Forest Plan Amendment for the Curlew National Grassland; Caribou National Forest, Oneida County, Idaho

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Forest Plan Amendment for the Curlew National Grassland; Caribou

National Forest, Oneida County, Idaho

AGENCY: Forest Service; Department of Agriculture.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) to document the analysis and disclose the environmental

impacts of the proposed actions to amend the direction for resource

management on the Curlew National Grassland (Grassland) as contained in

the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Caribou National Forest

and Curlew National Grassland. The Grassland is located approximately

17 air miles west of Malad City, Idaho. The proposed actions are

located entirely within the 47,600-acre Grassland. The need for the

proposal is to amend existing and create new management direction for

the vegetation, riparian, livestock grazing, wildlife and other

resources and uses on the Grassland based on a proposed desired range

of future conditions.

Direction from the Chief of the Forest Service requires that a

separate management plan for each of the National Grasslands be

developed. The Caribou National Forest proposes to complete an EIS to

amend existing and create new management direction for the Curlew

National Grassland. Current direction is found in the 1985 Land and

Resource Management Plan for the Caribou National Forest and Curlew

National Grassland.

The EIS will address ecological patterns, processes, and management

direction for both riparian and upland resources; develop direction for

restoration of rangeland vegetation composition; develop and implement

livestock grazing standards; develop soil and watershed management

direction; develop and implement direction for sagebrush associated/

obligate wildlife species habitat; and develop policy for future

utility proposals. The amendment will include ecosystem management

goals, objectives, standards and guidelines, and monitoring strategies

specific to the Grassland.

DATES: Written comments concerning the scope of the analysis described

in this Notice should be received on or before June 2, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Forest Supervisor, Caribou

National Forest, Curlew National Grassland Amendment, Federal Building,

250 South 4th Avenue, Pocatello, Idaho 83201. Electronic mail may be

sent to: pcomment/[email protected]. Please reference the Curlew

Amendment on the subject line.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Questions concerning the proposed action and

EIS should be directed to Scott Feltis, Interdisciplinary Team Leader,

Caribou National Forest, Pocatello, Idaho, phone: (208) 236-7500.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This EIS will tier to the final 1985 EIS for

the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Caribou National Forest

and Curlew National Grassland (Forest Plan). This Forest Plan provides

the overall guidance (goals, objectives, standards and guidelines, and

management area direction) to achieve the desired future condition for

the area being analyzed, and contains specific management area

prescriptions for the Grassland. The specific objectives of this

proposal are:

To develop direction for restoration of rangeland

vegetation composition.

To develop and implement livestock grazing standards.

To develop soil and watershed management direction.

To develop direction for sagebrush associated/obligate

wildlife species habitat.

To develop policy for future utility proposals.

To develop management direction for both riparian and

upland resources.

Public scoping for this proposal will be initiated with the

publication of this Notice. An Analysis of the Management Situation

(AMS) was released to the public on February 25, 1999 and is available

electronically at www.fs.fed.us/r4/curlew or by written request to the

address provided above. Opportunities will be provided to discuss the

Grassland Plan 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.

Preliminary Issues/Concerns

Riparian Condition. Some riparian areas and stream

channels have deteriorated and are no longer functioning properly. This

has resulted in a deterioration or loss of deep-rooted riparian

vegetation, reduced water quality, and degraded habitat for many

aquatic and terrestrial species. Some upper watersheds, not managed by

the Forest Service, have contributed to past flooding, channel scouring

and sediment within the Grassland.

Sage Grouse and Other Sagebrush-Associated Species and

Habitats. Sage grouse populations on and adjacent to the Grassland have

declined over the past 20-25 years. Historic expansion of agriculture

on non-federal lands has reduced the extent of sagebrush habitats in

the Curlew Valley area. Changes in some of the remaining habitat from

fragmentation, invasion of exotic plant species, disruption of natural

fire cycles, use by livestock and loss of native species diversity have

contributed to declines in sagebrush habitat quality and wildlife

species, some to the point of needing special attention.

Forage Utilization. Grazing utilization standards for

seeded and native vegetation types currently do not exist in the 1985

Forest Plan. Livestock forage utilization needs to consider, and be

compatible with, other resource values and needs. During the analysis

of Grassland resources, a determination of rangeland capability and

suitability will be made.

