Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Caribou National Forest, ID

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Caribou National

Forest, ID

AGENCY: Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement

in conjunction with revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan

for the Caribou National Forest, located in Bannock, Bear Lake,

Bingham, Bonneville, Caribou, Franklin, Oneida, and Power counties,

Idaho; Box Elder and Cache counties, Utah; and Lincoln County, Wyoming.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service will prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement in conjunction with a revision of the

Land and Resource Management Plan (hereinafter referred to as Forest

Plan) for the Caribou National Forest.

This notice describes the needs ``for change'' identified to date

in the current Forest Plan to be revised, 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 process.

DATES: Comments concerning the intent to prepared a revised Forest Plan

should be received in writing by October 2, 1999. The agency expects to

file a Draft Environmental Impact Statement in the Spring of 2000 and a

Final Environmental Impact Statement in the Spring of 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Jerry Reese, Forest Supervisor,

Caribou National Forest, 250 South 4th Avenue, Pocatello, Idaho 83201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Oakes, Planning Team Leader,

Caribou National Forest (208) 236-7500.

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 of the Caribou National

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 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

Caribou National Forest was approved on September 27, 1985.

The Regional Forester gives notice that the Caribou National Forest

is beginning an environmental analysis and decision-making process for

the proposed programmatic action to revise the Caribou Forest Plan.

Opportunities will be provided to discuss the Forest Plan revision 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.

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 forest-wide 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 Forest occurs

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

decisions must comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

procedures and must include a determination that the project is

consistent with the Forest Plan.

Linkage to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

The northern portion of the Caribou National Forest is within the

area of land covered by the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project (ICBEMP). Two sources of information from the ICBEMP

will influence the development of the Forest Plan: (1) The integrated

science assessment and (2) the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (ICBEMP FEIS)

and Record of Decision.

The integrated science assessments contain information that provide

context at a 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 help

identify 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 for the Revised Forest Plan.

The other primary document that will influence this revision is the

ICBEMP FEIS. The Draft EIS was issued for public comments in June 1997,

and a final document is expected in Spring 2000. This document, which

incorporates the results of the science assessments, will amend

portions of the Forest Plan when the Record of Decision is issued. This

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

objectives and standards for management for that portion of the Forest

within the ICBEMP assessment area. This amendment will simplify the

scope of the planning effort, but will not replace the need for the

revision of these reasons.

The ICBEMP effort is at a much broader scale. The

application of the information and decisions will need to be refined

for the Forest-level scale.

The ICBEMP will provide 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 ICBEMP FEIS will 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

ICBEMP did not address.

The Ecosystem Management Goals from ICBEMP will provide a

framework for Forest planning that merges science and ecosystem

capability with societal values to help make choices about dynamic

systems on the Forest. These overarching forest-wide goals will be the

ecological centerpiece for Plan revision.

Need for Change in the Current Forest Plan

The Forest completed two monitoring reports, one in 1992 and a

second in 1997. The results for 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 the Forest

Plan. Several sources were used in determining the need changes in the

current Forest Plan. These sources include:

Public comments concerning implementation of current

direction;

Findings from the two Forest Plan monitoring reports;

Regulatory, manual, and handbook requirements;

Forest Service Natural Resource Agenda, 1998;

[[Page 43143]]

Draft 1995 Resources Planning Act (RPA) Program;

New Information, such as the Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project scientific assessment and other research,

and

Public comments received regarding the findings in the

Initial Analysis of the Management Situation.

Initial Analysis of the Management Situation

In April, 1999, the Caribou National Forest published an Initial

Analysis of the Management Situation (Initial AMS). The Initial AMS

summarized the current management and resource conditions of the

Forest, proposed a desired range of future conditions for forest

resources, and disclosed significant ``needs for change'' forest

managers and resource specialists identified. The Initial AMS was

mailed to more than 500 interested individuals, non-government

organizations, city, county, state and other federal agencies. Public

comments were encouraged regarding the findings disclosed in the

Initial AMS. As a result of the analysis of the comments received, the

Forest Supervisor has determined the public has identified additional

``needs for change'' that will be included in the revision of the

Forest Plan. The ``needs for change'' topics, along with preliminary

proposed programmatic actions, include:

1. Timberland Suitability and Wilderness Recommendations

A reassessment of timberland suitability will be

conducted.

All inventoried roadless areas on the Forest will be

reevaluated for possible wilderness recommendation.

