Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison National Forests, CO

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Grand Mesa,

Uncompahgre, Gunnison National Forests, CO

AGENCY: USDA Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement

(EIS) in conjunction with revision of the land and resource management

plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison National Forests (GMUG)

located in Delta, Montrose, Gunnison, Mesa, San Miguel, Ouray,

Hinsdale, Saguache, Garfield, and San Juan counties, Colorado.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact

statement in conjunction with the revision of its Land and Resource

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

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnision National Forests (GMUG).

This notice describes the specific portions of the current Forest

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

estimated dates for filing the environmental impact statement,

information concerning public participation, and the names and

addresses of the agency officials who can provide additional

information.

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

in writing by January 31, 2000. The agency expects to file a draft

environmental impact statement with the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and make it available for public

[[Page 52267]]

comment in the fall of 2001. The agency expects to file a final

environmental impact statement in the fall of 2002.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Carmine Lockwood, Planning Team

Leader, GMUG National Forests, 2250 Highway 50, Delta, CO 81416.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carmine Lockwood, Planning Team

Leader, at (970) 874-6677, or Carol Howe, Assistant Planner, at (970)

874-6647.

Responsible Official: Lyle Laverty, Rocky Mountain Regional

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Part 36 Code of Federal

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

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

environmental impact statement for the revision effort described above.

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

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

was approved on September 29, 1983. Significant amendments were

completed in 1991 to address land suitability for timber production,

and in 1993 to address land availability for oil and gas leasing.

The Regional Forester gives notice that the Forest is beginning an

environmental analysis and decision-making process for this proposed

action so that interested or affected people can participate in the

analysis and contribute to the final decision.

Opportunities will be provided to discuss the Forest Plan revision

process openly with the public. The public is invited to help identify

issues and define the range of alternatives to be considered in the

environmental impact statement. Forest Service officials will lead

these discussions, helping to describe issues and the preliminary

alternatives. These officials will also explain the environmental

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

available for public review. Written comments identifying issues for

analysis and the range of alternatives will be encouraged.

Issue identification (scoping) meetings will be scheduled for fall

1999. Alternative development meetings will be held in fall 2000.

Public notice of dates, times, and locations for specific meetings will

be provided in local newspapers and posted on the Forest's web site:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/gmug. Additionally, we will send notices and

newsletters to those on the forest plan revision mailing list. Requests

to be placed on this mailing list should be sent to the comment address

stated above.

The United States has a unique legal relationship with Indian

tribal governments as set forth in the Constitution of the United

States, treaties, statutes, Executive orders, and court decisions. As

part of the overall effort to uphold the federal trust responsibility

to tribal sovereign nations to the extent applicable to National Forest

System lands, the Forest Service will establish regular and meaningful

consultation and collaboration with the tribal nations on a government-

to-government basis. The Forest Service will work with governments to

address issues concerning Indian tribal self-government and

sovereignty, natural and cultural resources held in trust, Indian

tribal treaty and Executive order rights, and any issues that

significantly or uniquely affect their communities.

Forest plans describe the intended management of National Forests.

Agency decisions in these plans do the following:

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);

Determine suitability and potential capability of lands

for resource production. This includes designation of suitable timber

land and establishment of allowable timber sale quantity (36 CFR 219.14

through 219.26);

Where applicable, recommend designations of special areas

such as Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers to Congress.

The authorization of project-level activities on the Forest occurs

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

management planning. Project-level decisions must comply with National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures and must include a

determination that the project is consistent with the Forest Plan.

In addition to the programmatic decisions described above, the

Forest is considering:

Making site-specific decisions on travel management

through identification of specific restrictions for individual roads

and trails on the Gunnison Forest, and

Identifying and analyzing instream flow requirements for

site-specific decision.

Any site-specific decisions made in conjunction with the Forest

Plan revision EIS would have a separate decision document and the

responsible official would be the Forest Supervisor.

Need for Changes in the Current Forest Plan

It's been approximately sixteen years since the current Forest Plan

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

in management direction for some resources or programs. Several sources

have highlighted needed changes in the current Forest Plan.

These sources include:

Public involvement which has identified new information

and public values;

Monitoring and scientific research which have identified

new information and knowledge gained;

Forest plan implementation which has identified management

concerns to find better ways for accomplishing desired conditions; and

Changes in law, regulations, and policies.

