Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 1998 / Notices 20369

(CEQ) for implementing the procedural

provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR

1503.3).

The Forest Service believes it is

important to give reviewers notice at

this early stage of several court rulings

related to public participation in the

environmental review process. First

reviewers of draft environmental impact

statements must structure their

participation in the environmental

review of the proposals so that it is

meaningful and alerts an agency to the

reviewers 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 draft environmental impact

statement stage may be waived if not

raised until after completion of the final

environmental impact statement, City of

Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022

(9th Cir. 1988), 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 45-

day 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 final

environmental impact statement.

Comments on the draft environmental

impact statement should be as specific

as possible. It is also helpful if

comments refer to specific pages or

chapters of the draft statement.

Comments may also address the

adequacy of the draft environmental

impact statement or the merits of the

alternatives formulated and discussed in

the statement (Reviewers may wish to

refer to CEQ Regulations for

implementing the procedural provisions

of the National Environmental Policy

Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing

these points). After the comment period

ends on the draft environmental impact

statement, the comments received will

be analyzed and considered by the

Forest Service in preparing the final

environmental impact statement.

The final environmental impact

statement is scheduled to be completed

in February 1999. In the final EIS, the

Forest Service is required to respond to

the comments received (40 CFR 1503.4).

The responsible official will consider

the comments, responses,

environmental consequences discussed

in the environmental impact statement,

and applicable laws, regulations and

policies in making a decision regarding

this proposal. The responsible official

will document the decision and reasons

for the decision in a Record of Decision.

That decision will be subject to appeal

under 36 CFR part 215.

The responsible official is John E.

Palmer, Forest Supervisor, Allegheny

National Forest, 222 Liberty Street, P.O.

Box 847, Warren PA 16365.

Dated: April 16, 1998.

John E. Palmer,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 98–10895 Filed 4–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

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
20370 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 1998 / Notices

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:

• Establish multiple-use goals and

objectives (36 CFR 219.11);

• Establish forestwide management

requirements (standards and

guidelines);

• Establish management areas and

management area direction through the

application of management

prescriptions;

• Identify lands not suited for timber

production (36 CFR 219.3);

• Establish monitoring and evaluation

requirements; and

• Recommend areas for official

designation of wilderness.

The authorization of project-level

activities on the Forests occur through

project, or site-specific, decisionmaking. 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:

• 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.

• 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.

• 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:

• Results of the three Forest Plan

monitoring reports;

• Comparison of regulatory, manual,

and handbook requirements;

• New information, such as the

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Plan scientific assessment

and other research; and

• 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 1998 / Notices 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 nonsignificant 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:

• 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.

• 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;

• Develop improved management

direction to address soil processes

(erosion rates, mass stability,

infiltration, nutrient cycling) as they

relate to management of other resources;

• Develop improved management

direction for desired structure and

density for each structural stage, from

openings to old forest vegetation

(including old growth);

• 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:

• Integration of fire management

goals and objectives into Forest-wide

desired conditions;

• Development of resource specific

goals and objectives related to how and

when fire will be used;

• 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;

• Development of goals, objectives,

standards, guidelines and monitoring

requirements for air quality and smoke

management;

• Development of management

direction addressing wildland/urban

interface; and

• 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,
20372 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 1998 / Notices

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 offForest 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:

• Integration of goals, objectives,

standards and guides for the protection

of species during sensitive periods of

their life cycles; and

• 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, nonnative plants will be addressed through:

• Development of improved goals,

objectives, standards and guides to

address noxious weeds from a multiprogram approach;

• Development of improved goals,

objectives, standards and guides for a

prevention, containment and control

approach to noxious weed management;

and

• 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, nonstructural 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,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 1998 / Notices 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:

• Improved capability assessments at

the programmatic level that include

current Forest Service direction,

research findings, and distinguish the

difference between cattle and sheep;

• Development of suitability criteria

to be validated on a site-specific level

that reflect site conditions; and

• 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 landslideprone 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:

• Development of consistent goals,

objectives, standards and guides, and

monitoring strategies for riparian and

aquatic management;

• 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;

• Development of direction for the

management of intermittent streams and

landslide-prone areas;

• 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
20374 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 1998 / Notices

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:

• Re-evaluating previous eligibility

studies; and

• 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 lifestyles). Some of the questions we will be

considering include:

• How will Tribal life-styles and

cultural traditions be affected by

management activities and decisions?

