Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Bighorn National Forest located in Sheridan, Johnson, Big Horn, and Washakie Counties, Wyoming

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Bighorn

National Forest located in Sheridan, Johnson, Big Horn, and Washakie

Counties, Wyoming

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement

in conjunction with revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan

for the Bighorn National Forest.

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

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

Bighorn National Forest.

This notice describes the proposed action, 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: The public is asked to provide comments identifying and

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

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

expects to file a Draft Environmental Impact Statement with the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and make it available for public

comment in February of 2001. The Forest Service expects to file a Final

Environmental Impact Statement in February of 2002.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Abigail R. Kimbell, Forest

Supervisor, Bighorn National Forest, 1969 South Sheridan Avenue,

Sheridan, Wyoming 82801.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Daniels, Forest Planner, (307 672-

0751) or Joel Strong, Alternate Planning Team Leader (307 672-0751).

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: 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 of the Land and

Resource Management Plan (hereafter referred to as Forest Plan or Plan)

for the Bighorn National Forest. 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 October 4, 1985.

The United States has a unique legal relationship with Native

American tribal governments as set forth in the Constitution of the

United States, treaties, statutes, Executive orders and Court

decisions. The Forest Service will establish regular and meaningful

consultation and collaboration with the tribal nations on a government

to government basis.

Forest plans describe the intended management of National Forests.

Agency decisions in these plans do the following:

1. Establish multiple-use goals and objectives (36 CFR 219.11(b)).

2. Establish forestwide management standards and guidelines

applying to future activities (resource integration requirements, 36

CFR 219.13 to 219.27).

3. 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).

4. Establish monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR

219.11(d)).

5. 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).

6. Where applicable, recommend designations of special areas such

as Wilderness (36 CFR 219.17) and Wild and Scenic Rivers (The Wild and

Scenic Ribers Act) to Congress.

Need for Change In The Current Forest Plan

Since our existing Forest Plan was approved in 1985, experience in

implementing the plan and monitoring the effects of that implementation

indicates that we need to make some changes in management direction.

[[Page 61243]]

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

current Forest Plan. These sources include:

Public involvement which has identified new information,

issues and public values.

Monitoring and scientific research which have identified

new information and knowledge gained.

Forest plan implementation which has identified management

concerns, particularly, the inability of current standards and

guidelines to be met while providing projected outputs of forest

products in our existing plan.

New Management Area (MA) Prescriptions have been developed

since the 1985 Plan was approved. These need to be adapted with goals

and objectives clearly defined. Management Area boundaries need to be

evaluated and mapped.

Preparing the Plan and EIS

An interdisciplinary team is conducting the environmental analysis

and will prepare an environmental impact statement associated with

revision of the Forest Plan. This interdisciplinary team will also

prepare the revised Forest Plan. As part of this effort, the

interdisciplinary team will develop a list of forestwide standards and

guidelines; identify draft management areas; and develop the

corresponding management area themes, settings, desired condition

statements, and management area-specific standards and guidelines.

These will then be used to develop alternatives to the proposed action

for the revised Forest Plan.

The Proposed Action

Major Revision Topics

We have identified the following five major revision topics through

annual Forest Plan monitoring reports, review of regulations, internal

Forest Service discussions, and discussions with the public:

Biological Diversity

Timber Suitability and Management of Forested Lands

Roadless Area Allocation and Management

Special Areas

Travel Dispersed and Recreation Management

The topics represent areas where we identified a significant need

for change (discussed above) or where regulations require analysis.

There will also be secondary revision topics that are also important

issues, however they are not likely substantial or widespread enough to

be major drivers in the alternative themes. Management of riparian

lands on the Forest, elk security, and designation of areas appropriate

for utility lines and hydro electric power production are examples of

other issues that will be addressed.

The Forest Service has recently adopted a new resource agenda. This

new approach, A Natural Resource Agenda for the 21st Century, will be

the foundation for National Forest Management into the 21st century.

There are four key elements in the agenda:

(1) Watershed health and restoration

(2) Sustainable forest ecosystem management

(3) Forest Roads

(4) Recreation

Another important development was passage of 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 written in

1997, focuses on three goals:

(1) Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems

(2) Provide Multiple Benefits for People Within the Capabilities of

Ecosystems

(3) Ensure Organizational Effectiveness

The revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Bighorn

National Forest will be built on principles of integrated ecosystem

management. This appraoch will address many of the concerns and

monitoring recommendations identified with the 1985 Plan.