2. Aquatic and Riparian Resources

Develop goals, objectives, standards and guidelines and

monitoring strategies for the management of riparian and aquatic

ecosystems.

3. Economic and Social Concerns

Changes in Forest management may have social and economic

effects. During the analysis, effects on local, regional and national

entities, agencies and Tribes will be assessed, considered and

disclosed.

4. Fire Management

Develop goals, objectives, standards, guidelines and

monitoring requirements for the use of prescribed fire and wildfire for

resource benefit to improve ecosystem health and reduce the risk of

uncharacteristically large or intense fires.

5. Minerals Development

Incorporate new best management practices or other new

information as they are developed or become available to address

selenium releases into the environment.

Develop improved goals, objectives, standards and

guidelines to address reclamation of land disturbed by mineral

development.

6. Noxious Weeds

Develop improved multi-program goals, objectives,

standards, guides and monitoring strategies for prevention, containment

and control of noxious weeds.

7. Rangeland Resources

Evaluate rangeland capability and reassess areas suitable

for livestock grazing through the application of management

prescriptions.

Develop standards and guidelines, including forage

utilization standards for native range and seeded areas. Monitoring

protocols that will promote adaptive management will also be included.

8. Recreation/Travel Management

Establish open road and motorized trail density levels and

determine which areas will be designated open to off road motorized

use.

9. Special Management Areas

Develop management direction to protect the outstandingly

remarkable values of St. Charles Creek and Elk Valley Marsh, areas

previously determined to be eligible for study under the Wild and

Scenic Rives Act. A suitability study will not be completed as a part

of this effort.

Develop direction to provide for consistent management of

all eight RNAs on the Forest. Include direction for the use of

prescribed fire and wildfire for resource benefit as appropriate to

meet the objectives for which the RNA was established.

10. Vegetation (Forestlands and Rangelands)

Develop improve management direction for desired

vegetation structure, composition, disturbance and patterns for each

cover type which could include restoring historic fire regimes through

prescribed fire or allowing wildfires to burn under appropriate

conditions, harvest or thinning of dense stands to reduce ladder fuels.

11. Wildlife Habitat

Develop management direction to conserve or restore key

wildlife, fish and rare habitats including those species federally

listed under the Endangered Species Act, those identified as sensitive

by the Regional Forester, and those identified as rare or scarce

species. This will also include monitoring for habitat trends.

More detailed information on the ``need for change'' topics is

available upon request at the address displayed above.

Framework for Alternatives To Be Considered

Through a range of alternatives economic and social community

stability will be considered in revising the Forest Plan. The

alternatives will address different options to resolve the issues

identified in the revision topics listed above. Alternatives must meet

the purpose and need for revision 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 1985 Forest Plan, as amended. Alternatives are developed in

response to public issues, management concerns, and resource

opportunities identified during the scoping process. In describing

alternatives, desired vegetation and resource condtions will be

defined.

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.

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 involvement

opportunities will be offered at various locations. Public

participation activities may include written comments, open houses,

focus groups and collaborative forums.

Public participation will be sought throughout the revision process

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

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

CFR 1501.7). Public meets will be arranged locally. Specific dates,

times and locations of meetings will be identified at a later date. The

public will be notified at that time.

[[Page 43144]]

Release and Review of the EIS

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is expected to be

filed with the Environmental protection Agency (EPA) and to be

available for public comment in the Spring of 2000. At that time, the

EPA will publish a notice of availability in the Federal Register. The

comment period on the Draft EIS will be at least 90 days from the date

the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register,

as required by the planning regulations.

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 Draft EIS 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 (Final EIS) 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 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 Final EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues

and concerns on the proposed programmatic actions, comments on the

Draft EIS 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 Draft EIS or the merits

of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statements.

Reviewers may wish to refer to the Counsel 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 Draft EIS, comments will be

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

preparing the Final EIS. The Final EIS is scheduled to be completed in

the Spring of 2001. The responsible official will consider the

comments, responses, and environmental consequences discussed in the

Final EIS, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making

decisions regarding the revision. The responsible official will

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

Decision for the revised plan. The decisions will be subject to appeal

in accordance with 36 CFR part 217. Jack A. Blackwell, Intermountain

Regional Forester, is the responsible official for this EIS.

Dated: August 3, 1999.

Jerry B. Reese,

Forest Supervisor, Caribou National Forest.

[FR Doc. 99-20378 Filed 8-6-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M