Northern

and Rocky Mountain Regions give 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 Management Plans were approved as follows:

Custer National Forest--June 10, 1987;

Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest--November 20, 1985;

Nebraska National Forest--December 14, 1984.

The Regional Foresters give notice that they are beginning an

environmental analysis and decision-making process for this proposed

action so that interested or affected people can participate in the

analyses and contribute to the final decisions. One environmental

impact statement will be prepared. Separate decisions, documented in

Records of Decision, will be issued for each administrative unit. The

combined revision effort makes sense because of common issues and

concerns, and similar ecological landscapes. This effort will enable

the administrative units to share assessments, plan-related analyses,

and resource expertise, and will reduce costs.

Opportunities will be provided to discuss openly with the public

the alternatives to be developed, which can potentially replace the

existing Management Plans. The public is invited to discuss and help

define the range of alternatives to be considered in the environmental

impact statement. Forest Service officials will lead these discussions,

helping to describe the preliminary alternatives brought forward by the

agency. These officials will also explain the environmental analysis

process and the disclosures of that analysis, which will be available

for public review. Written comments concerning the range of

alternatives will be encouraged.

Management plans describe the intended management of National

Grasslands and Forests. Agency decisions in these plans will do the

following things:

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

* Establish grassland and forestwide management requirements

(standards and guidelines) to fulfill the requirements of 16 U.S.C.

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) applying to 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

producing forage for grazing animals and for providing habitat for

management indicator species (36 CFR 219.20), designate lands not

suited for timber production, and, where applicable, establish

allowable timber sale quantity (36 CFR 219.14, 219.15, and 219.21);

* Where applicable, designate those lands administratively

available for oil and gas leasing, and when appropriate, authorize the

Bureau of Land Management to offer specific lands for leasing (36 CFR

228.102 (d) and (e));

* Where applicable, recommend Wild and Scenic River designations in

accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1274; and

* Where applicable, recommend non-Wilderness allocations or

Wilderness recommendations for roadless areas (36 CFR 219.17).

The authorization of project level activities within the planning

area occurs through project decision-making, the second stage of forest

and grassland 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 Management Plan.

Need for Changes in the Current Management Plans

Nearly a decade or more has lapsed since the current Management

Plans were approved. Experience has shown the need for changes in

management

[[Page 8682]]

direction for some resources or programs. Several sources have

highlighted needed changes in the current Management Plans. In brief,

these sources include:

* New issues and changing public values identified through public

interaction;

* New information and knowledge gained through scientific research

and effectiveness monitoring;

* Management concerns derived through implementation experience and

insight into relationships between prairie and forest vegetation and

other resources and better ways of accomplishing desired conditions.

In addition to changing public views about how these lands should

be managed, a significant change in the information and scientific

understanding of these ecosystems has occurred. Some new information is

a product of research, while other information has resulted from

changes in technology.

Major Revision Topics

Based on the information sources identified earlier, the combined

effect of the needed changes demand attention through plan revision.

The major revision topics described below influenced the decision to

revise the plans.

Rangeland and Forest Health

Planning Questions

* What management goals, direction, and prescriptions will best

attain desired conditions for rangeland and forest health?

Background. Issues and concerns over rangeland health frequently

relate to the current productivity of these lands and the resulting

capacity to provide livestock forage and wildlife food and cover. The

quality and quantity of grass and other vegetation produced on these

lands are influenced by soil type, weather, land use, disturbances such

as fire and drought, and many other factors. Livestock grazing can help

maintain, enhance or decrease rangeland productivity, depending on

management. This planning effort will provide an opportunity to assess

how livestock grazing can be used to best attain desired rangeland

productivity. The issue of rangeland productivity is also relevant to

addressing the role of National Grasslands in ``* * * administering

sound and progressive principles of land conservation and multiple use,

and to promote development of grassland agriculture and sustained-yield

management of the forage, fish and wildlife, timber, water and

recreation resources * * *'' (36 CFR 213.1). This role for the National

Grasslands is established by regulation and pertains to those lands

administered by the Forest Service under Title III of the Bankhead-

Jones Farm Tenant Act.

