[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20369-20375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10782]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Revised Land and Resource Management Plans, Boise National Forest 
and Payette National Forest, Idaho. Significant Amendment Land and 
Resource Management Plan, Sawtooth National Forest, Idaho

AGENCY: Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 
in conjunction with revision of the Land and Resource Management Plans 
for the Boise and Payette National Forests, and significant amendment 
to the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Sawtooth National 
Forest located in Ada, Adams, Blaine, Boise, Camas, Canyon, Cassia, 
Custer, Elmore, Gem, Gooding, Idaho, Jerome, Lincoln, Minidoka, Owyhee, 
Payette, Twin Falls, Valley and Washington Counties, Idaho; Box Elder 
County, Utah, and Malheur County, Oregon.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement in conjunction with revision and significant amendment of its 
Land and Resource Management Plans (hereafter referred to as Forest 
Plans) for the Boise, Payette and Sawtooth National Forests (hereafter 
referred to as the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup).
    This notice describes the specific portions of the current Forest 
Plans to be revised and amended, environmental issues considered, 
estimated dates for filing the Environmental Impact Statement, 
information concerning public participation, and the names and 
addresses of the agency officials who can provide additional 
information. The purpose of the notice is to begin the scoping phase of 
public involvement in the revision and amendment process.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of analysis should be received in 
writing by June 24, 1998. The agency expects to file a Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement in the Fall of 1999 and a Final 
Environmental Impact Statement in the Fall of 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Joey Pearson, Administrative 
Assistant, Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Planning Team, Payette National 
Forest, P.O. Box 1026, McCall, ID 83638.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Faye Krueger, Planning Team Leader--Payette National Forest (208) 634-
0700; Jeff Foss, Planning Team Leader--Boise National Forest (208) 373-
4100; or Sharon LaBrecque, Planning Team Leader--Sawtooth National 
Forest (208) 737-3200.
    Responsible official: Jack Blackwell, Intermountain Regional 
Forester at 324 25th Street, Ogden, UT 84401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to part 36 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) 219.10 (f) and (g), the Regional Forester for the 
Intermountain Region gives notice of the agency's intent to prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement for the revision and significant 
amendment efforts described above. According to 36 CFR 219.10(g), Land 
and Resource Management Plans shall ordinarily be revised on a 10 to 15 
year cycle. The existing Forest Plan for the Boise National Forest was 
approved on April 27, 1990, the Payette Forest Plan was approved on May 
6, 1988, and the Sawtooth Forest Plan was approved on September 16, 
1987.
    On November 14, 1997, the Department of the Interior and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998, H.R. 2107, was passed. Language in 
section 333 of the law specifically prohibits the expenditure or 
obligation of funds for new revisions of national forest land 
management plans until new final or interim final rules for forest plan 
revision are published in the Federal Register. Forests that had 
formally published a Notice of Intent to revise prior to October 1, 
1997, or have been court-ordered to revise are exempt from this section 
and may proceed to complete forest plan revision. The Payette is under 
court order (Wilderness Society, et al. v. U.S. Forest Service, Civ. 
No. 94-0193-S-MHW) to complete Forest Plan revision by December 31, 
2000, and thereby meets the exemption criteria to proceed with revision 
in accordance with 36 CFR 219.10(g). The Boise and Payette Forests were 
the subject of the Idaho Sporting Congress suit (Civ. No. 95-0025-S-
BLW). On September 25, 1996, District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill 
affirmed the Forest Service in part because the two Forests had 
initiated the forest plan revision process. Judge Winmill's opinion was 
affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 21, 1997. 
Judge Winmill's decision in the Idaho Sporting Congress suit meets the 
intent