Watershed health, and restoration will be important components of

the analysis and Plan. Sustainable forest ecosystems and forest roads

will also be important considerations as the Plan is revised. Finally,

recreation will be featured in the special area and travel management

revision topics.

The Revised Forest Plan will include a monitoring strategy to

measure how effectively the Plan meets stated goals and objectives. In

keeping with GPRA and the Natural Resource Agenda, this strategy will

focus on outcomes and desired resource conditions rather than outputs.

As part of the proposed action, the following changes are suggested

for each of the revision topics:

Biological Diversity

Current Direction: In the current Plan is intended to produce a

diversity of habitats well-distributed throughout the landscape. This

approach to managing biological diversity produces a very heterogenous

landscape at a fine scale. Patches are small, with a high percentage of

edge habitat. Patches are areas where the vegetation is similar in

species, age, and size. Natural disturbance processes are generally

controlled or suppressed. All habitats, including late successional

forests are well distributed but in generally small patches. The

current plan contains two Research Natural Area which feaure biological

diversity related features.

Need for Revision: The following concerns with biological diversity

have been identified from monitoring and public scoping and indicate a

need for change.

Public interest in biological diversity and how best to

maintain it has grown substantially since the Forest Plan was approved

over a decade ago.

Biological diversity or various aspects of it (such as

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species management and forest

health) have been significant issues in environmental analyses in

recent years. The current plan's emphasis on heterogeneous habitats and

exclusion of natural disturbance events has caused concerns about

sustainability of the forested ecosystems.

Direction in the current plan does not fully reflect the

latest scientific information on land management planning. This new

information needs to be incorporated into the revised plan,

particularly the principles of ecosystem management, with attention

given to managing on more of a landscape scale.

Proposed Action: The proposed action is based on monitoring,

preliminary analysis, and public input and includes the following

actions which will be disclosed in one or more of the draft EIS

alternatives:

Allocating larger blocks of roadless areas to

prescriptions with an emphasis on late successional forests and natural

disturbance processes.

Emulating natural landscape patch size in many areas where

timber harvest is allowed.

Increased use of prescribed fire both within and outside

of Wilderness through natural and human ignitions.

Aggressive treatment of noxious weed populations through

various means, including mechanical, biological and chemical control.

Exclude or modify some existing uses to better protect

species at risk and to maintain or improve species viability and

biological diversity.

Timber Suitability and Management of Forested Lands

Current Direction: Currently the Forest Plan allocates

approximately 92% of the tentatively suited lands in management area

prescriptions to timber management. Timber

[[Page 61244]]

management is practiced across these management areas, with differing

management emphases and intentions. The current Plan originally set the

allowable sale quantity (ASQ) for the Bighorn National Forest at 149

million board feet per decade (14.9 million board feet per year).

Actual volume sold has fallen well short of the projected levels. Since

1995 the amount of green sawtimber that can be offered for sale has

been administratively ``capped'' at 4.8 million board feet annually

until the Forest Plan is revised. Less than 20% of the suited lands are

outside of inventoried roadless areas.

Need for Revision: The following indicate a need for change in the

management of forested lands:

Projected harvest levels in the current plan are not being

achieved.

Current projected harvest levels and certain prescribed

standards and guidelines, particularly associated with visuals and

wildlife are not compatible.

Reevaluaton of the tentatively suited lands is required at

10 years (36 CFR 219.12(k)(5)(ii)).

Allocation of existing roadless areas to timber management

prescriptions continues to be very controversial.

Silvicultural prescriptions specified in various

management areas are often in conflict with other multiple use

objectives.

Current forest conditions indicate treatments for products

other than sawlogs are needed.

Proposed Action: The following actions will be proposed in one or

more of the EIS alternatives.

The Forest land base will be classified into various

categories of suitability for timber production within each

alternative.

The allowable sale quantity and long-term sustained yield

capacity will be identified for each Plan alternative. Recent analysis

indicates that the current ASQ cannot be sustained.

New and revised goals, objectives, standards, and

guidelines will be proposed for harvest prescriptions and logging

systems.

Recommended and allowable timber prescriptions will be

adjusted, both in terms of harvest methods and spatial limits, to

account for recent information relative to the historic range of

variation and natural disturbance regimes on the Bighorns.

