Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands, Headquartered in Pueblo, CO

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Pike and San Isabel

National Forests and Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands,

Headquartered in Pueblo, CO

AGENCY: USDA, 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 Pike and San Isabel National Forests, and the Comanche and

Cimarron National Grasslands (PSICC), located in Clear Creek, Douglas,

Jefferson, EL Paso, Teller, Park, Summit, Lake, Chafee, Saguache,

Fremont, Custer, Heurfano, Costilla, Pueblo, Las Animas, Otero, and

Baca counties in Colorado, and Morton and Stevens counties in Kansas.

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

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 the Plan) for the Pike and

San Isabel National Forests, and the Comanche and Cimarron National

Grasslands, (hereafter referred to as PSICC).

This notice describes the proposed action, specific portions of the

current Plan to be revised, environmental issues considered in the

revision, estimated dates for filing the Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS), information concerning public participation, and the names and

addresses of the agency officials who can provide additional

information.

DATES: The Public is asked to provide comments identifying and

considering issues, concerns, and the scope of the analysis with regard

to the proposed action, in writing by January 31, 2000. The Forest

Service proposes to file a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and make it available

for public comment in the spring of 2001. The Forest Service proposes

to file a Final Plan and EIS that will be available in the fall of

2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Hill, Planning Staff Officer,

(719) 545-8737. Please send written comments on this Notice of Intent

to: Donnie R. Sparks, Acting Forest Supervisor, PSICC, 1920 Valley

Drive, Pueblo, CO 81008-1797.

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 216.10(g), land and resource management plans are

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

was approved on September, 1984. This Plan has been amended 25 times

including two major amendments related to the December 1991 Oil and Gas

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the 1993 Colorado Wilderness

bill.

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 are encouraged to be submitted

to PSICC by January 21, 2000. A regular schedule of public meetings

will be in the summer of 2000. Alternative development meetings will be

held in winter of 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/psicc. 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.

Two Plans will be written in accordance with National direction

from Mike Dombeck, Chief of the Forest Service. One will describe the

intended management of the Pike and San Isabel National Forests; the

other will describe the intended management of the Comanche and

Cimarron National Grasslands.

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 responsibilities

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 make six fundamental decisions.\1\ These decisions

are:

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

\1\ Citizens for Environmental Quality v. U.S. 731 F. Supp. 977

(D.Colo. 1989).

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

1. Establishment of forest-wide multiple-use goals and objectives,

(36 CFR 219.11(b)).

2. Establishment of forestwide management requirements (standards

and guidelines) to fulfill the requirements of the NFMA relating to

future activities (resource integration requirements of 36 CFR 219.13

to 219.27).

3. Establishing of management area direction (management area

prescriptions) applying to future management activities in that

management area (36 CFR 219.11).

4. Designation of land suitable for timber production and the

establishment of allowable timber sale quality (36 CFR 219.14 and

219.16).

5. Nonwilderness multiple-use allocations for those roadless areas

that were reviewed under 36 CFR 219.17 and

[[Page 54614]]

not recommended for wilderness designation.

6. Monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR 219.11(d)).

The authorization of project-level activities on PSICC occurs

through project decision-making, which is the second stage of land

management planning, called Plan implementation. Project planning and

decision making is an on-going process that occurs on all eight Ranger

Districts and Supervisor's office before, during and after Plan

revision. Project level decisions must also comply with National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures and must include a

determination that the project is consistent with the Plan. The current

Plan remains in effect and must be complied with until the revised Plan

is completed and approved.

Synopsis on the Current Plan

The current Plan emerged from a zero-based planning process that

considered alternative management emphases within an overall context of

multiple use. The planning process recognized the concept of

biodiversity and incorporated various aspects of it into the Plan. The

selected alternative--and the basis for management of PSICC's lands in

ensuring years--established PSICC as a unit where recreation and

wildlife (including TES species) play a key role, while production of

commodities such a timber is maintained at moderate levels. PSICC's

proximity is growing metropolitan area accounts for the recreation

component, while the unit's vast geographic reach spans a wide range of

ecosystems and habitats and accounts for the wildlife component.