[[Page 20370]]

of the exemption criteria of the Appropriations Act, therefore the 
Boise Forest may also proceed with revision in accordance with 36 CFR 
219.10(g).
    The Sawtooth National Forest does not meet the exemption criteria 
for revision. Through the analysis of the management situation, the 
Sawtooth Forest did identify several areas where current management 
direction can be improved. Therefore, analysis efforts on the Sawtooth 
will continue to parallel analysis efforts on the Boise and Payette, 
with the intent to amend the Sawtooth Forest Plan in accordance with 36 
CFR 219.10(f).
    With this in mind, the Regional Forester gives notice that the 
Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth National Forests are beginning an 
environmental analysis and decision-making process for the proposed 
action to revise the Boise and Payette Forest Plans and to amend the 
Sawtooth Forest Plan. Opportunities will be provided to discuss the 
Forest Plan revision and amendment processes with the public. The 
public is invited to help identify issues that will be considered in 
defining the range of alternatives in the Environmental Impact 
Statement. Scoping meetings will be scheduled for May and June 1998. 
Alternative development meetings will be held in the Fall of 1998.
    Forest plans describe the long-term direction for managing National 
Forests. Agency decisions in these plans do the following:
    <bullet> Establish multiple-use goals and objectives (36 CFR 
219.11);
    <bullet> Establish forestwide management requirements (standards 
and guidelines);
    <bullet> Establish management areas and management area direction 
through the application of management prescriptions;
    <bullet> Identify lands not suited for timber production (36 CFR 
219.3);
    <bullet> Establish monitoring and evaluation requirements; and
    <bullet> Recommend areas for official designation of wilderness.
    The authorization of project-level activities on the Forests occur 
through project, or site-specific, decision-making. Project-level 
decisions must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
procedures and must include a determination that the project is 
consistent with the Forest Plan.

Linkage to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

    Southwest Idaho Ecogroup is within the area of land covered by the 
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). There 
are two sources of information from the ICBEMP that will heavily 
influence the development of the planning process: (1) The integrated 
science assessments and (2) the Upper Columbia River Basin Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (URCB FEIS) and Record of Decision.
    The integrated science assessments provide an information base that 
provides context at broad, multiple state area scale. The information 
on forestlands, rangelands, aquatic and hydrologic integrity, ecosystem 
pathways and disturbance patterns, and the current and projected 
conditions of fish, wildlife and plant species were used to aid in 
identifying need for change topics. This information will continue to 
be used in defining the extent of the need for change and in the 
development and evaluation of alternatives.
    The other primary document that will influence this project is the 
UCRB FEIS. The Draft EIS was issued for public comment in June, 1997, 
and a final document is expected in late 1999. This document, which 
incorporates the results of the science assessments, will amend all 
three Forest Plans when the Record of Decision is issued. This 
amendment will establish new goals, desired range of future conditions, 
objectives and standards for management. This amendment will simplify 
the scope of the Ecogroup planning effort, but will not replace the 
need for the revision/amendment for these reasons:
    <bullet> The UCRB effort is at a broad scale. The application of 
the information and decisions will need to be fine-tuned for the 
Forest-level scale.
    <bullet> The UCRB provides some standards that are only to be used 
until such time as better local standards are developed. The planning 
effort will refine these standards to local conditions.
    <bullet> The UCRB EIS does not provide all of the analysis or 
decisions required by the National Forest Management Act regulations. 
The planning effort will need to evaluate land allocations, timber 
suitability, wilderness recommendations and other factors that the UCRB 
did not address.

Need for Change in the Current Forest Plans

    In the Fall of 1996, the Forests in the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup 
completed five year monitoring reports. The results of the monitoring 
reports, in addition to public input and Forest Plan implementation 
experience, indicated that there is a need for change in some 
management direction in all three Forest Plans. Because of the need to 
consider management of ecosystems across administrative boundaries, and 
the fact that the three Forests share key issues, resources, customers 
and interested publics, it was determined that an ecogroup approach to 
planning would increase the overall efficiency and quality of the 
effort to address the need for change issues. Several sources were used 
in determining the needed changes in the current Forest Plans. These 
sources include:
    <bullet> Results of the three Forest Plan monitoring reports;
    <bullet> Comparison of regulatory, manual, and handbook 
requirements;
    <bullet> New information, such as the Interior Columbia Basin 
Ecosystem Management Plan scientific assessment and other research; and
    <bullet> Comments concerning implementation of current direction.
    In November 1997, the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup published a 
Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation (Pre-AMS). The Pre-AMS 
summarized the current management condition of the three Forests based 
on analysis of the findings from the sources listed above.