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 described above, Plan revision is

warranted in light of the combined effects of these multiple needs for

change. The preliminary revision topics that have been identified to

date are described below.

1. Terrestrial Ecosystem Sustainability and Restoration

Planning Questions

How will the forest be managed to restore or maintain

healthy ecosystems?

Should the forest be managed within historical range of

variability for such things as fire size and frequency, size and

distribution of openings, and mix of plant and animal species?

Are some species or vegetation communities such as aspen

and cottonwood declining?

What are appropriate ways to improve forest health in

addition to harvest and pre-commercial cutting?

How much of the forest should be maintained in old-growth

conditions and how should it be distributed in time and space?

Are large ecological preserves needed to provide adequate

habitat for some species? If so, how large, and

[[Page 52268]]

which conditions should be represented? What type of human activity, if

any, should be allowed in such areas?

What management direction is needed to ensure viable

populations of threatened, endangered, sensitive and other focal

species? How do various resource management regimes and human

activities affect these species?

What role should non-native species play in terrestrial

ecosystems? What should be done about increasing populations of noxious

weeds?

What management direction is needed to identify, protect,

and make available the traditional forest plant and animal products

that American Indians enjoy through exercising their treaty rights, or

other rights? How do various activities occurring on, or excluded from,

National Forest System lands affect the availability of traditional

forest products?

Background

A tremendous amount of new information and research results

regarding managing terrestrial ecosystems for ecological sustainability

has been issued since the Forest Plan was completed in 1983. The

current Plan only partially addresses this subject in piecemeal

fashion.

Several analysis concepts relating to ecological sustainability

have been developed since the 1983 plan, such as: establishing the

range of natural variability, comparing management to natural

disturbance processes, maintaining biological diversity through coarse-

filter and fine-filter assessments, delineating reference landscapes,

and broadening focus from vertebrates to all native species.

Traditional approaches also remain valid, such as conserving habitat

for indicator or focal species, and recovering threatened, endangered,

or sensitive species. The Forest will be analyzed using these

techniques and the Plan revised to reflect the knowledge gained.

New Management Area (MA) Prescriptions have been developed since

the 1983 Plan was approved. There is a need to develop new goals, make

existing goals and objectives more specific, and to evaluate the

present set of Management Areas, boundaries and prescriptions. Several

existing Plan standards lack the sophistication required to account for

key elements of ecological integrity, and variations in temporal and

spatial scales. An improved monitoring strategy is needed to measure

indictors of ecological integrity and sustainability at multiple

scales. There is an opportunity to design monitoring so that it

provides a better foundation for adaptive management.

Particular aspects of this topic identified by past and current

monitoring include: forest and rangeland health, insects and disease,

fragmentation and connectivity of habitats, potential need for

additional reserve areas, successional stage abundance and

distribution, late successional forest structure, prescribed and

natural fire/fuels management, forest cover and plant community

conversions, soil productivity, control of noxious weeds and other

undesirable species, riparian area health and management, and species-

to-habitat relationships. The Plan will revise direction for

threatened, endangered, sensitive, focal, and demand species (an

expansion of the current management indicator species (MIS) approach).

Proposed Actions

Based on monitoring results, preliminary analyses, and public

input, the following actions will be proposed in one or more EIS

alternative:

Define the desired conditions for terrestrial ecosystem

sustainability for appropriate temporal and spatial scales.

Base management practices on understanding and

consideration of natural disturbance processes, including the

intensity, frequency, and magnitude of those disturbance regimes.

Increase use of prescribed fire both within and outside of

Wilderness through natural and human ignitions.

Utilize new methods and treat more acres with active

vegetation management practices to improve forest health.

Apply vegetation treatment areas and patch sizes which

better reflect natural disturbance patterns.

Exclude or modify existing human uses to better protect

species at risk and to maintain or restore biological diversity.

Aggressivly treat noxious weed populations through various

means, including mechanical, biological and chemical control.

Develop a monitoring strategy that will measure

appropriate indicators of ecosystem integrity and ecological

sustainability at multiple scales, and will serve to facilitate

adaptive management.

2. Aquatic Ecosystem Sustainability and Restoration

Planning Questions

How do various activities occurring on the forest affect

water quality and quantity, soil resources, and riparian areas?