The current Plan adopted a mid-range level of timber harvest and

projected that activities thereunder would play a central role in

addressing the needs of wildlife habitat, forest health, and fuels

accumulation. Soon after the Plan was approved, however, structural

changes occurred affecting both the local timber industry and the

regulatory environment for conducting timber harvest. The result was a

PSICC timber harvest program that performed at much lower levels than

projected during the planning process.

Framework for Future Planning

Since the current Plan was approved in 1984, the biodiversity

concept it embraced has evolved somewhat into an approach that seeks

better recognition and integration of ecosystem components. Ecosystems

management and sustainability have replaced multiple use and sustained

yield. As a reflection of this, the Forest Service has adopted a

Natural Resource Agenda for the 21st Century, which will be the

foundation for future National Forest management and includes ecosystem

sustainability. The agenda has four key areas:

1. Watershed health and restoration.

2. Sustainable forest ecosystem management.

3. Forest roads.

4. Recreation.

Other developments include the Government Performance and Results

Act (GPRA) which was passed in 1993. This act directs the preparation

of periodic strategic plans by federal agencies. The first strategic

plan for the Forest Service was written in 1997 and centers around the

following three goals:

1. Ensure sustainable ecosystems.

2. Provide multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of

ecosystems.

3. Ensure organizational effectiveness.

Ecosystem management, the Natural Resource Agenda for the 21st

Century, and the GPRA Strategic Plan focus on outcomes and desired

resource conditions rather than outputs of goods and services. These

need to be incorporated into the revised Forest Plan.

Need for Changes in the Current Plan

In addition to the regulatory requirement to revise Forest Plans

every 10 to 15 years and the new framework for future planning

described above, PSICC's experience in implementing the current plan

and monitoring its effects shows a need for certain changes. Several

other sources have also highlighted the need for changes in the current

Plan. These sources include the following:

1. Public involvement, for individual projects and amendments to

the Plan, which has identified new information, public values and an

indication of the Plan's overall palatability.

2. Monitoring and scientific research which has provided a better

understanding of ecosystems structure, function and health.

3. Forest plan implementation which has identified management

concerns to find better ways for accomplishing desired conditions.

4. Technology improvements allowing better data collection and

analysis.

Proposed Action

Based on these sources of information, various aspects of the Plan

have been identified as possibly needing change. These aspects range

from the broad to the specific. The key broad aspect to be examined

regards whether the current Plan adequately addresses the relationship

between the impacts of recreation uses and the habitat needs of

threatened, endangered and sensitive species. Since the current Plan

was approved, changes have occurred both in specie lists in these

categories and in ways of thinking about habitats in terms of ecosystem

management and sustainability. In addition, recreation patterns have

changed: more people are visiting and their means of enjoyment have

evolved. A look needs to be taken at the interaction of recreation

patterns and habitat needs to determine whether and how the current

Plan might be changed to maintain a fair balance between these

distinctly different uses of National Forest.

A variety of more specific changes also appear to be in order.

Additional wildernesses have been designated, but management area

direction for them has not been cleanly incorporated into the Plan. In

addition, many standards and guidelines redundantly state direction

found in law, regulation and policy that must be followed in any case;

these are to be removed. Other standards and guidelines may be revised

to reflect improved scientific or regulatory understanding. Further,

the current Plan's labeling of management areas will be changed to

reflect a scheme adopted by several Forest Service Regions to achieve

better consistency of terms among Plans.

Overall, the types of changes to be considered are seen as being

largely fine-tuning in nature. That is, public response and agency

experience under the current Plan do not appear to be demanding a

repeat of the zero-based planning process such as was conducted while

developing the current plan. Those aspects of the current Plan that

have proven to be good policy do not need to be changed. Accordingly,

the revision process is expected to concentrate on improving the

current Plan rather than exploring entirely different ways of managing

PSICC's lands. Among other things this approach will better focus on

the interests of PSICC's users while keeping planning costs within the

unit's financial means.