Major Revision/Amendment Topics

    Based on the information sources listed above, the following 
issues/areas were identified as needs for change in management 
direction in all three Forest Plans. As previously explained, the Boise 
and Payette National Forests will address these needs for change 
through the revision process, while the Sawtooth will address them 
through a significant amendment. Since the Forest Plans were originally 
signed, the Boise and Payette Forests have experienced major changes in 
forest conditions as a result of wildfire and tree mortality. The 
magnitude of these changes requires that the Boise and Payette Forest 
Plans be revised. The Sawtooth Forest has not experienced such major 
changes. Until the Sawtooth is allowed to proceed with revision, it 
will accommodate the needed changes through a significant amendment.
    In revising/amending the Forest Plans, the Forests are focusing on 
those areas that must be reviewed in accordance with federal 
regulations, and on urgent issues identified through new information, 
monitoring and public concerns. The regulations focus the process by 
stating; ``The Forest Supervisor shall determine the major public 
issues management concerns, and resource use and development 
opportunities to be addressed in the planning process'' [36 CFR 
219.12(b)]. Throughout this planning process, only those portions of 
the Plans identified as critical issues needing change will be

[[Page 20371]]

addressed. Some examples of issues that were not identified as critical 
or did not have an identified need for change include recommended 
wilderness, heritage resource program management, and minerals program 
management. Issues not identified as critical will be addressed at a 
later time through non-significant amendments.
    The Southwest Idaho Ecogroup is proposing to revise or amend the 
three Forest Plans by addressing the listed need for change topics. The 
following is a brief definition of the issues associated with each need 
for change topic and the purpose and need for change, and a description 
of what we propose to do to address the needed changes:

Biological Diversity

    Biological diversity is the variety and abundance of life in an 
area including all living organisms, the genetic differences among 
them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur. It also 
refers to the compositions, structures and functions of species and 
habitats and their interactions. The goal of conserving biological 
diversity is to support sustainable development by protecting and using 
biological resources.
    The current Forest Plans address many of the key indicators of 
biological diversity; however, these indicators are largely described 
and analyzed as separate functional entities. There is little 
information as to how these indicators interact with one another and 
with natural processes, particularly at the broad, Forest-level scale. 
The current Forest Plans need improved direction for potentially needed 
restoration, management and maintenance of plant communities, including 
vegetative structure, species composition, distribution, and patterns 
and how they are influenced by soil and disturbance processes in 
relationship to historic and current conditions. All three Forests 
manage significant habitat for federally listed threatened and 
endangered plant, wildlife and fish species. These include: 
Macfarlane's four-o'clock, Ute's lady tresses, gray wolf, bald eagle, 
peregrine falcon, sockeye salmon, chinook salmon, steelhead and redband 
trout. In addition, these are species that are currently proposed or 
candidates for listing including bull trout and Northern Idaho ground 
squirrel. Current Forest Plan direction for these species is to follow 
recovery plans developed by the appropriate regulatory agency.
    The Ecogroup also manages habitat for a number of species that are 
designated ``sensitive'' by the Regional Forester because their 
populations or habitats are trending downward. Current management 
direction in the Forest Plans is to follow conservation assessments and 
plans developed at the Regional level. There is a need to improve 
management direction in the Forest Plans to better address the needs of 
listed and sensitive species.
    Through this planning effort, biological diversity concepts will be 
used to:
    <bullet> Develop improved management guidelines through better 
understanding of species, including threatened, endangered or sensitive 
(TES) species, candidate species, plant, fish, and animal species of 
concern, and the communities they are dependent upon.
    <bullet> Develop improved guidelines for snag and coarse woody 
debris that better provide habitat for plant and animal species 
dependent on coarse woody debris, to improve soil productivity, and to 
better provide for natural decay processes necessary for nutrient 
cycling;
    <bullet> Develop improved management direction to address soil 
processes (erosion rates, mass stability, infiltration, nutrient 
cycling) as they relate to management of other resources;
    <bullet> Develop improved management direction for desired 
structure and density for each structural stage, from openings to old 
forest vegetation (including old growth);
    <bullet> Develop additional management practices, standards and 
guidelines for tree density, stand structure, and species composition 
that address the extent and frequency of all types of disturbances.
    The intent of this improved management direction is to provide for 
short- and long-term biological, physical, economic and social 
sustainability.

