![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Medicine Bow National Forest, Albany County, Carbon County, Converse County, Natrona County, Platte County, WY
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: October 7, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 194)]
[Notices]
[Page 54609-54613]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07oc99-35]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the
Medicine Bow National Forest, Albany County, Carbon County, Converse
County, Natrona County, Platte County, WY
AGENCY: USDA Forest Service.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
in conjunction with revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan
for the Medicine Bow National Forest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact
statement in conjunction with the revision of its Land and Resource
Management Plan (hereafter referred to as Forest Plan or Plan) for the
Medicine Bow National Forest. This notice describes the proposed
action, specific portions of the current Forest plan to be revised,
environmental issues considered in the revision, estimated dates for
filing the environmental impact statement, information concerning
public participation, and the names and addresses of the agency
officials who can provide additional information.
DATES: The public is asked to provide comments identifying and
considering issues, concerns, and the scope of analysis with regard to
the proposed action, in writing by November 15, 1999. The Forest
Service expects to file a Draft Environmental Impact Statement with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and make it available for public
comment in October of 2000. The Forest Service expects to file a Final
Environmental Impact Statement in December of 2001.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Jerry E. Schmidt, Forest
Supervisor, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, 2468 Jackson Street,
Laramie, Wyoming 82070.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Dee Hines, Forest Planner, (307) 745-
2473.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Rocky Mountain Regional Forester at P.O. Box
25127, Lakewood, CO 80225-0127.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to part 36 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 219.10(g), the Regional Forester for the Rocky
Mountain Region gives notice of the agency's intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the revision of the Land and
Resource Management Plan (hereafter referred to as Forest Plan or
Plan--for the Medicine Bow National Forest. According to 36 CFR
219.10(g), land and resource management plans are ordinarily revised on
a 10 to 15 year cycle. The existing Forest Plan was approved on
November 20, 1985.
The Forest Service is the lead agency in this revision effort. The
state of Wyoming, by and through the Office of Federal Land Policy, is
a Cooperating Agency (40 CFR 1501.6) by virtue of special expertise.
The Rocky Mountain Regional Forester is the Deciding Officer and
Responsible Official.
Forest plans describe the intended management of National Forests.
Agency decisions in these plans do the following:
1. Establish multiple-use goals and objectives (36 CFR 219.11 (b)).
2. Establish forestwide management standards and guidelines
applying to future activities (resource integration requirements, 36
CFR 219.13 to 219.27).
3. Establish management areas and management area direction
(management area prescriptions)
[[Page 54610]]
applying to future activities in that management area (resource
integration and minimum specific management requirements) 36 CFR
219.11(c).
4. Establish monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR
219.11(d)).
5. Determine suitability and potential capability of lands for
resource production. This includes designation of suitable timber land
and establishment of allowable timber sale quantity (36 CFR 219.14
through 219.26).
6. Where applicable, recommend designations of special areas such
as Wilderness (36 CFR 219.17) and Wild and Scenic Rivers (The Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act) to Congress.
Need for Change in the Current Forest Plan
The existing Forest Plan was approved in 1985. In addition to the
regulatory requirement to revise Forest Plans every 10 to 15 years, our
experience in implementing the plan and monitoring the effects of that
implementation indicates that we need to make some changes in
management direction. Several other sources have also highlighted the
need for changes in the current Forest Plan. These sources include the
following:
<bullet> Public involvement which has identified new information
and public values.
<bullet> Monitoring and scientific research which have identified
new information and knowledge gained.
<bullet> Forest plan implementation which has identified management
concerns to find better ways for accomplishing desired conditions.
Many concerns about management direction in the current plan result
from a lack of integration of the various resources areas in the plan.
An ecosystems-based approach to strategic planning, also called
ecosystem management, offers an opportunity to address and achieve this
needed integration. Ecosystem management is the management of natural
resources to maintain or restore the sustainability of ecosystems,
thereby providing multiple benefits to present and future generations.
It recognizes the biological, physical, and human dimension of
ecosystems.