Where should limited watershed restoration funds be spent

to provide the greatest return on investment in terms of enhancement or

protection of aquatic ecosystem values?

How can revised Forest Plan management direction further

the implementation of the national ``Clean Water Action Plan and

Policy'' and ``Framework for Developing and Implementing Total Maximum

Daily Loads (TMDL) in Forest and Rangeland Environments''?

What are the effects of water diversions on various stream

ecosystems? What are the effects of various water storage facilities

(reservoirs, ponds, and tanks) on aquatic ecosystems?

In which drainages should the Forest Plan establish bypass

or minimum instream flows as conditions for issuance or renewal of

special use permits?

On which streams or stream reaches should the Forest

Service pursue settlement of claims for water rights in state court

adjudications in order to protect aquatic ecosystem integrity?

In which stream or lake systems is improved programmatic

direction needed to ensure the viability of aquatic species or to

restore dwindling populations? Which measures should be included?

Background

Watersheds have become the basic unit (at multiple scales) for

assessing ecological conditions, restoration needs, and the

sustainability of management prescriptions. Analysis is needed to

ascertain the appropriate management framework for achieving

maintenance and restoration of watershed integrity. The existing Plan

does not adequately describe management parameters required to ensure

that the characteristic diversity of biological and physical components

and processes are managed to provide watershed conditions within their

approximate range of natural variability. In keeping with changes in

Forest Service management philosophy based on the Clean Water Action

Plan commitments, recommendations from the Committee of Scientists, and

mandates from the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water acts, watershed

health and restoration will be a fundamental priority in the Plan

revision. There is currently a strong body of law, regulation, and

policy to ensure water quality protection (re: agency ``Watershed

Conservation Practices Handbook,'' FSH 2509.25, March 1999). This

direction provides very little discretion as to planning and

implementation of protection measures.

[[Page 52269]]

However, there is a zone of discretion with regard to the level and

intensity of aquatic ecosystem restoration measures that should be

pursued, based on anticipated benefits from investment, other resource

trade-offs, and projected funding levels. These questions warrant

examination as a primary revision topic.

Proposed Actions

The revised Plan will prescribe specifications and constraints

(standards and guidelines) for management practices to:

Maintain and restore watershed function and provision of

beneficial uses.

Protect and recover native aquatic and riparian dependent

species and prevent the introduction and spread of non-native, invasive

species.

Restore aquatic resources, including but not limited to

streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, source waters, wetlands,

riparian areas, and floodplains.

The Plan also proposes to:

Identify current and foreseeable future Forest Service

consumptive and non-consumptive water uses and rights needed to

maintain or restore watershed integrity, including instream flow needs.

Locate and designate reference watersheds and stream

reaches.

Prioritize specific watersheds for restoration by applying

factors such as: past disturbance history; water quality impairment and

riparian condition; inherent instability, disturbance sensitivity, and

restoration capabilities; diversity of native plants, fish, and

animals; special designations such as Wild and Scenic Rivers; recovery

of threatened, endangered, or other sensitive species; ability to

leverage restoration funds through partnerships; and, the opportunity

to work with interested and willing federal, state and tribal

governments, communities, adjacent land managers, and owners.

3. Roadless Areas and Unroaded Areas

Planning Questions

Where are the roadless areas on the Forest, what are their

characteristics, and which qualify for Wilderness recommendation?

How can Congressionally designated Wilderness be managed

to accomplish the principles of the Wilderness Act as related to human

uses and natural processes?

How should roadless areas not recommended for Wilderness

be managed?

Background

Inventoried roadless areas (RARE II and Forest Plan inventoried

areas) and other unroaded areas continue to be areas of high

controversy and debate as to their appropriate and best use. Although

the Colorado Wilderness Acts of 1980 and 1993 (Pub. L. 96-560 and Pub.

L. 103-77) released undesignated roadless lands for other management,

these Acts and federal regulation (36 CFR 219.17) require that these

areas be re-evaluated for Wilderness designation during Forest Plan

revision. Some ``inventoried roadless areas'' have always included

roads. Many more roads have been developed through management practices

and by users in the intervening decades. Actual Wilderness designation

is a Congressional responsibility; Forests can only make

recommendations. One current member of the Colorado Congressional

delegation has draft Wilderness legislation that would increase

Wilderness on the GMUG. Ecological sustainability goals will likely

lead to focused consideration of Wilderness additions in locations on

the margins of existing Wilderness, or in lower elevations where

Wilderness is less well represented.