Vegetation Composition and Structure. Vegetation seedings

have changed species composition, reduced biological diversity, changed

species interactions, reduced wildlife habitat quality and forage

availability. When compared with native plant communities, seedings

have reduced the system's ability to buffer against changes. Sagebrush

structure is trending toward older age classes, resulting in a lack of

understory diversity, reduced herbaceous production and reduced

watershed condition due to losses of

[[Page 23593]]

ground cover. Bulbous bluegrass, a non-native grass species, was seeded

on 18,000 acres of the Grassland during the 1940's and 1950's. While

having value as a sod forming, ground cover species, it is not

desirable from a wildlife habitat or forage production perspective.

Opportunities exist to treat bulbous bluegrass-dominant sites and

revegetate with a desirable mix of native and non-native grass, forb

and shrub species.

Intermingle Lands. A mix of private and state and federal

land ownerships lie within, and surround the Grassland. Activities on

adjacent ownerships within the Curlew Valley are not always compatible

with Grassland management objectives and sometimes influence

activities, management options and resource conditions on the

Grassland. Because of these influences, ability to fully implement the

1985 Forest Plan direction is hindered in some instances.

Cumulative Effects. Cumulative impacts of the proposal

need to be identified and evaluated, including past, ongoing, and

future management on the Grassland, given the geographic setting of the

Grassland in relation to the ownerships and activities.

The Forest Service is seeking information and comments from Tribes,

Federal, State and local agencies as well as individuals and

organizations who may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed

action. The Forest Service invites written comments and suggestions on

the issues related to the proposal and the area being analyzed.

Information received will be used in preparation of the Draft EIS and

Final EIS. For most effective use, comments should be submitted to the

Forest Service within 30 days from the date of publication of this

notice in the Federal Register.

Preparation of the EIS will include the following steps:

1. Define the purpose and need for action.

2. Identify potential issues.

3. Eliminate issues of minor importance or those that have been

covered by previous and relevant environmental analysis.

4. Select issues to be analyzed in depth.

5. Identify reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.

6. Describe the affected environment.

7. Identify the potential environmental effects of the

alternatives.

Steps 1 and 2 have started; steps 2 through 4 will be completed

through the scoping process. Step 5 will consider a range of

alternatives developed from the key issues. To date, two alternatives

have been drafted The No Action Alternative continues the direction and

management of the 1985 Forest Plan. The Proposed Action was developed

in response to issues listed above. Step 6 will described the physical

attributes of the area to be affected by this proposal, with special

attention to the environmental factors that could be adversely

affected. Step 7 will analyze the environmental effects of each

alternative. The direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each

alternative will be analyzed and documented. Additional alternatives

will be developed in response to public issues, management concerns,

and resource opportunities identified during the scoping process. In

describing alternatives, desired vegetation and resource conditions

will be defined. Preliminary information, including a map of the

Proposed Action is available for review at the Westside Ranger District

Offices (Malad and Pocatello) and the Supervisor's Office (Pocatello).

Elements of the Proposed Action are presented below.

The Proposed Action

The Proposed Action applies a riparian/wetland areas prescription

which establishes a zone of special emphasis that restricts activities

to those which will not compromise prescription goals or reduce water

quality below that needed to comply with state water quality

requirements and sustain beneficial uses. Riparian forage utilization

is not to exceed 30 percent or a 6-inch minimum stubble height

(whichever is attained first) directly adjacent to the stream channel.

In contrast, the 1985 Forest Plan (No Action Alternative) manages

riparian areas at a minimal custodial level, limiting actions to those

activities required to comply with existing laws, regulations, and

executive orders. Also, no forage utilization standards are identified.

The Proposed Action applies Grassland-wide forage utilization

levels not to exceed approximately 50 percent on seeded sites and 45

percent on native vegetation sites. In contrast, the 1985 Forest Plan

does not specifically identify forage utilization levels. However, the

Grassland has been managed (through allotment management plan

direction) to not exceed 60 percent forage utilization regardless of

vegetation type.

The Proposed Action sets a goal of managing for a diversity of

sagebrush canopy cover class ranges on the Grassland: ten to 30 percent

of the Grassland acres in early seral status (0-5 percent canopy cover;

early age and structure); 40-60 percent of the Grassland acres in mid

seral status (6-15 percent canopy cover; mid-age and structure); 30-50

percent of the Grassland acres in late seral status (>15 percent canopy

cover; mature and overmature age and structure). In contrast, the 1985

Forest Plan does not provide management goals for sagebrush canopy

cover.