Forest health issues on these lands are closely tied to the ability

of riparian and other prairie woodlands to regenerate and sustain

themselves. Fire suppression, and insect and disease damage in

coniferous forests are other issues related to forest health.

Biological diversity is another aspect of rangeland and forest

health. Numerous individuals and groups have expressed concerns about

land-use effects on the diversity, abundance and distribution of native

plants and animals. These concerns extend to terrestrial and aquatic

plants and animals, rare species, declining grassland bird species,

game species and other wildlife. For example, interest in black-tailed

prairie dog colonies as habitat for threatened and endangered species

and other wildlife on National Grasslands is high. Others suggest that

more focus be placed on returning bison to their native habitats.

Habitat for numerous threatened, endangered and sensitive species

occurs on these areas, and the likelihood of other species being

proposed for protection under the Endangered Species Act supports the

need to revise current management plans. State fish and wildlife

agencies and others have also expressed considerable interest in

management and fish and wildlife habitats on these lands and have

expertise to provide for conservation of these species and their

habitats. The Council on Environmental Quality recommends incorporating

biodiversity conservation in environmental analyses.

Other issues and concerns about rangeland and forest health include

soil stability, water quality, noxious weeds, exotic plants and

animals, and wetlands management.

Community and Lifestyle Relationships

Planning Questions

* How may communities, people and their lifestyles be affected by

decisions made in the revision effort?

* How do communities and people and their lifestyles affect uses

and management of these public lands?

* How do management decisions affect the interdependent

relationship of resources, people, lifestyles, and economies?

Background. Commodity and amenity benefits from public lands within

the planning area have contributed to the social systems and economic

base of many neighboring communities. The human environment includes

natural and physical environment and the interdependent relationship of

people to that environment.

Management decisions determine public land uses and resource

availability from those lands. In resource-based economies, these

decisions can perpetuate or disrupt relationships between public land

management, communities, and lifestyles. Communities with more diverse

economies may be better able to adopt to changes, even though some

economic sectors may be strained as change occurs. The capacity to

handle change without major hardships or disruptions to social groups

or institutions is an important component of community and lifestyle

relationships.

Economic effects can include changes in local employment and

income, payments to state and local government, and can also have

possible implications to local government services and community

infrastructure.

Livetock Grazing

Planning Questions

* How will management of vegetation affect availability of forage

for permitted livestock?

* What are the desired vegetation conditions and how can livestock

grazing be used to help achieve them?

Background. Livestock grazing occurs on most of these lands under a

permit system and is a major economic activity in these rural areas.

Livestock grazing levels and strategies need to provide for sustained

stewardship of the land, resources and rural communities. However,

appropriate grazing levels and strategies continue to be debated.

Researcher, scientist and resource management specialists at various

universities, agencies and institutions are currently gathering

information that will be valuable in assessing issues related to

livestock grazing.

The Forest Service is required by regulation (36 CFR 219.20) to

determine suitability and potential capability of National Grasslands

and Forest to produce forage for livestock. This regulation prescribes

that the grazing systems and facilities (such as fencing and water

developments) to support livestock grazing also be evaluated and

considered during the planning process. The amount of facilities and

structural developments on these lands to support livestock grazings is

an issue. Some individuals want to see more

[[Page 8683]]

developments on public lands while others want to see less or current

levels.

Another issue related to livestock grazing is drought. Droughts can

substantially reduce available livestock forage and, if prolonged, can

result in long-lasting changes in plant species composition and

rangeland productivity. Livestock grazing strategies during and after

drought can affect range recovery so grazing guidelines for drought

period may be proposed for some areas.

Oil and Gas Leasing

Planning Questions

* Which National Forests System lands (or portions) are

administratively available for oil and gas leasing?

* What specific lease stipulations will apply to those lands

determined to be administratively available for leasing?

* Are existing lease decisions and stipulations consistent with

management goals and objectives?

Background. In 1987, Congress passed the Federal Onshore Oil and

Gas Leasing Reform Act, which expanded the Secretary of Agriculture's

role in the leasing decision process. Within the National Forest

System, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to identify lands

where leases can be sold and to determine appropriate stipulations to

protect surface resources. Regulations to implement this Act were

developed by the Secretary and became effective April 20, 1990 (36 CFR,

Part 228, 100 et. seq.).