The revision process will include a new inventory of roadless and

unroaded areas, replacing the RARE II and previous Plan inventories as

the basis for future analysis of ``roadlessness.'' A roadless area

inventory will be developed and areas capable of being designated for

Wilderness will be identified. Areas not recommended for Wilderness

will be studied for possible allocation to other management

prescriptions. The issue has become more complex over time and now

includes the need to assess values beyond potential Wilderness, such

as: source drinking water areas, reference areas for research, areas of

high or unique biodiversity, areas where other unfragmented landscapes

are scarce, areas of cultural or historic importance, or areas that

provide unique or important seasonal habitat for wildlife, fish, and

plant species.

The inventory will be conducted according to most recent guidance

defining unroaded areas. Current policy--which is in draft form--

defines unroaded areas as any areas that do not contain classified

roads (a road at least 50 inches wide and constructed or maintained for

vehicle use, Interim Rule, 36 CFR 212, 2/11/99). Assessment methods

will have to be developed to ascertain whether unroaded areas have

sufficient size in a manageable configuration to protect the inherent

values associated with the unroaded condition.

Proposed Actions

The following actions will be proposed in one or more EIS

alternative:

Identify and recommend for Wilderness designation those

roadless areas which meet basic requirements for Wilderness and would

further the goals of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 (note)).

For those roadless and unroaded areas not recommended for

Wilderness designation, provide management prescriptions that allow for

various levels of development.

4. Travel Management

Planning Questions

What travel and transportation opportunities should the

Forest provide to meet current and expected demands?

Where and what type of travel restrictions are needed to

sustain aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem integrity during all seasons

of use?

How can the Forest Service provide a wide range of

recreational opportunities to people who are physically restricted from

traveling by other than motorized means?

What type of transportation system, in terms of amount of

and standards for roads and trails, can the Forest manage and maintain

to an adequate level, particularly considering declining budgets and

greatly reduced road maintenance through timber sale contracts?

Which existing roads and trails should be closed

(permanently or seasonally) and/or decommissioned?

How will travel management policies affect property

inholders and landowners adjacent to the Forest boundary?

How do the GMUG's travel management policies fit with

those of adjacent national forests and other land management agencies,

particularly where routes cross jurisdictions?

Background

Issues and management concerns related to travel management have

increased significantly since completion of the Plan and its

amendments. Use numbers for traditional recreation travel, such as

driving for pleasure, hiking, horseback riding, and motorbiking have

grown steadily. Other modes, such as all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles,

and mountain bikes have dramatically increased over the last decade.

Resource impacts and social conflicts have increased proportionally

with these uses. All user groups want to

[[Page 52270]]

main or increase opportunities for their preferred uses. Plan

monitoring reports have acknowledged existing impacts and the potential

for increased adverse effects on soil, water, wildlife and heritage

resources from increased use, development of unauthorized routes, and

lack of maintenance on existing roads and trails. Semi-primitive areas

are becoming more developed as use increases and new routes appear.

Current agency policy (``Natural Resource Agenda'', Dombeck, 02/03/

99) directs forests to aggressively decommission old unneeded,

unauthorized, and other roads that contribute to environmental

degradation. An economically efficient and environmentally sound

transportation network is essential for active forest management and

the flow of goods and services.

The GMUG has invested a great deal into travel management planning

for the Grand Mesa and Uncompahgre Forests. For the Gunnison Forest

area, we will use Plan revision to conduct comparable analysis and make

consistent decisions. Additional designation and/or separation of

motorized and non-motorized uses will be needed to reduce conflicts.

Site-specific travel management decisions for individual routes will be

included in the revision process; any ground-disturbing closure or

decommissioning actions will receive project-level analysis. The Forest

will consider and apply those portions of the pending ``Road Analysis

Process'' which are specified for forest-level planning, when the

policy becomes final.

Proposed Actions

The following actions will be proposed in one or more EIS

alternative:

Identify a road and trail transportation network that

provides an environmentally sound and socially responsive travel

management system which is consistent across the entire Forest, and

well coordinated with adjacent forests.