Roadless Area Allocation and Management

Current Direction: The President signed the Wyoming Wilderness Act

of 1984 (PL 98-550) which designated the 189,039 Cloud Peak Wilderness

on the Bighorn National Forest. The Act also released all remaining

areas (those areas not designated as wilderness by the act) to

multiple-use management. The current plan allocates many of these

remaining roadless areas to prescriptions which allow road building.

Approximately 69 percent of the Forest is now classified as roadless.

Need for Revision: Inventory of roadless areas is a requirement in

the revision process (36 CFR 219.17). Management of inventoried

roadless areas continues to be controversial. These conflicts are a

result of varying resource demands on the roadless areas.

Proposed Action: The proposed action is to complete an inventory of

roadless areas, evaluate these areas to determine wilderness potential

(36 CFR 219.17), and allocate the roadless areas to varying management

area prescriptions with an emphasis on late successional forest and

natural disturbances.

Special Areas

The Bighorn National Forest includes several unique or outstanding

areas or resources of physical, biological, or social interest.

Collectively these are referred to as ``special areas''. They may

include Wilderness (also discussed above); Wild and Scenic Rivers;

Research Natural Areas; and other special areas with scenic,

historical, cultural, geological, archaeological, or other outstanding

characteristic.

Current Direction: In the current plan, there is one management

area designated specifically for Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Little Big

Horn and Tongue Rivers were determined to be eligible as potential

additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Designation of

the Little Big Horn as Wild and Scenic was recommended to Congress.

Congress did not act to officially designate the river, however both

remain under the wild and scenic management prescription and their

unique qualities are currently safeguarded by specific standards and

guidelines.

As mentioned above the Cloud Peak Wilderness area currently

consists of 189,039 acres. The Forest Plan was amended in 1998 to

revise the standards and guidelines used to manage this Wilderness.

The current plan designated two Research Natural Areas (RNAs), Bull

Elk Park (718 acres) and Shell Canyon (730 acres). Several additional

areas have been inventoried for possible additions in cooperation with

the University of Wyoming.

Based on current data, there is a heritage resource for every 92

acres of land surveyed, or approximately 7 sites per section on the

Bighorn National Forest. These range from the nationally recognized

Medicine Wheel National Historic Landmark, to numerous lesser known

historic and prehistoric sites and properties. Another important

component of the Forests heritage resources is the recognition and

protection of Native American Indian spiritual sites.

Need for Revision: The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended

(December 31, 1992) and Forest Service handbook 1909.12, Chapter 8

direct the Forest Service to evaluate rivers for inclusion in the

National Wild and Scenic River System during forest planning. Proposed

designation of portions of two eligible rivers, the Little Big Horn and

the Tongue, has not been acted on by Congress. These two rivers, as

well as other rivers on the forest, need to be evaluated to determine

their eligibility for inclusion into the Wild and Scenic River System.

The Forest Service is also required, where applicable, to recommend

designations of other special areas such as additions to Wilderness (36

CFR 219.17).

Authority to establish RNA's is delegated to the Chief of the

Forest Service at 7 CFR 2.60(a) and 36 CFR 251.23 and shall be made

during the planning process. Several potential additions have been

recently inventoried.

Better direction needs to be established for the management of the

abundant cultural and historic resources on the Bighorn National

Forest. Of particular need is to incorporate the Heritage Protection

Plan around Medicine Mountain, including the Medicine Wheel National

Historic Landmark.

Proposed Action:

Rivers and streams determined to be eligible for potential

inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System will be examined. The

next step in the process, the suitability analysis and recommendation

to Congress, will not be done as part of this revision.

Existing roadless areas will be examined for possible

recommendation as additions to the Cloud Peak Wilderness Area.

Areas on the Forest that have been recently inventoried

for RNA values will be examined and considered as possible additions to

the RNA program to help meet regional and national goals.

The protection and management of cultural and historic

resources will be revised and updated. Of particular need is an

increased awareness of Native American sacred sites.

[[Page 61245]]

Travel and Dispersed Recreation Management

Current Direction: The demand on the Bighorn Forest for motorized

use is significant. Four-wheel drive and all terrain vehicle (ATV)

interests want continuing opportunities for off-road and primitive road

use. Other recreationists participating in nonmotorized recreation

activities are demanding fewer roads and trails be open to motorized

use. The existing 1985 Forest Plan incorporated the 1983 travel

management plan and map by reference. This travel map has been updated

and corrected periodically since 1985.