Since the Medicine Bow Plan was approved in 1985, the Forest
Service has adopted a new agenda. This new approach, A National
Resource Agenda for the 21st Century, will be the foundation for
national forest management into the 21st century. There are four key
areas in the new agenda:
1. Watershed health and restoration.
2. Sustainable forest ecosystem management.
3. Forest roads.
4. Recreation.
Other developments include the Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA) which was passed in 1993. This act directs the preparation
of periodic strategic plans by federal agencies. The first strategic
plan for the Forest Service was written in 1997 and centers around the
following three goals:
1. Ensure sustainable ecosystems.
2. Provide multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of
ecosystems.
3. Ensure organizational effectiveness.
Ecosystem management, the Natural Resource Agenda for the 21st
Century, and the GPRA Strategic Plan each concentrate and focus on
outcomes and desired resource conditions, the results of management.
These changes need to be incorporated into the Forest Plan.
Prepearing the Plan and EIS
An interdisciplinary team is conducting the environmental analysis
and preparing an environmental impact statement associated with
revision of the Forest Plan. This interdisciplinary team will also
prepare the revised Forest Plan. As part of this effort, the
interdisciplinary team has already developed a list of forestwide
standards and guidelines; identified 32 management areas; and developed
the corresponding management area themes, settings, desired condition
statements, and management area-specific standards and guidelines.
These will be used to develop alternatives to the proposed action for
the revised Forest Plan. This material is available at the Medicine Bow
National Forest headquarters.
Proposed Action
The revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Medicine Bow
National Forest will be built on principles of ecosystem management.
This integrated approach will address many of the questions about and
concerns with the 1985 Plan. The revised Forest Plan and associated
analysis will also respond to the four points in the new Forest Service
agenda, a Natural Resource Agenda for the 21st Century. In addition,
the goals of the GPRA Strategic Plan will be featured in the revised
plan. Accordingly, the revised Forest Plan will concentrate on desired
conditions of the resource and the outcomes of management actions.
The Revised Forest Plan will include a monitoring strategy to
measure how effectively the Plan meets stated goals and objectives. In
keeping with the Natural Resource Agenda, this strategy will focus on
outcomes and desired resource conditions rather than outputs.
Major Revision Topics
We identified the following six revision topics through annual
Forest Plan monitoring reports, review of regulations, internal Forest
Service discussions, and discussions with the public through a series
of open houses in communities adjacent to the National Forest:
<bullet> Biological Diversity.
<bullet> Timber Suitability and Management of Forested Lands.
<bullet> Recreation Opportunities.
<bullet> Roadless Area Allocation and Management.
<bullet> Wild and Scenic Rivers.
<bullet> Oil and Gas Leasing.
The following sections discuss the current management direction,
the need for change, and a proposed action for each of the revision
topics.
Biological Diversity
Current Direction
Direction in the current Plan is intended to produce a diversity of
habitats well-distributed throughout the landscape. This approach to
managing biological diversity produces a very heterogeneous landscape
at a fine scale. Patches are small, with a high percentage of edge
habitat. Patches are areas where the vegetation is similar in species,
age, and size. Natural disturbance processes are generally controlled
or suppressed. All habitats, including late successional forests are
well-distributed but generally in small patches. The current plan
contains one Research Natural Area and 6 Special Interest Areas which
feature biological diversity-related features.
Need for Change
Public interest in biological diversity and how best to maintain it
has grown substantially since the current Forest Plan was approved in
1985. Biological diversity or various aspects of it (such as
threatened, endangered, and sensitive species management or forest
health) have been issues in environmental analyses in recent years. The
current plan's emphasis on heterogeneous habitats and exclusion of
natural disturbance events has caused concerns about sustainability of
the forested ecosystems.
Direction in the current plan does not fully reflect the latest
scientific information on land management planning. This new
information needs
[[Page 54611]]
to be incorporated into the revised plan, particularly the principles
of ecosystem management, with attention given to managing the system as
a whole.