Major Revision Issues

Based on the experience and information sources identified above,

revision is being initiated to meet legal requirements, and to address

all needed changes in the Plan. In order to focus and streamline

revision efforts, two major issues have been identified. These two

major issues will require major changes in Plan, and their inter-

[[Page 54615]]

relationship will be the primary drivers of the analysis and the range

of alternatives in the revision process. Both issues are complex;

together they affect every acre of land and every resource program on

the PSICC.

1. Biodiversity and Ecological Sustainability

Planning Questions

How will the PSICC Plan be changed to maintain or improve

biological diversity (biodiversity) and provide sufficient habitat for

the long-term viability for populations of focal species, especially

for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Species?

How will recreation and natural resource management

program direction on the PSICC need to change to ensure healthy

sustainable ecosystems?

Background

Biological diversity (biodiversity) is the full variety of life in

an area including the ecosystems, plant and animal communities, species

and genes, and the processes through which organisms interact with one

another and their environment. Humans and human activity are integral

parts of ecosystems and will be considered in the analysis. On the

PSICC, biodiversity may have been reduced from its 1984 level because

of increased human activity and the suppression of fires.

The current Plan partially addresses the concept of biodiversity.

In revision, biodiversity concepts will be used for revising management

strategies for the physical, biological and social environment. An

integrated analysis will incorporate the best currently available

information and technology, and will include information from any range

of natural variability assessments prepared for the Region. The Forest

Service believes biodiversity could decrease under continued

implementation of the existing PSICC Plan. The revision will review

specific methods for management of biodiversity and provide for

monitoring of management actions to measure progress and ensure

ecological sustainability through adaptive management.

Of significant concern to the Forest Service is the biological

condition of forest and rangeland vegetation. The Forest Service

believes it will be necessary to use prescribed fire and some timber

harvest to begin to restore a healthy vegetation condition. Others

believe the best way to restore this condition is to minimize human

intervention and to allow natural processes to restore diversity. These

options will be weighed during the revision process.

Related topics include:

How to restore fire to the ecosystem and engage in

vegetation treatment in the urban/wildland interface;

How to maintain sustainable rangeland health and protect

TES species with a balance between domestic grazing and wildlife use;

How can cost-effective levels of grazing be maintained so

ranching can continue to be an element in local community character;

How to maintain critical wildlife habitat and viable

populations of important species on public lands; and

How to maintain water and air quality while continuing

multiple-use management.

2. Roadless Area Management

Planning Questions

Which roadless areas on the PSICC qualify for Wilderness

and should be recommended for designation to the National Wilderness

system?

How should roadless and unroaded areas not recommended for

Wilderness be managed to meet current and expected demands for

motorized and non-motorized recreation, and other resource management

access needs?

Background

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

roadless areas for potential Wilderness designation during the revision

process. This process will produce an inventory of roadless areas

meeting minimum criteria for Wilderness according to the 1964

Wilderness Act. Wilderness designation is a Congressional

responsibility, so the Forest Service will only make recommendations.

The PSICC has significant amounts of land which are roadless or

unroaded (containing no ``classified'' or system roads), because of the

steep terrain in many areas. All of the unroaded areas on the PSICC

(except designated Wilderness areas) will be inventoried for roadless

area potential. There has been relatively little development and

moderate evidence of human use in roadless areas on the PSICC since

1984. Recommendations for Wilderness designation will be made for those

inventoried areas which meet the criteria and which the Regional

Forester believes should be added to the National Wilderness System.

The management of roadless and unroaded areas not recommended for

Wilderness will be reviewed during the revision process. Both motorized

and non-motorized recreationists want to maintain or improve their

access and travel opportunities on the PSICC. Some of the roadless and

unroaded areas are currently managed for summer and/or winter motorized

trail or area use. Traditional forms of recreation such as driving for

pleasure, hiking, horseback riding, and snowmobiling are showing steady

increases. Mountain biking, cross-country skiing, all-terrain vehicle

use, rafting, and kayaking have grown dramatically in the past decade.

