INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Federal Register: June 12, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 113)
Pages 32076-32077

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Northern, Intermountain, and Pacific Northwest Regions

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[ID918-1610-00-UCRB]
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, States of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada

AGENCIES: Forest Service, USDA; Bureau of Land Management, USDI

ACTION: Notice of availability of draft environmental impact statements

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have prepared two draft environmental impact statements (EISs) (the Eastside Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Upper Columbia River Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statement) as part of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (Project). The proposed action of the Project is to develop a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based strategy for management of the lands under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and BLM in the Project area. The Project area includes lands east of the crest of the Cascade mountains within the Columbia River basin (with the exception of those National Forest System lands within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem) and the Klamath and Great Basins within the state of Oregon. The Eastside Draft EIS applies to approximately 30 million acres of Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands within Oregon and Washington. The Upper Columbia River Basin Draft EIS applies to approximately 42 million acres of Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands within the Columbia River basin in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. These draft EISs are based, in part, on the work of the Science Integration Team of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, summarized in the Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, September, 1996.

Both draft EISs describe and analyze two "no action" alternatives and five "action" alternatives intended to respond to the statement of purpose of, and need for, the Project and to the issues identified through public scoping.

The Record of Decision that will eventually complete the National Environmental Policy Act process of which these two draft EISs are a part, may amend Forest Service Regional Guides and is expected to amend existing Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plans and BLM Resource Management Plans and Management Framework Plans in the Project area by the adoption of an ecosystem-based management strategy.

DATES: A 120-day comment period begins with the publication in the Federal Register of the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of the filing of these two draft EISs. Comments on the draft EISs must be submitted or postmarked no later than October 6, 1997. Those who do not comment on one or both of the draft EISs or otherwise participate in this EIS process may have limited options to appeal or protest the final decision. Public outreach to explain the draft EISs and to assist the public with commenting on the two draft documents will be conducted throughout the Project area during the comment period. Notice of dates and locations of these efforts will be given through mailings and local media.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Eastside Draft EIS may be obtained from ICBEMP, 112 E. Poplar Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362 or by calling (509) 522-4030. Copies of the Upper Columbia River Basin Draft EIS may be obtained from ICBEMP, 304 N. 8th Street, Room 250, Boise, ID 83702 or by calling (208) 334-1770, ext. 123. The Draft EISs will also be available in late June via the internet (http://www.icbemp.gov).

Comments on the Eastside draft EIS should be submitted in writing to ICBEMP, 112 East Poplar Street, P.O. Box 2076, Walla Walla, WA 99362. Comments on the Upper Columbia River Basin draft EIS should be submitted in writing to ICBEMP, 304 N. 8th Street, Room 250, Boise, ID 83702. If your comments are in regard to both draft EISs, they may be sent to either office. Comments may also be made electronically by accessing the Project home page (http://www.icbemp.gov), where a comment form will be available by late June for submitting comments.

Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the above addresses during regular business hours (7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at Walla Walla and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at Boise, Monday through Friday, except holidays), and may be published as part of the final environmental impact statement. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your name or street address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments may not have standing to appeal the decision under 36 CFR 217 (Forest Service) or standing to protest the proposed decision under 43 CFR 1610.5-2 (Bureau of Land Management).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EIS Team Leader Jeff Walter, 304 N. 8th Street, Room 250, Boise, ID 83702, telephone (208) 334-1770 or EIS Deputy Team Leader Cathy Humphrey, 112 East Poplar Street, P.O. Box 2076, Walla Walla, WA 99362, telephone (509) 522-4030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The statement of the purpose of, and need for, the proposed action (development of a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based management strategy) is key information. The purpose and need, along with the issues identified through public scoping, framed the alternative management strategies considered in these two Draft EISs. The purpose and need also provide guideposts for selection of a preferred alternative.

The purpose of this action is to create a coordinated approach and to select a management strategy that best achieves a combination of the following: (1) Restore and maintain long-term ecosystem health and ecological integrity. (2) Support economic and/or social needs of people, cultures, and communities, and provide sustainable and predictable levels of products and services from lands administered by the Forest Service or BLM, including fish, wildlife, and native plant communities. (3) Update or amend current Forest Service and BLM management plans with long-term direction primarily at the regional and sub-regional levels. (4) Emphasize adaptive management over the long term. (5) Provide consistent direction at regional and sub-regional levels that will assist managers in making project decisions at a local level in the context of broader ecological considerations. (6) Help restore and maintain habitats and viability of plant and animal species, especially for threatened, endangered, and candidate species and of special interest to Tribes. This would be done primarily by moving toward desired ranges of landscape conditions on a sub-regional and regional basis. (7) Provide opportunities for cultural, recreational, and aesthetic experiences. (8) Replace interim direction (PACFISH, INFISH, and Eastside screens) primarily with ecosystem-based long-term, regional and subregional strategies, to provide a broader context for local direction. (9) Identify where current policy, regulation, or law may act as barriers to implementing the strategy or achieving desired conditions.

The need for this action is to restore and maintain long-term ecosystem health and ecological integrity; and to support the economic and/or social needs of people, cultures, and communities, and sustainable and predictable levels of goods and services from National Forest System and Bureau of Land Management lands.

Using the issues identified through public scoping to establish the scope of the alternatives, the interdisciplinary team developed five action alternatives intended to respond to the statement of the purpose and need. Alternatives 1 and 2 are variations of "no action". Alternatives 3 through 7 are alternative ecosystem-based management strategies. The themes of the seven alternatives are as follows:

Alternative 1: Continues management specified under existing Forest Service or BLM land-use plans.

Alternative 2: Applies recent interim direction (PACFISH, INFISH, and Eastside Screens as the long-term strategy for lands administered by Forest Service or BLM. All other direction from existing plans would continue. Direction in Alternative 1 would apply to areas not covered by interim direction.

Alternative 3: Updates existing Forest Service or BLM plans in response to changing conditions. Minimizes changes to local plans, addressing only priority conditions that most hinder effectiveness or legal conditions. Provides a broader dimension and more integrated management regarding priority large-scale issues than Alternatives 1 or 2.

Alternative 4: Aggressively restores ecosystem health through active management using an integrated ecosystem management approach. Priority is placed on forest, rangeland, and watershed health. Actions are designed to produce economic benefits whenever practical. Alternative 4 is the agencies' preferred alternative.

Alternative 5: Emphasizes production of goods and services consistent with ecosystem management principles. Areas are targeted for specific uses based on biological capability and economic efficiency. Other uses may occur but conflicts would be resolved in favor of the priority use.

Alternative 6: Emphasizes an adaptive management approach to restore and maintain ecosystems while providing for social and economic needs. Takes a slower, more cautious approach than other alternatives and implies the use of experimental processes, local research, and extensive monitoring.

Alternative 7: Emphasizes reducing risks to ecological integrity and species viability by establishing a system of reserve lands administered by the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management. Reserves are selected for representation of vegetation and rare animal species. Management activities are limited within reserves and are similar to Alternative 3 outside reserves.

Dated: June 6, 1997

Nancy Graybeal
Deputy Regional Forester

Dated: June 6, 1997

William L. Bradley
Deputy State Director for Resource Planning, Use and Protection