Leasing analyses in accordance with the requirements of 36 CFR

228.102(c) have been completed for about 1.7 million acres of the

planning area, including the Little Missouri, Cedar River, and Thunder

Basin National Grasslands and the western half of Fall River County on

the Buffalo Gap National Grassland. Existing leasing decisions will be

reviewed in light of new information generated as a result of Northern

Great Plains Assessments and other sources since the leasing decisions

were made (e.g., newly listed threatened and endangered species, rare

ecosystem elements or habitats). This new information may result in

changes to previous leasing availability decisions or to leasing

requirements, or both. Existing leases will not be affected by these

changes.

The remaining 1.2 million acres of the planning area (Sheyenne,

Grand River, Fort Pierre, Oglala National Grasslands, the remainder of

the Buffalo Gap National Grassland, and Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie

National Forests) will be examined for oil and gas potential and, based

on the potential, may have a leasing analysis completed.

Plant and Animal Control

Planning Questions

* How and when should resource or property damage caused by noxious

weeds, exotic plants, insects, disease, rodents and other animals be

controlled or managed?

Background. Under certain conditions, some plant and animal species

can cause unacceptable economic and/or environmental damage. Plant and

animal damage control activities currently conducted or authorized by

the Forest Service on National Grasslands and Forests are largely

directed towards noxious weeds and prairie dogs. Biological controls

and herbicides are currently being used to control noxious weeds such

as leafy spurge and Canada thistle. These weeds can substantially

reduce native plant species and forage production. Prairie dog

reductions in selected colonies on the National Grasslands are

primarily in response to concerns of neighboring private landowners who

do not want prairie dogs moving onto their lands. Concerns expressed

about these programs range from the economic losses from damage to

potential effects of the control activities on wildlife and the

environment. Human health and safety issues are also associated with

the use of pesticides and herbicides.

Predators are occasionally removed from some of the National

Grasslands and Forests to protect livestock, wildlife, and public

health and safety. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) is the lead federal agency for predator control on these public

lands and is conducting its own evaluation and planning for these

activities. However, in South Dakota, predator control is conducted by

the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks through an

agreement with APHIS. Under this agreement, APHIS acts in an advisory

capacity. APHIS also has the lead responsibility for evaluating,

planning and initiating grasshopper control projects on the National

Grasslands. Issues related to the responsibilities of APHIS will not be

addressed in this planning effort.

Recreation and Travel Management

Planning Question

* What recreation opportunities should be provided?

* What travel opportunities should be provided?

Background. Demand for recreational opportunities on these public

lands is increasing dramatically. Contributing factors are: 1)

Increasing number of hunters on public lands; 2) increasing

appreciation for the beauty of the prairie; and 3) people taking

shorter vacations on nearby public lands. The public is asking us to

address recreational uses and values on these National Grasslands and

Forests. During revision, scenery management objectives and

recreational opportunities will be determined. Results from customer

surveys will help determine public expectations for recreational

opportunities.

Recreational uses and interests vary widely across the planning

area. Some recreational activities, such as mountain biking and use of

all-terrain vehicles, have increased in popularity since land and

resource management plans were written. Current recreational use in

some units exceeds levels anticipated in the existing plans. Increased

recreational use highlights the importance and value of these National

Forests and Grasslands in filling recreational, esthetic and spiritual

needs.

Upland bird and big game hunting are major dispersed recreational

activities on many of these public lands. Hunters are interested in how

wildlife cover on these areas is managed. This concern is not fully

addressed in existing land and resource management plans. Prairie dog

shooting is another popular activity on the grasslands. Hunters have

expressed concern over prairie dog management activities that might

affect their recreational opportunities.

Travel management is often an important element in recreational

experiences. Some users desire primitive recreational experiences with

restricted motorized travel. Some recreationists rely on motorized

access for their experiences, such as all-terrain vehicle users.

Because recreational use on these public lands has increased over the

last decade, the potential for conflicts has also increased. The

appropriateness of motorized travel as it complements or conflicts with

specific recreational settings and associated experiences will be

examined and determined during the revision process.