The PSICC is one of the top units in the nation for recreation

opportunities and use, with over 3 million people living within an hour

of the national forests and grasslands. Because of the high levels of

current and historic recreation and other use, the PSICC has been

implementing travel management for the past 20+ years. Travel

management is the movement of people, goods, and services to and

through the Forest. Travel management is an on-going process, and there

is always more to be done to improve it. Most of the PSICC is currently

under management that shows on maps and on the ground where people and

vehicles can and can not go. All of the Pike and San Isabel National

Forest lands require that wheeled vehicles stay on designated roads and

trails, with no off road or off trail travel except for snowmobiles

operating over snow. The Comanche and Cimarron Grasslands expect to

complete their travel management to the same quality standard by about

2001. This will be accomplished through District project planning, not

through Plan revision.

Recreation on the PSICC has a significant economic impact locally

and in the state of Colorado. Concerns exist about the effects of high

recreation use on the physical and biological environment. Rapidly

increasing summer and winter recreation is creating a need to address

the separation of motorized and non-motorized users in some areas.

Changes needed in Plan revision will include the refinement of area

allocations with respect to whether motorized or non-motorized uses are

allowed. There is a need to review existing direction to determine how

the demand for a wider variety of uses and more separation of uses can

be met within resource capacity limits.

Other Revision Topics

Planning regulations and fifteen years of PSICC Plan implementation

experience were used to identify the following list of additional

topics that will be addressed and updated during revision.

[[Page 54616]]

Special Area Management

The PSICC includes many unique and outstanding combinations of

physical and biological resources, and areas of social interest. These

are collectively referred to in the regulations as ``special areas.''

Special areas may include Wilderness (36 CFR 219.17); Wild and Scenic

Rivers (36 CFR 219.2); Research Natural Areas (36 CFR 219.25); National

Trails, and special recreational areas with scenic, historical (36 CFR

219.24), geological, botanical, zoological, paleontological,

archaeological, or other special characteristics. Management direction

for all special areas will be updated, based on the uniqueness of the

special area and the difference between existing and desired future

condition of the resource(s).

Research Natural Area (RNA) Recommendations

Currently the PSICC has 3 RNAs. In the past few years twenty new

potential RNAs have been identified on the Pike and San Isabel NFs and

eight new potential area on the Comanche & Cimarron NGs. These

potential RNAs range in size from a few hundred to a few thousand

acres. Based on the diversity of the PSICC, the Forest Service has

recognized that additional ecosystems need to be analyzed and

recommended for designation as Research Natural Areas.

Wild & Scenic Rivers Eligibility Recommendations

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

requires the consideration of potential Wild and Scenic Rivers. As part

of Plan revision, rivers and streams, determined potentially eligible

for inclusion in the wild and Scenic River System, will be analyzed to

determine if the ``eligible'' status is warranted. There is at least

one, possibly two, other river segments on the State of Colorado's

National Rivers Inventory that may also be within PSICC jurisdiction.

(1) Segments of the Purgatoire River in Otero County, definitely on

PSICC lands.

(2) Chacuaco Canyon in Las Animas County. This may not be on the

PSICC at all.

Eligibility studies for this (these) river segment(s) will be part

of the PSICC Forest Plan revision process. The next step in the process

for eligible rivers and streams is suitability analysis. This step will

be deferred to a future date.

Timber Suitable Acres and Allowable Sale Quantity

The Forest Service is required (36 CFR 219.14) to determine which

lands are suited and not suited for timber production. This allows an

estimate to be made of the potential of the unit to produce a

continuous supply of timber. Preliminary analysis shows that the acres

of tentatively suitable timber lands on the unit will be significantly

less than those identified in the current plan. Alternative levels of

commercial timber harvest will be identified in the EIS.

Similarly the suitability, condition, and trend of the Range

resource (36 CFR 219.20) will be analyzed and expected levels of

grazing will be estimated for Plan Revision Alternatives.

