Revised Land and Resource Management Plans, Boise National Forest and Payette National Forest, Idaho. Significant Amendment Land and Resource Management Plan, Sawtooth National Forest, Idaho

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Revised Land and Resource Management Plans, Boise National Forest

and Payette National Forest, Idaho. Significant Amendment Land and

Resource Management Plan, Sawtooth National Forest, Idaho

AGENCY: Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement

in conjunction with revision of the Land and Resource Management Plans

for the Boise and Payette National Forests, and significant amendment

to the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Sawtooth National

Forest located in Ada, Adams, Blaine, Boise, Camas, Canyon, Cassia,

Custer, Elmore, Gem, Gooding, Idaho, Jerome, Lincoln, Minidoka, Owyhee,

Payette, Twin Falls, Valley and Washington Counties, Idaho; Box Elder

County, Utah, and Malheur County, Oregon.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement in conjunction with revision and significant amendment of its

Land and Resource Management Plans (hereafter referred to as Forest

Plans) for the Boise, Payette and Sawtooth National Forests (hereafter

referred to as the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup).

This notice describes the specific portions of the current Forest

Plans to be revised and amended, environmental issues considered,

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. The purpose of the notice is to begin the scoping phase of

public involvement in the revision and amendment process.

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

writing by June 24, 1998. The agency expects to file a Draft

Environmental Impact Statement in the Fall of 1999 and a Final

Environmental Impact Statement in the Fall of 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Joey Pearson, Administrative

Assistant, Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Planning Team, Payette National

Forest, P.O. Box 1026, McCall, ID 83638.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Faye Krueger, Planning Team Leader--Payette National Forest (208) 634-

0700; Jeff Foss, Planning Team Leader--Boise National Forest (208) 373-

4100; or Sharon LaBrecque, Planning Team Leader--Sawtooth National

Forest (208) 737-3200.

Responsible official: Jack Blackwell, Intermountain Regional

Forester at 324 25th Street, Ogden, UT 84401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to part 36 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) 219.10 (f) and (g), the Regional Forester for the

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

Environmental Impact Statement for the revision and significant

amendment efforts described above. According to 36 CFR 219.10(g), Land

and Resource Management Plans shall ordinarily be revised on a 10 to 15

year cycle. The existing Forest Plan for the Boise National Forest was

approved on April 27, 1990, the Payette Forest Plan was approved on May

6, 1988, and the Sawtooth Forest Plan was approved on September 16,

1987.

On November 14, 1997, the Department of the Interior and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998, H.R. 2107, was passed. Language in

section 333 of the law specifically prohibits the expenditure or

obligation of funds for new revisions of national forest land

management plans until new final or interim final rules for forest plan

revision are published in the Federal Register. Forests that had

formally published a Notice of Intent to revise prior to October 1,

1997, or have been court-ordered to revise are exempt from this section

and may proceed to complete forest plan revision. The Payette is under

court order (Wilderness Society, et al. v. U.S. Forest Service, Civ.

No. 94-0193-S-MHW) to complete Forest Plan revision by December 31,

2000, and thereby meets the exemption criteria to proceed with revision

in accordance with 36 CFR 219.10(g). The Boise and Payette Forests were

the subject of the Idaho Sporting Congress suit (Civ. No. 95-0025-S-

BLW). On September 25, 1996, District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill

affirmed the Forest Service in part because the two Forests had

initiated the forest plan revision process. Judge Winmill's opinion was

affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 21, 1997.

Judge Winmill's decision in the Idaho Sporting Congress suit meets the

intent

[[Page 20370]]

of the exemption criteria of the Appropriations Act, therefore the

Boise Forest may also proceed with revision in accordance with 36 CFR

219.10(g).

The Sawtooth National Forest does not meet the exemption criteria

for revision. Through the analysis of the management situation, the

Sawtooth Forest did identify several areas where current management

direction can be improved. Therefore, analysis efforts on the Sawtooth

will continue to parallel analysis efforts on the Boise and Payette,

with the intent to amend the Sawtooth Forest Plan in accordance with 36

CFR 219.10(f).