• What are the potential social

conflicts, risks, and implications

regarding rangeland grazing and timber

harvest?

• How will these alternatives affect

opportunities for recreation and

recreation experiences?

• How will the traditional life-styles

associated with livestock grazing be

affected?

• 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 1998 / Notices 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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Modoc National Forest Noxious Weed

Control Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will

prepare an environmental impact

statement to eradicate between 100 and

300 acres of noxious weeds annually,

beginning 1999 for a period of 10 to 20

years, within site specific areas of the

Modoc, Lassen, and Siskiyou Counties

in northeastern California. The

proposed 26 target weeds are Plumeless

thistle, Musk thistle, Canada thistle,

Yellowspine thistle, Scotch thistle,

Russian knapweed, Rush skeletonweed,

Diffuse knapweed, Spotted knapweed,

Yellow starthistle, Hoary cress or

whitetop, Squarrose knapweed,

Marlahan mustard, Leafy spurge,

Halogeton, St. Johnswort, Dalmation

toadflax, Purple loosestrife,

Mediterranean sage, Puncture vine,

Perennial pepperweed, Medusahead,

Jointed goatgrass, Barbed goatgrass,

Common crupina, and Wavyleaf thistle.

The proposed treatment methods are

mechanical, biological, cultural,

preventive, chemical, and through land

management practices such as livestock

grazing. The herbicides which will be

used are chloraulfuron, dicamba,

clopyralid, 2,4-D, picloram, hexazinone,

glyphosate, triclopyr, sulfometuron

methyl, and simazine. The proposed

herbicides are distributed under a

number of trade names and strengths.

The agency invites written comments

and suggestions on the proposed

project.

In preparing the environmental

impact statement, the Forest Service

will identify and consider a range of

alternatives. Possible alternatives to this

proposal are no action, utilize all

treatments except aerial, and all

treatments except chemical.

DATES: Comments concerning the

proposal should be received in writing

by May 25, 1998, to receive timely

consideration in the preparation of the

draft EIS. The draft EIS will be filed

with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and to be available for

public review in August 1998. The final

EIS and Record of Decision are expected

to be issued in November 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

and suggestions concerning the scope of

the analysis to Steven F. Bishop, Acting

Forest Supervisor, Modoc National

Forest, 800 West 12th Street, Alturas,

CA 96101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions about the proposed

action and environmental impact

statement to Jim Irvin, or Allison

Sanger, Project Leader, Modoc National

Forest, 800 West 12th Street, Alturas,

CA 96101, 530–233–5811.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: There are

26 noxious weed species which

receiving intensive control in or near

the Modoc National Forest. Thirteen of

the 26 species are listed as ‘‘A’’ rated

weed pests which means they have

limited distribution in California and

are subject to eradication, quarantine, or

other holding actions at the State and

County levels. All 26 of these are exotic

pests, not native to California and thus

replace the native species then they

invade different plant communities.

In 1997, approximately 90 acres of

noxious weeds were treated on the

Modoc National Forest in Modoc,

Lassen, and Siskiyou Counties.

Infestations are scattered primarily over

Lassen and Modoc Counties, the largest

being the common crupina infestation

above Round Valley which covers a

total of 740 acres of private and Forest

Service lands. Most infestations are less

than one acre in size.

An Integrated Weed Pest Management

approach will be use to control and

eradicate these weeds species. This

approach uses a combination of control

methods which include; mechanical

control such as hand pulling, clipping,

mowing, and burning of weeds; cultural

control such as fertilization, seeding,

and cultivation; biological control

through the use of parasites and

pathogens; preventive through the use

of education and guidelines to increase

awareness and prevent new infestations

onto Forest lands; chemical control

through the use of herbicides; and

control by land management practices

such as livestock grazing.

Chemical methods include the use of

backpack sprayers, truck mounted

power sprayers, or aerial application of

a specific area only. The chemicals

(herbicides) would be in either liquid or

granular form. Helicopters are used for

aerial application to minimize resource

damage in areas with limited access,

and large infestations. To obtain the

greatest reduction of weeds from

chemical control, selection of the proper

herbicide with application at the proper

time and method are of the utmost

importance.

Aerial application is being proposed

for only one area on the Forest, a 160

acre (740 acre total) infestation of

common crupina found on private and