Other Potential Changes to the Current Plan

The Rocky Mountain Region (R2) has developed a set of Management

Area prescriptions to promote greater uniformity of direction across

adjacent National Forests in the Region. The PSICC will use the R2

Management Area numbering system and use the standard R2 Management

Area direction as much as possible. The Revision will incorporate the

basic direction and recommendations of the 1995 Recreation Capacity

Assessment and Outfitter Guide Allocations and the 1991 Recreation

Strategy for the PSICC. The revision will incorporate the Noxious Weed

Environmental Assessment recommendations. Plan Revision will decide to

retain or close vacant grazing allotments. The Revision will update

Goals, Objectives, Standards and Guidelines to meet new national,

regional and PSICC priorities.

What To Do With This Information

Writen comments on the scope of the issues, topics, and other

potential changes identified above are encouraged to be submitted to

PSICC by January 31, 2000.

Framework for Alternatives To Be Considered

A range of alternatives will be considered when revising the Plan.

The alternatives will address different options to resolve the major

issues and other revision topics listed above, and to fulfill the

purpose and need for plan revision. A reasonable range of alternatives

will be evaluated and reasons will be given for eliminating some

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

required. For Plan revision, no action means that current management

would continue under the existing Plan. In describing alternatives,

desired vegetation and resource conditions will be defined. Resource

outputs will be estimated based upon achieving desired conditions. Some

preliminary information is available; however, additional public

involvement and collaboration will be needed for alternative

development.

Involving the Public

PSICC's primary objective is to maintain an atmosphere of openness

throughout the Plan revision process, where all members of the public

feel free to share information with the Forest Service on a regular

basis. All planning activities will be designed to support open

discussions and public involvement that will be sustained on the PSICC

after revision is completed.

The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and assistance

from individuals, organizations, tribal governments, and federal,

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

revision (36 CFR 219.6) and implementation. ``Collaborative

stewardship,'' is defined as caring for the land and serving the people

by listening to all constituents and living within the limits of the

land, and will be implemented on the PSICC. Many agencies,

organizations and individuals have already been cooperating in the

development of assessments of current biological, physical, social and

economic conditions. This information will be used to prepare the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

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. Public participation activities

could include (but are not limited to) requests for written comments,

open houses, focus groups, field trips, and collaborative forums in

numerous locations. 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 to respond to

this notice of intent, which initiates the scoping process (40 CFR

1501.7). Scoping includes: (1) identifying potential issues, (2) from

these, identifying significant issues of those that have been covered

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

to No Action, and (4) identifying potential environmental effects of

the proposed action and alternatives. Additional Public Involvement

activities are tentatively proposed to start in the summer of 2000, and

will be held at several locations throughout the PSICC area.

[[Page 54617]]

Release and Review of the EIS

The Draft EIS (DEIS) is proposed to be filed with the Environmental

protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public comment in the

spring 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 structure their participation in the environmental review

of the proposal so that is meaningful and alerts an agency to the

reviewer's position and contentions; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.

v. NRDC. 435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978). Also environmental objections that

could be raised at the DEIS stage but are not raised until after

completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) may be

waived or dismissed by the courts; City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d

1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc., v. Harris,

490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court

rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed

action participate by the close of the three-month comment period so

that substantive comments and objections are made available to the

Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and

respond to them in the FEIS.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues

and concerns on the proposed actions, comments on the DEIS should be as

specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific

pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the

adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and

discussed in the statements. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council

on Environmental Quality Regulation for implementing the procedural

provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in

addressing these points.

After the comment period ends on the DEIS, comments will be

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

preparing the Final EIS (FEIS). The FEIS is proposed to be completed in

the fall 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 Plans. The decisions will be subject to appeal in accordance

with 36 CFR 217.

Dated: September 23, 1999.

Tom L. Thompson,

Acting Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region.

[FR Doc. 99-26174 Filed 10-6-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-ES-M