Eliminate cross-country motorized travel (``green'' areas)

on those portions of the Forest not previously addressed in recent

travel management plans. Specify travel routes by appropriate modes and

season of use.

Designate permanent or seasonal travel restrictions and

those routes that will be decommissioned. Identify new road and trail

alignments that are needed to enhance travel opportunities or protect

resource values.

Specify whether motorized use is allowed in each land area

(MA) allocation and prescription; provide new goals, standards, and

guidelines.

5. Recreation and Scenery Resources

Planning Questions

What range, mix, and emphasis of recreation opportunities

will best meet the demands of a wide variety of current and future

users; while ensuring protection of scenic, biotic and physical

resources.

How much recreation use can be sustained from both the

ecological integrity and visitor enjoyment perspectives? Do limits need

to be placed on certain areas or types of use during various seasons?

Should potentially conflicting uses, such as mountain

biking and horseback riding occur in the same areas or be segregated?

How should surface water uses, including types and levels

of use on lakes and streams be regulated to maintain quality of the

recreation experiences and protect natural resources?

How should major recreation corridors and scenic byways be

managed? What type of opportunities should be provided in these areas?

What are appropriate development levels for campgrounds,

picnic areas, trailheads, etc.? How many facilities can be adequately

maintained under projected budget levels?

How do national forest and private sector facilities and

services best fit with each other?

How should the Plan revision be used to address allocation

of special uses, capacity and development levels? What program

parameters, such as service day allocations, permit numbers, activities

permitted, location and types of developments, should be established?

Where and how should scenic quality be maintained or

enhanced along major travel routes?

How does scenic quality change over time? What are the

implications of ecosystem dynamics and how should management intervene

prior to or after changes? How much weight should be given to short-

term versus long-term impacts and benefits?

What is the relationship between scenic quality and air

quality? What role should prescribed fire play?

Background

Recreation is a dominant use of the GMUG. Recreationists generate

major economic benefits to local counties and communities, and a high

percentage of recreation opportunities on the Forest are provided or

enhanced by private enterprise. Public perceptions of national forest

management are primarily based on personal experiences and visual

impressions. Forest visitors vary widely in their recreational

interests. A range of recreation settings from pristine to highly

developed is desired. This results in pressures for different land

allocations. Generally expressed public sentiment, attitudes and values

indicate strong desire for protection of natural scenic beauty. The

current Plan discusses both Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)

categories and Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs), but does little to

establish management direction for either recreation or scenic

resources. The existing Plan included an inventory, but very little in

the way of firm direction on ROS allocations; it basically set ranges

of ROS and VQO classes for most Management Areas. These allocations

were based more on compatibility with other management area direction

than on the characteristics of particular land areas. ROS objectives

and consequences were poorly displayed. This topic area is strongly

tied to travel management, as well as timber and other vegetation

management activities.

The VQO framework has been replaced by the scenery management

system. the ROS and scenery management frameworks can be used both to

inventory existing conditions and to make decisions on management

objectives. We will reassess management and public use needs related to

these concepts. The ROS system will be used to describe desired

recreation settings, conditions, compatible user groups, and

appropriate levels of use for specific areas of the Forest. Project

decision-making will have improved efficiency and support (e.g., in

travel management) when the revised Plan clearly establishes the

conditions we are trying to achieve in terms of recreation

opportunities. Improved direction, including distinct descriptions for

both winter and summer conditions, will substantially enhance

recreation management and user experiences. These displays will also

help more clearly define the conflicts and trade-offs between motorized

and non-motorized recreational

Proposed Actions

The Forest will be zoned into various classifications of

``recreation opportunity spectrum'' for summer and winter uses. There

are seven broad classifications which range from primitive through

urban, and they will be associated with a variety of resource

management standards and guidelines in nearly all program areas.

The Forest will be zoned into various classifications of

`'scenic integrity levels,'' ranging form very low

[[Page 52271]]

to very high. These classifications will be associated with a variety

of management implications in nearly all program levels.

The revised Plan will provide updated programmatic

direction for recreation facility developments, maintenance, special

use permitting parameters, and private sector service objectives.

6. Timber Suitability and Forest Management for Commercial Products

Planning Questions

Which portions of the Forest are suitable for timber

harvest?

What volume of timber and mix of products should the

Forest provide? What harvest level is sustainable while ensuring

ecological integrity?