Fire and Smoke Management

    The 1897 Organic Act states that forests shall be protected against 
destruction by fire. Early Forest Service policy interpreted protection 
to mean fire suppression, and for several decades fire management 
focused on maximum suppression efforts. The result of this 
interpretation is that in many areas fire regimes within the Southwest 
Idaho Ecogroup have changed from historical conditions; fuel loadings 
have increased, and areas with moderate to high fuels are larger and 
more contiguous. Historically, approximately 15 percent of the Ecogroup 
area would likely have had stand-replacing fires. Past management 
activities, including suppression efforts, have resulted in increasing 
the area that would likely have stand-replacing fires to approximately 
42 percent of the Ecogroup. Population growth within the Ecogroup has 
also led to increases in wildland/urban interface. This growth of 
wildland/urban interface increases the risk of fire spreading from 
private to federal lands and vice versa.
    The current Forest Plans need improved direction addressing the 
role of fire as an ecosystem process or tool for maintaining or 
restoring ecosystem health, particularly in vegetative communities that 
historically burned more frequently. The ability to accomplish fire 
management objectives, to set priorities for ecosystem management, and 
to assess properly functioning condition may be limited by missing, 
vague, or conflicting Forest Plan direction.
    The Federal Clean Air Act mandates that human health and welfare 
from air pollution be protected. Particulate matter emissions are 
produced from Forest Service activities as prescribed fire. The current 
Forest Plans need improved direction that better addresses the trade-
offs with air quality versus increased prescribed burning to improve 
rangeland and forest ecosystem health.
    Through this planning effort, fire management will be incorporated 
into the Forest Plans through:
    <bullet> Integration of fire management goals and objectives into 
Forest-wide desired conditions;
    <bullet> Development of resource specific goals and objectives 
related to how and when fire will be used;
    <bullet> Development of goals, objectives, standards and guidelines 
for the use of prescribed fire to improve ecosystem health and to 
reduce the risk of large uncharacteristic fires;
    <bullet> Development of goals, objectives, standards, guidelines 
and monitoring requirements for air quality and smoke management;
    <bullet> Development of management direction addressing wildland/
urban interface; and
    <bullet> Development of goals and objectives for determining 
appropriate suppression response based on factors such as social and 
political implications, economics, environmental considerations, public 
and firefighter safety and values at risk.
    The intent of the new direction is to restore or maintain fire as a 
process where appropriate in various ecosystems, to reduce the risk of 
uncharacteristic wildfire in wildland/urban interface, and to aid in 
determining how much area needs to be treated with prescribed fire.

Habitat Fragmentation and Disruption

    Fragmentation is the separation or isolation of similar types of 
habitat,

[[Page 20372]]

either by natural events or human activities. Historically, fire, wind, 
insects, and disease were the disturbance processes that resulted in 
the fragmentation of habitats, causing disturbance to species and the 
habitats necessary for their survival. Current disturbance processes 
are far more numerous and have affected far greater areas than in the 
past. Agricultural and urban development have in effect created 
genetically isolated islands of habitat. Forest management practices 
such as roads, trails, utility corridors, and timber harvest have also 
resulted in fragmentation of habitats and disturbance to species. 
Disruption is the modification of species behavior as a result of the 
presence of humans or their activities. Some species of fish and 
wildlife are sensitive to human activities during breeding, nesting and 
wintering portions of their life cycles. Human activities, whether 
intentional or not, can increase stress to these species and reduce 
their reproductive success or increase their risk for mortality.
    The current Forest Plans need improved direction concerning habitat 
fragmentation and disruption from roads, trails, timer harvest, fire, 
culverts, utility corridors, and other sources. Likewise, the Forest 
Plans need to better recognize the importance of maintaining Forest 
habitats of special concern that have been affected as a result of off-
Forest activities such as conversion to agriculture and urban 
development. Through this planning effort, improved management 
direction concerning habitat fragmentation and disruption will be 
incorporated into the Forest Plans through:
    <bullet> Integration of goals, objectives, standards and guides for 
the protection of species during sensitive periods of their life 
cycles; and
    <bullet> Integration of goals, objectives, standards and guides to 
reduce the effects of fragmentation.
    The intent of this improved direction is to develop management 
strategies that improve habitat connectivity, minimize life cycle 
disruption, and maintain species viability.