With this in mind, the Regional Forester gives notice that the

Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth National Forests are beginning an

environmental analysis and decision-making process for the proposed

action to revise the Boise and Payette Forest Plans and to amend the

Sawtooth Forest Plan. Opportunities will be provided to discuss the

Forest Plan revision and amendment processes with the public. The

public is invited to help identify issues that will be considered in

defining the range of alternatives in the Environmental Impact

Statement. Scoping meetings will be scheduled for May and June 1998.

Alternative development meetings will be held in the Fall of 1998.

Forest plans describe the long-term direction for managing 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);

Establish management areas and management area direction

through the application of management prescriptions;

Identify lands not suited for timber production (36 CFR

219.3);

Establish monitoring and evaluation requirements; and

Recommend areas for official designation of wilderness.

The authorization of project-level activities on the Forests occur

through project, or site-specific, decision-making. Project-level

decisions must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

procedures and must include a determination that the project is

consistent with the Forest Plan.

Linkage to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

Southwest Idaho Ecogroup is within the area of land covered by the

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). There

are two sources of information from the ICBEMP that will heavily

influence the development of the planning process: (1) The integrated

science assessments and (2) the Upper Columbia River Basin Final

Environmental Impact Statement (URCB FEIS) and Record of Decision.

The integrated science assessments provide an information base that

provides context at broad, multiple state area scale. The information

on forestlands, rangelands, aquatic and hydrologic integrity, ecosystem

pathways and disturbance patterns, and the current and projected

conditions of fish, wildlife and plant species were used to aid in

identifying need for change topics. This information will continue to

be used in defining the extent of the need for change and in the

development and evaluation of alternatives.

The other primary document that will influence this project is the

UCRB FEIS. The Draft EIS was issued for public comment in June, 1997,

and a final document is expected in late 1999. This document, which

incorporates the results of the science assessments, will amend all

three Forest Plans when the Record of Decision is issued. This

amendment will establish new goals, desired range of future conditions,

objectives and standards for management. This amendment will simplify

the scope of the Ecogroup planning effort, but will not replace the

need for the revision/amendment for these reasons:

The UCRB effort is at a broad scale. The application of

the information and decisions will need to be fine-tuned for the

Forest-level scale.

The UCRB provides some standards that are only to be used

until such time as better local standards are developed. The planning

effort will refine these standards to local conditions.

The UCRB EIS does not provide all of the analysis or

decisions required by the National Forest Management Act regulations.

The planning effort will need to evaluate land allocations, timber

suitability, wilderness recommendations and other factors that the UCRB

did not address.

Need for Change in the Current Forest Plans

In the Fall of 1996, the Forests in the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup

completed five year monitoring reports. The results of the monitoring

reports, in addition to public input and Forest Plan implementation

experience, indicated that there is a need for change in some

management direction in all three Forest Plans. Because of the need to

consider management of ecosystems across administrative boundaries, and

the fact that the three Forests share key issues, resources, customers

and interested publics, it was determined that an ecogroup approach to

planning would increase the overall efficiency and quality of the

effort to address the need for change issues. Several sources were used

in determining the needed changes in the current Forest Plans. These

sources include:

Results of the three Forest Plan monitoring reports;

Comparison of regulatory, manual, and handbook

requirements;

New information, such as the Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Plan scientific assessment and other research; and

Comments concerning implementation of current direction.

In November 1997, the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup published a

Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation (Pre-AMS). The Pre-AMS

summarized the current management condition of the three Forests based

on analysis of the findings from the sources listed above.

Major Revision/Amendment Topics

Based on the information sources listed above, the following

issues/areas were identified as needs for change in management

direction in all three Forest Plans. As previously explained, the Boise

and Payette National Forests will address these needs for change

through the revision process, while the Sawtooth will address them

through a significant amendment. Since the Forest Plans were originally

signed, the Boise and Payette Forests have experienced major changes in

forest conditions as a result of wildfire and tree mortality. The

magnitude of these changes requires that the Boise and Payette Forest

Plans be revised. The Sawtooth Forest has not experienced such major

changes. Until the Sawtooth is allowed to proceed with revision, it

will accommodate the needed changes through a significant amendment.