How important to local communities and economies are the

wood products which the Forest provides?

What is the financial efficiency of the Forest's timber

sales program?

Which logging systems should be applied to better enable

forest vegetation treatments over a wider variety of terrain, and

during more stages of stand development?

How should recommended and allowable timber harvest

prescriptions be adjusted, both in terms of type and spatial

application limits, to account for new information relative to historic

range of variation and natural disturbance regimes?

Should logging occur in unroaded areas?

Are new roads needed for harvesting? If so, to what

standards should they be built? Should roads be maintained or

obliterated after logging use? Should logging roads be open or closed

to the general public?

What are the appropriate specifications and constraints

(standards and guidelines) for logging? What kinds of restoration

practices should occur after logging and road building?

Background

Timber management continues to be one of the most controversial

agency activities, as well as one of the most important for some local

communities. The debate surrounding timber harvesting is generally

waged in terms of related issues, such as biodiversity, community

sustainability, and roadless areas. However, this topic remains

significant in its own terms because of statutory mandates (e.g., the

1897 Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 473), and the National Forest Management

Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600(note))), emphasis in current research and

public dialogue (e.g., ``Committee of Scientists Reports'', 3/16/99;

proposed legislation to ban logging on NFS lands, H.R. 2789), and the

intensity of public emotion. The determination of lands suited and not

suited for timber production and ASQ is required by NFMA (sec.

6(g)(2)(A)) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 219.14).

The 1991 significant amendment to the Forest Plan addressed most of

the ``timber'' elements of the vegetation management debate. Timber

demand was re-evaluated, and the suitable timber base and allowable

sale quantity (ASQ) were recomputed using FORPLAN. Below-cost sales and

the economic suitability of timber were key topics addressed in the

amendment. Much of this analysis remains current, though stumpage

prices, among other elements, have changed significantly. The Forest

has completed new inventories since the 1991 timber amendment was

adopted which will be useful in determining timber suitability. Plan

implementation and monitoring have shown that portions of the suited

base may have been inappropriately classified based on current

standards. Updating the 1991 analysis is needed to account for new

ecological and economic criteria, and other social aspects of the

timber program.

The amended Plan for the GMUG identified 544,730 acres that are

suitable for timber production and set an ASQ that averages 38.7

million board feet (MMBF) of wood products per year for the decade

beginning in 1992. Programmed sale quantity, the amount expected to be

offered for sale, is equal to the ASQ. In addition, the Forest

estimated sales of 7 MMBF per year of non-chargeable products, mostly

personal-use firewood. Actual volume sold has fallen well short of the

projected levels. There are several reasons for this, the greatest of

which is insufficient budget and skyrocketing timber project planning

costs and time frames.

Traditional objectives for timber management have been supplanted

with broader objectives for vegetation and fuels management to achieve

integrated ecological goals. Plan revision must describe multiple land

classifications for timber removal, including: lands not suitable for

timber production, lands where timber harvest is permitted to

accomplish other resource objectives, and lands where timber production

is an objective.

Proposed timber sales in currently unroaded areas have generated

much controversy. This revision topic overlaps with the Roadless Area

and Unroaded Area allocation and management. Harvesting aspen,

harvesting mature / late-successional stands or large trees,

regeneration harvest methods, patch size, logging systems, and cost

efficiency of timber sales, are elements of this topic.

Proposed Actions

The Forest land base will be classified into various

categories of suitability for timber production within each Plan

alternative, including lands: tentatively suited for timber production;

not appropriate for timber production because they're occupied by

administrative sites; not appropriate for timber production due to

minimum management requirements that limit activities; not appropriate

for timber production because of other multiple-use objectives; not

cost efficient for timber production over the planning horizon; and,

net suited lands appropriate for timber production.

Allowable sale quantity and long-term sustained yield

capacity will be identified for each Plan alternative.

Programmatic direction (standards and guidelines) will be

revised for harvest prescriptions and logging systems and road

management.

Secondary Revision Topics

Preliminary topics discussed in this section are also important

issues to be addressed in the Plan revision. However, they are likely

not substantial or widespread enough to be major drivers in the EIS

alternative themes or forest-wide management area prescriptions and

standards.

1. Special Areas

Planning Questions

Which area on the Forest quality for Research Natural Area

designation?

Which rivers, or river segments, on the Forest are

potentially eligible for addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System?