Non-Native Plants

    Non-native plants are species that do not have their origin in a 
local geographic area. Non-native plants include exotic plants and 
noxious weeds. Exotic plants are species that have been introduced to 
an area, usually from a different continent, typically for restoration 
purposes such as road stabilization, range improvements and burned area 
emergency rehabilitation (BAER). Noxious weeds are plant species 
designated by law that can have detrimental effects on agriculture, 
commerce, or public health. These species are generally new or not 
common to the United States, spread aggressively, and are difficult to 
manage. Some exotic and noxious weed species thrive in areas so well 
that they tend to out-compete native species. This affects the amount 
and distribution of native plants and the animals that depend on them 
for forage and cover.
    Recent monitoring reports for the Ecogroup Forests describe a 
growing concern with the spread and effects of noxious weeds. The 
expansion of noxious weeds with the Ecogroup is out-pacing containment 
and control efforts. New infestations both on Forest Service System 
lands and on adjacent lands pose significant risk for further 
expansion.
    Non-native plants are being introduced unintentionally (seeds from 
vehicle tires or animal droppings) and intentionally (BAER, restoration 
projects). Research has shown that seeded non-native plants have an 
impact on establishment and growth of native vegetation in fire 
rehabilitation areas. In some areas, certain species have been 
purposely introduced to provide forage and cover. This has resulted in 
monocultures or sites with few selected plant species. These conditions 
affect fire regimes, soil erosion and wildlife habitat.
    The current Forest Plans do not address exotic and noxious weed 
plants from a multi-program approach (recreation, timber, special uses 
* * *). Current direction only addresses the treatment of noxious weed 
infestations, rather than taking a prevention, containment and control 
approach. Likewise, the current Plans address noxious weeds from a 
range or timber management standpoint and do not recognize that other 
resource programs are significant contributors to the spread of noxious 
weeds. There is a need to develop improved direction in the Plans for 
designing or implementing BAER treatment strategies to assist in 
evaluating the trade-offs between the short-term emergency needs of 
post-fire rehabilitation and the long-term compatibility with ecosystem 
management.
    Through this planning effort, non-native plants will be addressed 
through:
    <bullet> Development of improved goals, objectives, standards and 
guides to address noxious weeds from a multi-program approach;
    <bullet> Development of improved goals, objectives, standards and 
guides for a prevention, containment and control approach to noxious 
weed management; and
    <bullet> Development of improved goals, objectives, standards and 
guides for the use of non-native plants in BAER activities and non-
structural range improvement projects.
    The intent of this new direction is to establish a containment/
control strategy that recognizes the difficulty of controlling large, 
firmly established populations of noxious weeds; and to ensure seeding 
and revegetation practices associated with erosion control, fire 
rehabilitation, non-structural range improvement, and watershed 
restoration is compatible with the desired future condition and 
priorities established for management activities.