In revising/amending the Forest Plans, the Forests are focusing on

those areas that must be reviewed in accordance with federal

regulations, and on urgent issues identified through new information,

monitoring and public concerns. The regulations focus the process by

stating; ``The Forest Supervisor shall determine the major public

issues management concerns, and resource use and development

opportunities to be addressed in the planning process'' [36 CFR

219.12(b)]. Throughout this planning process, only those portions of

the Plans identified as critical issues needing change will be

[[Page 20371]]

addressed. Some examples of issues that were not identified as critical

or did not have an identified need for change include recommended

wilderness, heritage resource program management, and minerals program

management. Issues not identified as critical will be addressed at a

later time through non-significant amendments.

The Southwest Idaho Ecogroup is proposing to revise or amend the

three Forest Plans by addressing the listed need for change topics. The

following is a brief definition of the issues associated with each need

for change topic and the purpose and need for change, and a description

of what we propose to do to address the needed changes:

Biological Diversity

Biological diversity is the variety and abundance of life in an

area including all living organisms, the genetic differences among

them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur. It also

refers to the compositions, structures and functions of species and

habitats and their interactions. The goal of conserving biological

diversity is to support sustainable development by protecting and using

biological resources.

The current Forest Plans address many of the key indicators of

biological diversity; however, these indicators are largely described

and analyzed as separate functional entities. There is little

information as to how these indicators interact with one another and

with natural processes, particularly at the broad, Forest-level scale.

The current Forest Plans need improved direction for potentially needed

restoration, management and maintenance of plant communities, including

vegetative structure, species composition, distribution, and patterns

and how they are influenced by soil and disturbance processes in

relationship to historic and current conditions. All three Forests

manage significant habitat for federally listed threatened and

endangered plant, wildlife and fish species. These include:

Macfarlane's four-o'clock, Ute's lady tresses, gray wolf, bald eagle,

peregrine falcon, sockeye salmon, chinook salmon, steelhead and redband

trout. In addition, these are species that are currently proposed or

candidates for listing including bull trout and Northern Idaho ground

squirrel. Current Forest Plan direction for these species is to follow

recovery plans developed by the appropriate regulatory agency.

The Ecogroup also manages habitat for a number of species that are

designated ``sensitive'' by the Regional Forester because their

populations or habitats are trending downward. Current management

direction in the Forest Plans is to follow conservation assessments and

plans developed at the Regional level. There is a need to improve

management direction in the Forest Plans to better address the needs of

listed and sensitive species.

Through this planning effort, biological diversity concepts will be

used to:

Develop improved management guidelines through better

understanding of species, including threatened, endangered or sensitive

(TES) species, candidate species, plant, fish, and animal species of

concern, and the communities they are dependent upon.

Develop improved guidelines for snag and coarse woody

debris that better provide habitat for plant and animal species

dependent on coarse woody debris, to improve soil productivity, and to

better provide for natural decay processes necessary for nutrient

cycling;

Develop improved management direction to address soil

processes (erosion rates, mass stability, infiltration, nutrient

cycling) as they relate to management of other resources;

Develop improved management direction for desired

structure and density for each structural stage, from openings to old

forest vegetation (including old growth);

Develop additional management practices, standards and

guidelines for tree density, stand structure, and species composition

that address the extent and frequency of all types of disturbances.

The intent of this improved management direction is to provide for

short- and long-term biological, physical, economic and social

sustainability.

Fire and Smoke Management

The 1897 Organic Act states that forests shall be protected against

destruction by fire. Early Forest Service policy interpreted protection

to mean fire suppression, and for several decades fire management

focused on maximum suppression efforts. The result of this

interpretation is that in many areas fire regimes within the Southwest

Idaho Ecogroup have changed from historical conditions; fuel loadings

have increased, and areas with moderate to high fuels are larger and

more contiguous. Historically, approximately 15 percent of the Ecogroup

area would likely have had stand-replacing fires. Past management

activities, including suppression efforts, have resulted in increasing

the area that would likely have stand-replacing fires to approximately

42 percent of the Ecogroup. Population growth within the Ecogroup has

also led to increases in wildland/urban interface. This growth of

wildland/urban interface increases the risk of fire spreading from

private to federal lands and vice versa.

The current Forest Plans need improved direction addressing the

role of fire as an ecosystem process or tool for maintaining or

restoring ecosystem health, particularly in vegetative communities that

historically burned more frequently. The ability to accomplish fire

management objectives, to set priorities for ecosystem management, and

to assess properly functioning condition may be limited by missing,

vague, or conflicting Forest Plan direction.