Proposed Action
The proposed action is to increase the acreage where natural
disturbance events (fire, insects and disease) are tolerated, increase
the size of patches on the landscape, and provide increased acreage and
larger blocks in late successional habitats. These goals would be
accomplished through several methods, including the following:
<bullet> Allocating inventoried roadless areas to prescriptions
with an emphasis on late successional forests and natural disturbance
processes.
<bullet> Extending rotation ages and emulating natural landscape
patch size in many areas where timber harvest is allowed.
The use of fire as a management tool would also be increased,
especially in ecosystems with a short or moderate fire return interval.
In addition, the proposed action includes 5, and potentially 6
additional Research Natural Areas (the current plan has 1). The current
plan has 6 Special Interest Areas (SIAs); the proposed action adds 11.
There would be changes to two of the current SIAs. One would be renamed
and would increase in size; one would become an RNA. Many of the
resulting 16 proposed SIA's would also feature biological diversity
goals.
Timber Suitability and Management of Forested Lands
Current Direction
The current Forest Plan allocates approximately two-thirds of the
tentatively suited lands in 7 management area prescriptions to timber
management. Timber management is practiced across these 7 management
areas, with differing management emphases and intentions.
Need for Change
The following indicate a need for change in the management of
forested lands:
<bullet> Projected harvest levels in the current plan are not being
achieved.
<bullet> There is concern over what constitutes sustainable harvest
levels.
<bullet> Reevaluation of the tentatively suited lands is required
at 10 years (36 CFR 219.12(k)(5)(ii)).
<bullet> Allocation of existing roadless areas to timber management
prescriptions continues to be very controversial.
<bullet> Silvicultural prescriptions specified in various
management areas are in conflict with other multiple use management
activities in those areas.
<bullet> Current forest conditions indicate treatments for products
other than sawlogs are needed.
Proposed Action
Under the proposed action, timber harvest would continue in areas
with an existing network of roads and past timber management
activities. Timber management would not take place in areas where trees
were not harvested in the past. Forest management actions would stress
sustainable forest ecosystems and healthy watersheds. Timber stands
would be managed as vigorous green forests. These forest health goals
would be achieved through a variety of even- and uneven-aged
silvicultural practices, including an emphasis on products other than
sawlogs. Management intensity would vary across those lands allocated
to timber production through a mix of silvicultural prescriptions and
rotation ages.
Recreation Opportunities
Current Direction
The current plan emphasizes roaded natural recreation opportunities
which are accommodated by an extensive road system. Following project
implementation, many roads have been closed but not obliterated to
allow their use in future management activities. These road closures,
combined with the Forest's off-road policy, have facilitated a new road
system created by users.
Under the current plan, there was an increase in semi-primitive ROS
class opportunities. A key concern is the sporadic distribution of
these opportunities which precludes true semi-primitive experiences.
Need for Change
Recreation opportunities have not kept pace with increasingly
diverse demands, and these demands are expected to increase as the
population increases. Recreation-related controversy (i.e., conflicts
between recreationists and management activities, conflicts between
recreation users) have increased over the last 15 years. In many cases,
management actions in the current Forest Plan are in conflict with the
recreation objectives for a given management area.
Motorized use has changed since the current plan was signed. In
particular, there is more off-highway vehicle use on the Forest,
creating a need to re-evaluate current travel management policies.
Rather than imposing blanket restrictions, motorized uses and their
distribution need to be addressed through management area allocations.
Proposed Action
Under the proposed action, recreation opportunities would
accommodate new and diverse demands. This would be achieved by the
following:
<bullet> Increasing the amount of semi-primitive ROS classes.
<bullet> Connecting semi-primitive areas by way of new and existing
roads and trails.
<bullet> Increasing and improving dispersed recreation
opportunities using existing roads and trails and those developed for
other management actions.
<bullet> Improving the settings in and around current facilities
and providing opportunities and readily available amenities from these
sites.