Rangeland/Grazing Resources

    The National Forest Management Act requires that Forest Plans 
determine potential capability and suitability for producing grazing 
animal forage while providing habitat for management indicator species. 
Range capability is defined as lands that have the potential to be 
grazed given the physical constraints of grazing (distance from water, 
slope, access * * *).
    Current capability criteria do not make a clear distinction between 
sheep and cattle use. Capability determinations have been corrected or 
contested on a recurring basis at the project level. Some sites 
currently considered capable are not meeting resource objectives 
relating to soil productivity, erosion, and hydrologic function. This 
indicates that the criteria used in the past to determine capability 
needs to be updated. The current Forest Plans do not meet the 
expectations outlined in new Forest Service national direction 
regarding the identification of capability criteria and the rationale 
supporting those criteria. The capability assessments in the original 
Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statements need to be updated to 
include new direction and more current information.
    Suitability identifies areas within the capable base where grazing 
is appropriate within the context of land management considerations 
such as economics, environmental consequences, rangeland conditions, 
and other uses or values. Actual average livestock use levels defined 
in animal unit months per year (AUM/year) are lower than originally 
anticipated in the Forest Plans. Some contributing factors to this 
downward trend include protection of threatened and endangered species 
habitat, increased livestock operator costs due to mitigation measures 
identified to protect habitat,

[[Page 20373]]

changing economics of grazing livestock, and voluntary and involuntary 
reductions for resource protection.
    Guidelines in the current Forest Plans do not address site 
conditions such as severe drought which occurs 10 to 40 percent of the 
time across the Ecogroup. From a wildlife standpoint, there is 
inconsistent or insufficient direction concerning wildlife wintering 
areas that are also used by livestock, as well as the potential threat 
of disease transmission from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep 
populations. Recreation use increases above the projections made in the 
current Forest Plans have resulted in increased user conflicts between 
livestock, wildlife and recreationists. No direction or monitoring 
process exists in the current plans to address this concern.
    Through this planning effort, capability and suitability concerns 
will be addressed through:
    <bullet> Improved capability assessments at the programmatic level 
that include current Forest Service direction, research findings, and 
distinguish the difference between cattle and sheep;
    <bullet> Development of suitability criteria to be validated on a 
site-specific level that reflect site conditions; and
    <bullet> Development of improved goals, objectives, standards and 
guides that address concerns such as drought and potential wildlife/
livestock and recreation/livestock conflicts.
    The intent of this new direction is to insure that the Forest Plans 
clearly identify at the programmatic level areas where livestock 
grazing is appropriate and capable.

Riparian and Aquatic

    Aquatic ecosystems are watersheds, waterbodies, riparian areas, and 
wetlands and the species (fish, wildlife, plant, amphibian, 
invertebrate) they contain. Riparian refers to distinctive soil and 
vegetation between a stream or other body of water and an adjacent 
upland.
    All three Forests manage significant aquatic habitat for both 
anadromous and resident fish populations. Collectively, the Forests 
have over 14,400 miles of rivers and streams and 62,520 acres of lakes 
supporting at least 57 native and non-native fish species. The 
Environmental Protection Agency and the State of Idaho Department of 
Environmental Quality have identified a list of 130 waterbodies within 
the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup that are not fully meeting their 
designated beneficial uses.
    In 1992, Snake River sockeye salmon were listed as endangered under 
the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended. In 1993 and 1997, Snake 
River chinook salmon and steelhead, respectively, were listed as 
threatened.
    In 1995, the three Forest Plans were amended by management 
direction in the Interim Strategies of Managing Anadromous Fish-
producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and 
portions of California (PACFISH) and the Inland Native Fish Strategy 
(INFISH). These strategies include the identification of interim 
riparian management objectives (RMOs), standards and guidelines, and 
watershed analysis requirements. These interim strategies are in effect 
until long-term management direction is developed through 
geographically specific environmental analyses such as the Upper 
Columbia River Basin Assessment and forest plan revision efforts. At 
the forest plan level, RMOs need to reflect the inherent diversity and 
capability of the Ecogroup aquatic ecosystems, and to support the 
designated beneficial uses for Water Quality Limited waterbodies.
    There is a need to develop improved Forest Plan direction for 
riparian area management that is consistent across the Ecogroup. This 
direction should include all riparian areas (including intermittent 
streams) and landslide-prone areas. In June 1998, bull trout are 
proposed to be listed as a threatened species. In response to the 
potential for listing, the Governor's Bull Trout Plan was implemented 
in July 1996. This plan, which was coordinated with the Forest Service, 
included development of watershed specific problem assessments and 
conservation plans. This direction needs to be considered in the Forest 
Plans.
    Through this planning effort, improved management direction for 
riparian and aquatics will be incorporated into the plans through:
    <bullet> Development of consistent goals, objectives, standards and 
guides, and monitoring strategies for riparian and aquatic management;
    <bullet> Development of appropriate RMOs and desired future 
conditions that reflect the inherent diversity and capability of the 
Ecogroup aquatic ecosystems and fully support the designated beneficial 
uses for waterbodies as identified by the State Water Quality 
Standards;
    <bullet> Development of direction for the management of 
intermittent streams and landslide-prone areas;
    <bullet> Development of improved management direction for sensitive 
species, including the identification of management indicator species; 
and
    The intent of this new direction is to insure that: riparian and 
aquatic ecosystems are being managed consistently across the Ecogroup; 
the appropriate emphasis is being placed on riparian protection and 
restoration; that RMOs reflect the inherent capability of the aquatic 
ecosystems; appropriate emphasis is being placed on sensitive as well 
as listed species; and intermittent streams and landslide-prone areas 
are being appropriately managed.