Other vegetation management direction found in the Proposed Action

includes an objective to treat 4,000 to 6,000 acres of bulbous

bluegrass (an undesirable grass species) dominant sites and revegetate

with desirable native and non-native grass, forb and shrub species over

a ten year period. In contrast, the 1985 Forest Plan does not provide

specific direction for the treatment of bulbous bluegrass. The 1985

Forest Plan does provide direction for revegetation proposals which

includes a avoiding establishing monocultures and maintaining a variety

of desirable grass, forb and shrub species; however, there is no

reference to native versus non-native plan species. In addition to the

treatment of bulbous bluegrass sites, the Proposed Action would treat,

over a ten-year period, between 1,000 and 3,000 acres of sagebrush with

canopy covers greater than 15 percent. Vegetation treatments under the

Proposed Action would total between 5,000 and 9,000 acres over a ten-

year period (an average of 500 to 900 acres annually). The 1985 Forest

Plan proposes to treat approximately 18,700 acres over a ten-year

period (1,870 acres annually).

The Proposed Action designates the Sweeten Pond and tree row acres

as special wildlife areas and sets forth objectives to construct an

additional impoundment in the Sweeten Pond area and establish an

additional ten miles of tree rows over the next ten years. In contrast,

the 1985 Forest Plan does not identify additional improvements

specifically for wildlife. The Proposed Action provides guidance for

the management of Forest Service designated sensitive species; the 1985

Forest Plan does not provide such guidance. The Proposed Action

provides guidance for sage grouse habitat management including

deferring habitat manipulation practices within a 0.25 mile radius of

active sage grouse leks and provides for a seed mix that includes

vegetation species preferred by upland birds during the pre-nesting,

nesting and brood rearing periods, and guidance to provide residual

cover to meet the needs of spring period ground nesting wildlife. In

contrast, the 1985 Forest Plan guidance defers habitat manipulation

practices within 1.9 miles of active sage grouse leks; no sagebrush

[[Page 23594]]

control where sagebrush cover is less than 20 percent or on steep

slopes; no sagebrush control along streams, meadows or secondary

drainages; application of sagebrush treatments in irregular patterns;

and where possible, avoid complete kill or removal of sagebrush.

The Proposed Action includes the identification and development of

monitoring protocols specific to Grassland resources.

The Proposed Action sets a goal to engage in collaborative efforts

with adjacent landowners, Soil Conservation District and the Natural

Resource Conservation Service to conserve soil, watershed and riparian

resources. In contrast, the 1985 Forest Plan does not provide direction

for such efforts.

Agency representatives and other interested people are invited to

visit with Forest Service officials at any time during the EIS process.

Two specific time periods are identified for the receipt of formal

comments on the analysis. The two comment periods are, (1) during the

scoping process (the next 30 days following publication of this Notice

in the Federal Register) and, (2) during the formal review period of

the Draft EIS.

The Draft EIS is estimated to be filed with the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review and comment in

January, 2000. At that time the EPA will publish an availability notice

of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register.

The comment period on the Draft EIS will be 45 days from the date

the EPA notice of availability appears in the Federal Register. It is

important that those interested in this proposed action participate at

that time. To be the most helpful, comments on the Draft EIS should be

as specific as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement

or the merits of the alternatives discussed (see the Council of

Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural

provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3).

In addition, Federal court decisions have established that

reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their

participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is

meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and

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

519:553 (1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at

the draft stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of

the final environmental impact statement. City of Angoon v. Hodel, (9th

Circuit, 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Incl. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp.

1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). The reason for this is to ensure that

substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest

Service at a time when it can be meaningful to consider them and

respond to them in the final EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues

and concerns related to the proposed action, comments on the Draft EIS

should be as specific as possible. Referring to specific pages or

chapters of the Draft EIS is most helpful. Comments may address the

adequacy of the Draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated

and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the

Council of Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the

procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR

1503.3 in addressing these points.

The Final EIS is expected to be released in August, 2000.

The Regional Forester, Intermountain Region, who is the responsible

official for the EIS, will then make a decision regarding this

proposal, after considering the comments, responses, and environmental

consequences discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and

applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The reason for the decision

will be documented in a Record of Decision.

Dated: April 21, 1999.

Jerry B. Reese,

Forest Supervisor, Caribou National Forest.

[FR Doc. 99-10946 Filed 4-30-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M