The Federal Clean Air Act mandates that human health and welfare

from air pollution be protected. Particulate matter emissions are

produced from Forest Service activities as prescribed fire. The current

Forest Plans need improved direction that better addresses the trade-

offs with air quality versus increased prescribed burning to improve

rangeland and forest ecosystem health.

Through this planning effort, fire management will be incorporated

into the Forest Plans through:

Integration of fire management goals and objectives into

Forest-wide desired conditions;

Development of resource specific goals and objectives

related to how and when fire will be used;

Development of goals, objectives, standards and guidelines

for the use of prescribed fire to improve ecosystem health and to

reduce the risk of large uncharacteristic fires;

Development of goals, objectives, standards, guidelines

and monitoring requirements for air quality and smoke management;

Development of management direction addressing wildland/

urban interface; and

Development of goals and objectives for determining

appropriate suppression response based on factors such as social and

political implications, economics, environmental considerations, public

and firefighter safety and values at risk.

The intent of the new direction is to restore or maintain fire as a

process where appropriate in various ecosystems, to reduce the risk of

uncharacteristic wildfire in wildland/urban interface, and to aid in

determining how much area needs to be treated with prescribed fire.

Habitat Fragmentation and Disruption

Fragmentation is the separation or isolation of similar types of

habitat,

[[Page 20372]]

either by natural events or human activities. Historically, fire, wind,

insects, and disease were the disturbance processes that resulted in

the fragmentation of habitats, causing disturbance to species and the

habitats necessary for their survival. Current disturbance processes

are far more numerous and have affected far greater areas than in the

past. Agricultural and urban development have in effect created

genetically isolated islands of habitat. Forest management practices

such as roads, trails, utility corridors, and timber harvest have also

resulted in fragmentation of habitats and disturbance to species.

Disruption is the modification of species behavior as a result of the

presence of humans or their activities. Some species of fish and

wildlife are sensitive to human activities during breeding, nesting and

wintering portions of their life cycles. Human activities, whether

intentional or not, can increase stress to these species and reduce

their reproductive success or increase their risk for mortality.

The current Forest Plans need improved direction concerning habitat

fragmentation and disruption from roads, trails, timer harvest, fire,

culverts, utility corridors, and other sources. Likewise, the Forest

Plans need to better recognize the importance of maintaining Forest

habitats of special concern that have been affected as a result of off-

Forest activities such as conversion to agriculture and urban

development. Through this planning effort, improved management

direction concerning habitat fragmentation and disruption will be

incorporated into the Forest Plans through:

Integration of goals, objectives, standards and guides for

the protection of species during sensitive periods of their life

cycles; and

Integration of goals, objectives, standards and guides to

reduce the effects of fragmentation.

The intent of this improved direction is to develop management

strategies that improve habitat connectivity, minimize life cycle

disruption, and maintain species viability.

Non-Native Plants

Non-native plants are species that do not have their origin in a

local geographic area. Non-native plants include exotic plants and

noxious weeds. Exotic plants are species that have been introduced to

an area, usually from a different continent, typically for restoration

purposes such as road stabilization, range improvements and burned area

emergency rehabilitation (BAER). Noxious weeds are plant species

designated by law that can have detrimental effects on agriculture,

commerce, or public health. These species are generally new or not

common to the United States, spread aggressively, and are difficult to

manage. Some exotic and noxious weed species thrive in areas so well

that they tend to out-compete native species. This affects the amount

and distribution of native plants and the animals that depend on them

for forage and cover.

Recent monitoring reports for the Ecogroup Forests describe a

growing concern with the spread and effects of noxious weeds. The

expansion of noxious weeds with the Ecogroup is out-pacing containment

and control efforts. New infestations both on Forest Service System

lands and on adjacent lands pose significant risk for further

expansion.

Non-native plants are being introduced unintentionally (seeds from

vehicle tires or animal droppings) and intentionally (BAER, restoration

projects). Research has shown that seeded non-native plants have an

impact on establishment and growth of native vegetation in fire

rehabilitation areas. In some areas, certain species have been

purposely introduced to provide forage and cover. This has resulted in

monocultures or sites with few selected plant species. These conditions

affect fire regimes, soil erosion and wildlife habitat.