Timberland Suitability

    The National Forest Management Act and its implementing regulations 
require that lands identified as not suited for timber production be 
reassessed at least once every ten years to determine if they should be 
reclassified as suited. Suited lands include forested lands outside of 
withdrawn areas such as designated Wilderness, lands where 
reforestation can be assured, and lands where timber management 
activities can take place without causing irreversible resource damage 
to soils productivity or watershed conditions. The suitability 
assessment includes the identification of tentatively suited 
timberlands (available forest lands that are physically suited for 
timber management) and suited timberlands (the tentatively suited lands 
considered appropriate for timber management). Since the Forest Plans 
were released, land exchanges have resulted in both the loss and the 
addition of timberlands. A preliminary reassessment indicates that land 
exchanges have resulted in an approximate increase of 7,400 acres of 
tentatively suited lands (2,400 acres on the Boise and 5,000 acres on 
the Payette). New information about the capability of Forest lands and 
an increased understanding about the effects of timber management will 
also influence the reassessment of suited timberlands.
    Through this planning effort, a complete reassessment of timberland 
suitability will be conducted.

Management Emphasis Areas

    All three Forests include many outstanding natural areas with 
various combinations of biophysical resources and social interests. 
Included in the management emphasis areas are Wild and Scenic Rivers. 
Agency policy related to the Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) Act of 1968 
in land management planning requires that rivers identified as 
potential WSRs be evaluated as to their eligibility, with the findings 
documented in the Forest Plan. An eligible river must be free flowing 
and

[[Page 20374]]

possess at least one feature that is judged to be outstandingly 
remarkable.
    It is recommended but not required to complete WSR suitability 
studies during the Forest Plan revision process. To be found suitable, 
the benefits of designating the river should outweigh the 
disadvantages. Currently, the Boise has 35 river segments identified as 
eligible for WSR status, the Payette and Sawtooth have five segments 
each. Since the original studies were completed, there have been 
changed conditions such as the listing of species under ESA and new 
information from sources such as the ICBEMP Scientific Assessments. 
Suitability studies have not been conducted on the eligible rivers 
listed in the three Forest Plans.
    There is a need to re-evaluate the previous eligibility studies 
based on the new information and changed conditions. There is also a 
need to address the suitability of high priority eligible segments. 
Through this planning process, the Forests are proposing to address WSR 
issues by:
    <bullet> Re-evaluating previous eligibility studies; and
    <bullet> Complete suitability studies for Priority 1 segments in 
revision as agreed in a settlement agreement between American Rivers, 
Inc. and the Payette National Forest (Big Creek, French Creek, 
Monumental Creek, and the Secesh River on the Payette National Forest, 
and the South Fork Salmon River on the Payette and Boise National 
Forests). Suitability studies on Priorities 2, 3, and 4 segments will 
be completed after the revision/amendment effort.