Special Area Designations

Planning Questions

* Which, if any, roadless areas should be recommended to Congress

for Wilderness designation?

* How should roadless areas not recommended for Wilderness

designation be managed?

* Which rivers on the planning units are eligible for inclusion in

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System?

[[Page 8684]]

* Which, if any, eligible rivers are suitable and should be

recommended for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River

System?

* How should eligible rivers not recommended for inclusion be

managed?

* What, if any, Research Natural Areas or Special Interest Areas

may be needed for their contributions to furthering knowledge about

natural systems or other objectives?

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.''

Interest in protecting special areas has been shown by the public,

other agencies, and Forest Service employees.

Special area designations may include Wilderness; Wild and Scenic

Rivers; Research Natural Areas (RNAs); and special recreational areas

with scenic, historical, geological, botanical, zoological,

paleontological, archaeological or other special characteristics. These

special areas may influence land allocation and management.

Maintaining grassland roadless areas and establishing grassland

Wilderness areas have become important to some people. Within the last

few years, various groups have offered proposals for grassland

Wilderness in South Dakota and North Dakota. Likewise, interest for

Research Natural Areas in grassland ecosystems has increased since the

planning effort. Some would like to see the Forest Service preserve and

study some areas of native prairie vegetation.

The Forest Service is required (36 CFR 219.17) to evaluate all

roadless areas for potential Wilderness designation during the revision

process. This process will produce an inventory of roadless areas

meeting minimum criteria for Wilderness according to the 1964

Wilderness Act or 1975 Eastern Wilderness Act, as appropriate. Actual

Wilderness designation is a Congressional responsibility; the Forest

Service only makes recommendations.

The purpose and authority for study of Wild and Scenic Rivers are

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

rivers and streams determined eligible for potential inclusion in the

Wild and Scenic River System will be examined. The Custer National

Forest Management Plan (1987) identified the Little Missouri River as

an eligible river. A suitability study will be done as part of the

revision process.

Topics Outside the Scope of Management Plan Decisions

Some topics are raised by the public that are outside the scope of

this action. They include topics that require departmental or

legislative actions or topics that come under the authority of other

governmental agencies. Examples of topics that fit these categories are

listed below:

Departmental and Legislative Topics--grazing fee levels; recreation

user fees; sale or transfer of administration of National Grasslands;

transfer of Cedar River and Grand River National Grasslands to the

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe; and transfer of Buffalo Gap National

Grassland to the Oglala Sioux Tribe.

Topics for Other Governmental Agencies--predator control;

grasshopper control; and transfer of Shadehill Reservoir to another

federal agency.

What To Do With This Information

This revision effort is being undertaken to develop management

direction to:

* Provide goods and services to people;

* Involve people and communities; and

* 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 guide the revision effort.

Framework for Alternatives To Be Considered

A range of alternatives will be considered when revising the

Management Plans. The alternatives will address different options to

resolve concerns raised as revision topics listed above and to fulfill

the purpose and need. Reasonable alternatives will be evaluated and

reasons will be given for eliminating some alternatives from detailed

study. A ``no-action alternative'' is required, meaning that management

would continue under existing plans. Alternatives will provide

different 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 from Management Plans will

be estimated based upon achieving desired conditions. Preliminary

information is available to develop alternatives; however, additional

public involvement and collaboration will be done to complete this

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 and its employees on a regular

basis. All parts of this process will be structured to maintain this

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

among all landowners who desire health and productivity for the

planning area. Many 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 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 additional alternatives,

and (4) identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed

action and alternatives.

Release and Review of the EIS

The DEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and to be available for public comment by June 1998. At

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

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

from the date the EPA

[[Page 8685]]

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; Vermont 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 scheduled to be completed in May

1999. The responsible officials 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 officials will document their decisions and

reasons for their decisions in a separate Record of Decision for each

Management Plan. Each decision will be subject to appeal in accordance

with 36 CFR 217.

The responsible official for each of the Management Plans is the

appropriate Regional Forester.

Dated: February 11, 1997.

Kathleen McAllister,

Deputy Regional Forester, Northern Region.

Dated: February 13, 1997.

Elizabeth Estill,

Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region.

[FR Doc. 97-4681 Filed 2-25-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M