The current Forest Plans do not address exotic and noxious weed

plants from a multi-program approach (recreation, timber, special uses

* * *). Current direction only addresses the treatment of noxious weed

infestations, rather than taking a prevention, containment and control

approach. Likewise, the current Plans address noxious weeds from a

range or timber management standpoint and do not recognize that other

resource programs are significant contributors to the spread of noxious

weeds. There is a need to develop improved direction in the Plans for

designing or implementing BAER treatment strategies to assist in

evaluating the trade-offs between the short-term emergency needs of

post-fire rehabilitation and the long-term compatibility with ecosystem

management.

Through this planning effort, non-native plants will be addressed

through:

Development of improved goals, objectives, standards and

guides to address noxious weeds from a multi-program approach;

Development of improved goals, objectives, standards and

guides for a prevention, containment and control approach to noxious

weed management; and

Development of improved goals, objectives, standards and

guides for the use of non-native plants in BAER activities and non-

structural range improvement projects.

The intent of this new direction is to establish a containment/

control strategy that recognizes the difficulty of controlling large,

firmly established populations of noxious weeds; and to ensure seeding

and revegetation practices associated with erosion control, fire

rehabilitation, non-structural range improvement, and watershed

restoration is compatible with the desired future condition and

priorities established for management activities.

Rangeland/Grazing Resources

The National Forest Management Act requires that Forest Plans

determine potential capability and suitability for producing grazing

animal forage while providing habitat for management indicator species.

Range capability is defined as lands that have the potential to be

grazed given the physical constraints of grazing (distance from water,

slope, access * * *).

Current capability criteria do not make a clear distinction between

sheep and cattle use. Capability determinations have been corrected or

contested on a recurring basis at the project level. Some sites

currently considered capable are not meeting resource objectives

relating to soil productivity, erosion, and hydrologic function. This

indicates that the criteria used in the past to determine capability

needs to be updated. The current Forest Plans do not meet the

expectations outlined in new Forest Service national direction

regarding the identification of capability criteria and the rationale

supporting those criteria. The capability assessments in the original

Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statements need to be updated to

include new direction and more current information.

Suitability identifies areas within the capable base where grazing

is appropriate within the context of land management considerations

such as economics, environmental consequences, rangeland conditions,

and other uses or values. Actual average livestock use levels defined

in animal unit months per year (AUM/year) are lower than originally

anticipated in the Forest Plans. Some contributing factors to this

downward trend include protection of threatened and endangered species

habitat, increased livestock operator costs due to mitigation measures

identified to protect habitat,

[[Page 20373]]

changing economics of grazing livestock, and voluntary and involuntary

reductions for resource protection.

Guidelines in the current Forest Plans do not address site

conditions such as severe drought which occurs 10 to 40 percent of the

time across the Ecogroup. From a wildlife standpoint, there is

inconsistent or insufficient direction concerning wildlife wintering

areas that are also used by livestock, as well as the potential threat

of disease transmission from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep

populations. Recreation use increases above the projections made in the

current Forest Plans have resulted in increased user conflicts between

livestock, wildlife and recreationists. No direction or monitoring

process exists in the current plans to address this concern.

Through this planning effort, capability and suitability concerns

will be addressed through:

Improved capability assessments at the programmatic level

that include current Forest Service direction, research findings, and

distinguish the difference between cattle and sheep;

Development of suitability criteria to be validated on a

site-specific level that reflect site conditions; and

Development of improved goals, objectives, standards and

guides that address concerns such as drought and potential wildlife/

livestock and recreation/livestock conflicts.

The intent of this new direction is to insure that the Forest Plans

clearly identify at the programmatic level areas where livestock

grazing is appropriate and capable.

Riparian and Aquatic

Aquatic ecosystems are watersheds, waterbodies, riparian areas, and

wetlands and the species (fish, wildlife, plant, amphibian,

invertebrate) they contain. Riparian refers to distinctive soil and

vegetation between a stream or other body of water and an adjacent

upland.

All three Forests manage significant aquatic habitat for both

anadromous and resident fish populations. Collectively, the Forests

have over 14,400 miles of rivers and streams and 62,520 acres of lakes

supporting at least 57 native and non-native fish species. The

Environmental Protection Agency and the State of Idaho Department of

Environmental Quality have identified a list of 130 waterbodies within

the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup that are not fully meeting their

designated beneficial uses.