Social and Economic Issues

    While the majority of the revision topics appear to be biological 
and physical in nature, we recognize that the topics are all linked to 
social and economic issues. As we develop alternatives for the need for 
change topics, we need to consider how these alternatives will affect 
the economics of the current and traditional resource users; what 
influences the alternatives may have on the demographics of local 
communities; how the alternatives address local community priorities; 
and what influences the alternatives may have on local and regional 
cultures.
    We recognize that livestock grazing, timber production and 
recreation activities are key sources of income to communities 
dependent on forest resources for the generation of revenue. As we 
develop and analyze the effects of alternatives we need to consider 
things such as local community stability, community development 
patterns, goods and services, employment, current and traditional 
resource users, and forest revenue.
    We also recognize that founding of many of the communities within 
the Ecogroup was and continues to be tied directly to the use and 
production of forest products. For these communities, we need to 
consider land use patterns, including urban interface, local 
employment, community development patterns, local communities of place 
and interest and the implications to these factors.
    As we develop alternatives and analyze their effects, we will also 
need to consider local and regional culture (attitudes, beliefs, values 
and life-styles). Some of the questions we will be considering include:
    <bullet> How will Tribal life-styles and cultural traditions be 
affected by management activities and decisions?
    <bullet> What are the potential social conflicts, risks, and 
implications regarding rangeland grazing and timber harvest?
    <bullet> How will these alternatives affect opportunities for 
recreation and recreation experiences?
    <bullet> How will the traditional life-styles associated with 
livestock grazing be affected?
    <bullet> How will the alternatives tie to local community 
priorities?

Decision To Be Made

    Based on the analysis made in the FEIS, the Regional Forester must 
decide what changes will be made to goals, objectives, standards and 
guides, and monitoring and evaluation criteria in the Forest Plans to 
best address the need for change topics. The Regional Forester must 
also decide what changes in management boundaries and prescriptions are 
necessary to meet the changed goals and objectives.

Framework for Alternatives To Be Considered

    A range of alternatives, including an alternative addressing 
community stability, will be considered when revising and amending the 
Forest Plans. The alternatives will address different options to 
resolve the issues identified in the revision/amendment topics listed 
above. Alternatives must meet the purpose and need for revision/
amendment to be considered valid. One of the alternatives to be 
examined is the ``no-action alternative''. This is a required 
alternative that represents continuation of management under the 
current plans as amended. Alternatives are developed in response to 
public issues, management concerns, and resource opportunities 
identified during the scoping progress. In describing alternatives, 
desired vegetation and resource conditions will be defined. Preliminary 
information, including a map of the proposed programmatic action, is 
available for review at all Ecogroup District and Supervisor Offices.

Involving the Public

    The Forest Service is seeking information, comments and assistance 
from individuals, organizations and federal, state, and local agencies 
who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action (36 CFR 
219.6). The Forest Service is also looking for collaborative approaches 
with members of the public who are interested in forest management. 
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 written comments, open houses, 
focus groups and collaborative forums.
    Public participation will be sought throughout the revision/
amendment 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 meetings are currently 
scheduled from May 26 to June 19, 1998 in the following Idaho 
locations: Boise, Idaho City, Mountain Home, Garden Valley, Cascade, 
McCall, Riggins, Weiser, Council, Twin Falls, Burley, Ketchum, Stanley.

Release and Review of the EIS

    The DEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and to be available for public comment in the Fall of 
1999. At that time, the EPA will publish a notice of availability in 
the Federal Register. The comment period on the DEIS will be 60 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

[[Page 20375]]

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 proposed action 
participate by the close of the two-month comment period so that 
substantive comments and objectives are made available to the Forest 
Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to 
them in the 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 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 FEIS. The FEIS is scheduled to be completed in the Fall 
of 2000. The responsible official will consider the comments, 
responses, and environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS, and 
applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making decisions 
regarding making the revisions and amendment. The responsible official 
will document the decisions and reasons for the decisions in a Record 
of Decision for the revised and amended plans. The decisions will be 
subject to appeal in accordance with 36 CFR part 217.

    Dated: April 16, 1998.
Jack A. Blackwell,
Regional Forester.
[FR Doc. 98-10782 Filed 4-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M