Dispersed recreation includes all those activities that occur

outside developed site i.e. campgrounds and picnic areas. Currently,

approximately 60% of total recreation user days on the Forest is

dispersed recreation. Estimates indicate this use is increasing at

about 2% per year. This level of demand is limiting opportunities for

dispersed camping, particularly on weekends and high use times of the

year.

Need for Revision: Issues and management concerns related to travel

management have increased significantly since the 1985 Plan was signed.

Use figures for traditional recreation travel, such as pleasure

driving, horseback riding, and motorbiking have grown steadily. Other

used and demands, such as all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and

mountain bikes have dramatically increased over the last decade.

Resource impacts and user conflicts have increased proportionately with

the increased demand. There is very little specific direction in the

existing plan for travel management.

Likewise, many activities associated with dispersed recreation use

are creating unacceptable impacts on the land. These include the

destruction of riparian areas around dispersed camping sites and

popular fishing streams, impacts on water quality at popular dispersed

recreation sites resulting from the improper disposal of litter,

garbage, and human waste. The destruction of vegetation and the

development of ``human browse lines'' from collecting firewood in

heavily used areas, recreational stock damage, including tree girdling,

root exposure, soil compaction, and the widening and pioneering of new

roads and trails, often in environmentally sensitive areas are also

management concerns.

Proposed Action: The following actions will be proposed in one or

more EIS alternatives:

Identify an updated road and trail transportation network

that provides an environmentally sound and socially responsive travel

management system which is consistent across the Forest and well

coordinated with adjacent private and public lands.

Designate permanent or seasonal travel restrictions on

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

locations or alignments that are needed to enhance travel needs or

protect recourse values.

Clearly specify whether or under what conditions motorized

use is allowed in each management area (MA) prescription; provide

appropriate standards and guidelines.

Provide the programmatic Forest wide direction and

``Framework'' for a site specific travel management plan that is

responsive to the issues developed in the revision process. A separate

decision will be made on the site specific travel plan.

Eliminate cross-country motorized travel except on

designated routes.

Adoption of those portions of the pending ``Roads Analysis

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

policy becomes final.

The revision of dispersed recreation standards and

guidelines will be considered concurrently with travel management

proposals to insure consistency.

Begin a pilot program of ``designated dispersed camping''

ie camping only at designated sites that provide no facilities.

Construct toilets and/or require self-contained units in highly

impacted areas.

Involving the Public

The Regional Forester gives notice that the Forest is beginning an

environmental analysis and decision-making process for this proposed

action. We encourage any interested or affected people to participate

in the analysis and contribute to the final decision.

We will provide opportunities for open public discussion of the

following proposed action and changes to the revision topics. We

encourage the public to comment on this specific proposal. Focusing on

the following proposal will generate specific scoping comments on the

revision topics and decisions to be made and make the revision process

more effective. The Analysis of the Management Situation contains

baseline information, including the management areas and the No Action

Alternative, to help evaluate how the proposed action and the

alternatives address the revision topics and the six decisions (listed

previously) made in forest plan revisions. This information will be

available in the spring of 2000.

We will develop a broad range of alternatives (including the No

Action Alternative) to the proposed action based on the comments

received and on further analysis. Accordingly, we expect the

alternatives considered and the final decision to vary from what is put

forth in the proposed action.

Public participation is invited throughout the revision process and

will be especially important at several points during the process. We

will make information available through periodic newsletters, news

releases, the Internet on the Forests web site, (www.fs.fed.us./r2/

bighorn) and various public meetings. The first public meeting will be

held after the Analysis of the Management Situation is completed in the

spring of 2000. Meeting dates will be well published through the media

mentioned above.

Release and Review of the EIS

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

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

available for public comment in February 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 it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the

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

v. NRDC. 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

[[Page 61246]]

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues

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

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

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

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

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

on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural

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

addressing these points.

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

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

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

December of 2001. The responsible official will consider the comments,

responses, environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS, 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 decision will be subject to appeal in accordance with

36 CFR 217.

Dated: November 1, 1999.

Lyle Laverty,

Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region.

[FR Doc. 99-29354 Filed 11-9-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M