In 1992, Snake River sockeye salmon were listed as endangered under

the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended. In 1993 and 1997, Snake

River chinook salmon and steelhead, respectively, were listed as

threatened.

In 1995, the three Forest Plans were amended by management

direction in the Interim Strategies of Managing Anadromous Fish-

producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and

portions of California (PACFISH) and the Inland Native Fish Strategy

(INFISH). These strategies include the identification of interim

riparian management objectives (RMOs), standards and guidelines, and

watershed analysis requirements. These interim strategies are in effect

until long-term management direction is developed through

geographically specific environmental analyses such as the Upper

Columbia River Basin Assessment and forest plan revision efforts. At

the forest plan level, RMOs need to reflect the inherent diversity and

capability of the Ecogroup aquatic ecosystems, and to support the

designated beneficial uses for Water Quality Limited waterbodies.

There is a need to develop improved Forest Plan direction for

riparian area management that is consistent across the Ecogroup. This

direction should include all riparian areas (including intermittent

streams) and landslide-prone areas. In June 1998, bull trout are

proposed to be listed as a threatened species. In response to the

potential for listing, the Governor's Bull Trout Plan was implemented

in July 1996. This plan, which was coordinated with the Forest Service,

included development of watershed specific problem assessments and

conservation plans. This direction needs to be considered in the Forest

Plans.

Through this planning effort, improved management direction for

riparian and aquatics will be incorporated into the plans through:

Development of consistent goals, objectives, standards and

guides, and monitoring strategies for riparian and aquatic management;

Development of appropriate RMOs and desired future

conditions that reflect the inherent diversity and capability of the

Ecogroup aquatic ecosystems and fully support the designated beneficial

uses for waterbodies as identified by the State Water Quality

Standards;

Development of direction for the management of

intermittent streams and landslide-prone areas;

Development of improved management direction for sensitive

species, including the identification of management indicator species;

and

The intent of this new direction is to insure that: riparian and

aquatic ecosystems are being managed consistently across the Ecogroup;

the appropriate emphasis is being placed on riparian protection and

restoration; that RMOs reflect the inherent capability of the aquatic

ecosystems; appropriate emphasis is being placed on sensitive as well

as listed species; and intermittent streams and landslide-prone areas

are being appropriately managed.

Timberland Suitability

The National Forest Management Act and its implementing regulations

require that lands identified as not suited for timber production be

reassessed at least once every ten years to determine if they should be

reclassified as suited. Suited lands include forested lands outside of

withdrawn areas such as designated Wilderness, lands where

reforestation can be assured, and lands where timber management

activities can take place without causing irreversible resource damage

to soils productivity or watershed conditions. The suitability

assessment includes the identification of tentatively suited

timberlands (available forest lands that are physically suited for

timber management) and suited timberlands (the tentatively suited lands

considered appropriate for timber management). Since the Forest Plans

were released, land exchanges have resulted in both the loss and the

addition of timberlands. A preliminary reassessment indicates that land

exchanges have resulted in an approximate increase of 7,400 acres of

tentatively suited lands (2,400 acres on the Boise and 5,000 acres on

the Payette). New information about the capability of Forest lands and

an increased understanding about the effects of timber management will

also influence the reassessment of suited timberlands.

Through this planning effort, a complete reassessment of timberland

suitability will be conducted.

Management Emphasis Areas

All three Forests include many outstanding natural areas with

various combinations of biophysical resources and social interests.

Included in the management emphasis areas are Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Agency policy related to the Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) Act of 1968

in land management planning requires that rivers identified as

potential WSRs be evaluated as to their eligibility, with the findings

documented in the Forest Plan. An eligible river must be free flowing

and

[[Page 20374]]

possess at least one feature that is judged to be outstandingly

remarkable.

It is recommended but not required to complete WSR suitability

studies during the Forest Plan revision process. To be found suitable,

the benefits of designating the river should outweigh the

disadvantages. Currently, the Boise has 35 river segments identified as

eligible for WSR status, the Payette and Sawtooth have five segments

each. Since the original studies were completed, there have been

changed conditions such as the listing of species under ESA and new

information from sources such as the ICBEMP Scientific Assessments.

Suitability studies have not been conducted on the eligible rivers

listed in the three Forest Plans.