Which portions of the Forest qualify for other special

area designations?

Should landscapes containing cultural or historic resource

properties that are potentially eligible for, or already listed on, the

National Register of Historic Places receive special land management

prescriptions?

What is the appropriate balance between providing for

historic site preservation, or conservation, and recreational

enjoyment, and allowing other activities that can affect the use of the

cultural or historic site and its setting? What are the appropriate

specifications and constraints (standards and guidelines) for

activities

[[Page 52272]]

affecting cultural properties and their setting?

What kinds of cooperation are needed between the Forest

Service, the tribes, other agencies, and private individuals to protect

these areas?

Background

The planning area includes several unique or outstanding areas and

resources of outstanding physical, biological, or social interest.

Collectively these are known as ``special areas.'' Potential formal

designations of special areas may include Wilderness (which was also

discussed under Primary Topic 3, above); Wild and Scenic Rivers;

Research Natural Areas; and special recreational areas with scenic,

historical, geological, botanical, zoological, paleontological,

archaeological, or other special characterists. These special areas

will influence land allocation and management in the revision. In some

cases the Plan will make the designation as a special area, and in most

cases it will simply make recommendations to another authority (e.g.,

U.S. Congress). Some areas received special designation after the last

Plan was approved, such as, Tabeguache Area, Roubideau Area, Fossil

Ridge Recreation Management Area and Wilderness, Powderhorn Wilderness,

and other Wilderness additions, and have never been incorporated into

the Plan or been given programmatic direction other than for travel

management.

Ten areas have been inventoried to determine their potential for

establishment as Research Natural Areas. The Plan revision will address

establishment of RNA's including an assessment of the needs for

additions to the RNA network.

There are five scenic byways on the Forest and a number of national

trails. Proposals are under consideration for additional trails.

There are currently several historic properties on the Forest

recognized to National Register of Historic Places. Heritage resources

must be protected by law.

The Forest is part of the traditional homeland of the Ute Nation

and there is an increased awareness of the sacred sites. Protection of

these sites will be part of revision.

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

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

includes two rivers (the East River) and Taylor River listed on the

National Rivers Inventory. Both rivers were evaluated during

development of the original Forest Plan and determined not to be

eligible for the Wild and Scenic River System. Other rivers and streams

with potential for designation (e.g., portions of the Gunnison and San

Miguel) are located off of National Forest System lands.

2. Coal, Leasable Minerals, and Mining

Planning Questions

What lands are suitable for oil and gas leasing? What

stipulations should be included in leases? What lands should be

withdrawn from mineral entry because of conflicts with other National

Forest uses?

What types of activities or practices are suitable? What

mitigation measures are needed? What kinds of restoration practices

should occur after mining and oil and gas exploration or development?

How should mineral and energy exploration and development

be balanced with other considerations, such as heritage resources,

aesthetics, human health, and ecosystem health and sustainability? What

are the effects of exploration, development, and associated road

construction on other uses of the Forest?

What are the effects of mining and oil and gas activities

beyond the local area?

What kind of direction is needed for recreational planning

or dredging?

What special considerations are needed in Wilderness?

What are the economic impacts in the local community of

mining and coal, oil, and gas exploration and development?

Background

The 1993 Oil and Gas Leasing EIS established standard, controlled

surface use, and no surface occupancy stipulations, in addition to

determining the availability of land for leasing. No similar effort has

been undertaken for coal or uranium. Leasing decisions continue to be

made on a case-by-case basis, when in fact, many of the leasing

stipulations for oil and gas (e.g., protection of riparian areas)

appear to apply equally well to coal, uranium, and other resource

programs. The Forest Service needs to determine what areas are suitable

and available for oil, gas, coal, and uranium leasing and what

stipulations should be placed on exploration and development. The

revised Plan will develop separate stipulations for coal and uranium

leases.

Most of the Forest is available for locatable (or ``hard rock'')

mineral exploration and development under the Mining Law of 1872,

unless areas are specifically withdrawn. The Plan revision will update

programmatic guidance to minimize adverse environmental impacts on

Forest surface resources during mining operations for locatable

minerals.

3. Landownership Adjustment

Planning Questions

Which areas of the Forest need strengthened programmatic

direction to guide land ownership pattern adjustments?

How can goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for

lands adjustment be improved to prioritize agency action, enhance

management efficiency, and assist local communities?

Background

Landownership adjustment is generally considered a tool to

accomplish resource or socioeconomic objectives, rather than a driving

issue in and of itself. However, land exchange activity on the GMUG has

far exceeded predictions of the existing Plan. Exchange proposals

continue to generate intense controversy, particularly when they

involve land within or near resort communities, where land values are

high and open space is at a premium. Plan revision offers an

opportunity to develop agreements about desired future patterns of land

ownership that could be achieved through exchanges or purchases. Access

to public land is often a related concern where private land

development is happening, or likely will occur, adjacent to the Forest.

What To Do With This Information

This revision effort is being undertaken to develop management

direction that will help attain the three basic agency goals of

ecological sustainability, social and economic sustainability, and

collaborative public involvement.

The Forest's role and responsibilities in promoting social and

economic sustainability include: utilizing an effectively structured

planning process that helps build public understanding of the

interconnectedness of communities, economies and the Forest and its

resources; applying continuous, open, and collaborative planning

processes which enable well-reasoned community deliberation of

sustainable choices; examining opportunities to help local communities

meet specific needs; and providing for a wide variety of uses, values,

products and services through decision-making and Plan implementation.

Early public participation will identify the topics to be addressed

in

[[Page 52273]]

Plan revision. The preceding discussion of preliminary revision topics

is based upon our assessment of Plan monitoring and evaluation results;

public and agency input during project planning and Plan amendment

efforts; and socioeconomic, demographic and political changes. We

expect this list to change as people engage in the planning process.

Framework for Alternatives To Be Considered

A range of alternatives will be considered when revising the Forest

Plan. The alternatives will address different options to resolve

concerns raised as the revision topics listed above. A reasonable range

of alternatives will be evaluated and reasons given for eliminating

some alternatives from detailed study. A ``no-action alternative'' is

required, meaning that management would continue under the existing

Plan. 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 will be estimated in the Forest Plan based on achieving desired

conditions. Preliminary information is available to develop

alternatives; however, there will be additional public, agency, and

tribal government involvement and collaboration for alternative

development.

Consulting and Collaborating With Tribal Governments

The Forest Service will establish regular and meaningful

consultation and collaboration with tribal nations on a government-to-

government basis. The agency will work with tribal governments to

address issues concerning Indian tribal self-government and

sovereignty, natural and cultural resources held in trust, Indian

tribal treaty and Executive order rights, and any issues that

significantly or uniquely affect their communities. Correspondence,

meetings, and field trips will be used in this effort.

Involving the Public

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

involvement process, in which all members of the public feel free to

share information with the Forest Service regularly. All parts of this

process will be structured to maintain this openness.

The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and assistance

from individuals, organizations, tribal governments, and federal,

state, and local agencies who are interested in or may be affected by

the proposed action (36 CFR 219.6). The Forest Service is also looking

for collaborative approaches with members of the public who are

interested in forest management. Federal and state agencies and some

private organizations have been cooperating in the development of

assessments of current biological, physical, and economic conditions.

This information will be used to prepare the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (DEIS). The range of alternatives to be considered in the

DEIS will be based on public issues, management concerns, resource

management opportunities, and specific decisions to be made.

Public participation will be solicited by notifying in person and/

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

used to give the public general notice, and public scoping

opportunities will be offered in numerous locations. Public

participation activities will include (but will not be limited to)

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

and collaborative forums.

Public participation will be sought throughout the revision process

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

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

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

from these, identifying significant issues or those that have been

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

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

effects of the proposed action and alternatives.

Release and Review of the EIS

We expect the DEIS to be filed with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and to be available for public, agency, and tribal

government comment in the fall of 2001. 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

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 participate in the environmental review of the proposal

in such a way that their participation is meaningful and alerts an

agency to the reviewer's position and contentions: Vemont 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 relating to 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. In addressing these points,

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.

After the comment period on the DEIS ends, 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 the

summer of 2002. The responsible official will consider the comments,

responses, environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS, and

applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making decisions

regarding these revisions. The responsible official will document the

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

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

36 CFR 217.

Dated: September 7, 1999.

Lyle Laverty,

Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, USDA Forest Service.

[FR Doc. 99-25099 Filed 9-27-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-HJ-M