There is a need to re-evaluate the previous eligibility studies

based on the new information and changed conditions. There is also a

need to address the suitability of high priority eligible segments.

Through this planning process, the Forests are proposing to address WSR

issues by:

Re-evaluating previous eligibility studies; and

Complete suitability studies for Priority 1 segments in

revision as agreed in a settlement agreement between American Rivers,

Inc. and the Payette National Forest (Big Creek, French Creek,

Monumental Creek, and the Secesh River on the Payette National Forest,

and the South Fork Salmon River on the Payette and Boise National

Forests). Suitability studies on Priorities 2, 3, and 4 segments will

be completed after the revision/amendment effort.

Social and Economic Issues

While the majority of the revision topics appear to be biological

and physical in nature, we recognize that the topics are all linked to

social and economic issues. As we develop alternatives for the need for

change topics, we need to consider how these alternatives will affect

the economics of the current and traditional resource users; what

influences the alternatives may have on the demographics of local

communities; how the alternatives address local community priorities;

and what influences the alternatives may have on local and regional

cultures.

We recognize that livestock grazing, timber production and

recreation activities are key sources of income to communities

dependent on forest resources for the generation of revenue. As we

develop and analyze the effects of alternatives we need to consider

things such as local community stability, community development

patterns, goods and services, employment, current and traditional

resource users, and forest revenue.

We also recognize that founding of many of the communities within

the Ecogroup was and continues to be tied directly to the use and

production of forest products. For these communities, we need to

consider land use patterns, including urban interface, local

employment, community development patterns, local communities of place

and interest and the implications to these factors.

As we develop alternatives and analyze their effects, we will also

need to consider local and regional culture (attitudes, beliefs, values

and life-styles). Some of the questions we will be considering include:

How will Tribal life-styles and cultural traditions be

affected by management activities and decisions?

What are the potential social conflicts, risks, and

implications regarding rangeland grazing and timber harvest?

How will these alternatives affect opportunities for

recreation and recreation experiences?

How will the traditional life-styles associated with

livestock grazing be affected?

How will the alternatives tie to local community

priorities?

Decision To Be Made

Based on the analysis made in the FEIS, the Regional Forester must

decide what changes will be made to goals, objectives, standards and

guides, and monitoring and evaluation criteria in the Forest Plans to

best address the need for change topics. The Regional Forester must

also decide what changes in management boundaries and prescriptions are

necessary to meet the changed goals and objectives.

Framework for Alternatives To Be Considered

A range of alternatives, including an alternative addressing

community stability, will be considered when revising and amending the

Forest Plans. The alternatives will address different options to

resolve the issues identified in the revision/amendment topics listed

above. Alternatives must meet the purpose and need for revision/

amendment to be considered valid. One of the alternatives to be

examined is the ``no-action alternative''. This is a required

alternative that represents continuation of management under the

current plans as amended. Alternatives are developed in response to

public issues, management concerns, and resource opportunities

identified during the scoping progress. In describing alternatives,

desired vegetation and resource conditions will be defined. Preliminary

information, including a map of the proposed programmatic action, is

available for review at all Ecogroup District and Supervisor Offices.

Involving the Public

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 written comments, open houses,

focus groups and collaborative forums.

Public participation will be sought throughout the revision/

amendment 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 meetings are currently

scheduled from May 26 to June 19, 1998 in the following Idaho

locations: Boise, Idaho City, Mountain Home, Garden Valley, Cascade,

McCall, Riggins, Weiser, Council, Twin Falls, Burley, Ketchum, Stanley.

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 in the Fall of

1999. At that time, the EPA will publish a notice of availability in

the Federal Register. The comment period on the DEIS will be 60 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

[[Page 20375]]

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 two-month comment period so that

substantive comments and objectives 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 FEIS. The FEIS is scheduled to be completed in the Fall

of 2000. The responsible official will consider the comments,

responses, and environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS, and

applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making decisions

regarding making the revisions and amendment. The responsible official

will document the decisions and reasons for the decisions in a Record

of Decision for the revised and amended plans. The decisions will be

subject to appeal in accordance with 36 CFR part 217.

Dated: April 16, 1998.

Jack A. Blackwell,

Regional Forester.

[FR Doc. 98-10782 Filed 4-23-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M