The proposed action would maintain current dispersed recreation
opportunities, and include consideration for these opportunities in
future management activities. It would also include specific management
area allocations for both motorized and nonmotorized activities. In
addition, the proposed action would include direction to improve public
access.
The proposed action would not include additional developed
facilities, rather the focus would be on improvements and bringing
current facilities up to standard. Renovation of current facilities
would focus on accessibility, improving setting amenities and other
recreation opportunities, and providing areas for larger recreational
vehicles.
Roadless Area Allocation and Management
Current Direction
The President signed the Wyoming Wilderness Act of 1984 (PL 98-550)
which designated three new wilderness areas on the Medicine Bow
National Forest, in addition to the existing Savage Run Wilderness
(14,930 acres). Areas designated by the 1984 Act include the Platte
River Wilderness (22,749 acres), the Encampment River Wilderness
(10,124 acres), and the Huston Park Wilderness (30,726 acres). The Act
also released all remaining areas (those areas not designated as
wilderness by the Act) to multiple-use management. The current plan
allocates many of these remaining roadless areas to prescriptions which
allow road building.
Need for Change
Inventory of roadless areas is a requirement in the revision
process (36 CFR 219.17). Management of inventoried roadless areas
continues to be controversial. These conflicts are a
[[Page 54612]]
result of varying resource demands on the roadless areas.
Proposed Action
The proposed action is to complete an inventory of roadless areas,
evaluate these areas to determine wilderness potential (36 CFR 219.17),
and allocate most of the roadless areas to varying management area
prescriptions which retain the roadless character. Exceptions might be
made on the Laramie Peak unit where ecosystem health goals may require
more active management with limited road building.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Proposed Action
In the current plan, there is no management area used specifically
for Wild and Scenic Rivers. Designation of the North Platte and
Encampment Rivers was recommended to Congress. Congress has not acted
to officially designate either river, however they remain under the
wilderness prescription, and their unique qualities are safeguarded by
the wilderness standards and guidelines.
Need for Change
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended (December 31, 1992) and
Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 8, direct the Forest Service
to evaluate rivers for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River
System during forest planning. Proposed designation of two eligible
rivers, the North Platte and the Encampment, has not been acted on by
Congress. These two rivers, as well as other rivers on the forest, need
to be evaluated to determine their eligibility for inclusion in the
Wild and Scenic River System.
Proposed Action
The proposed action is to allocate all eligible rivers to wild and
scenic river prescriptions accordingly. Two rivers, the North Platte
and the Encampment, qualified for inclusion in the wild and scenic
rivers program and would be protected under wild and scenic management
prescriptions until a suitability determination is made. Both rivers
have stretches that would qualify under the wild river prescription as
well as scenic river prescription. Suitability determinations would be
made with future site-specific analysis when the need arises.
Oil and Gas Leasing
Current Direction
In the current plan, most of the analysis area is available for
leasing, but no lands are authorized for leasing. Current Forest Plan
standards and guidelines are followed, and leases would be issued on a
lease by lease basis.
Need for Change
In 1987, Congress passed the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing
Reform Act (Leasing Reform Act). The Leasing Reform Act requires
analysis that was not conducted for the 1985 Forest Plan.
Proposed Action
The proposed action is to make most land available for leasing with
specified stipulations. Stipulations would vary according to resource
needs and the desired conditions of associated management areas.
Involving the Public
The Regional Forester gives notice that the Forest is beginning an
environmental analysis and decision making process for this proposed
action. We encourage any interested or affected people to participate
in the analysis and contribute to the final decision.
We will provide opportunities for open public discussion of the
proposed action including changes to the revision topics. We encourage
the public to comment on this specific proposal. Focusing on the
proposal will generate specific scoping comments on the revision topics
and decisions to be made, and make the revision process more effective.
The Analysis of the Management Situation contains baseline information,
including the 32 management areas and the No Action Alternative, to
help evaluate how the proposed action and the alternatives address the
revision topics and the six decisions (listed previously) made in
forest plan revisions. This information will be available in late 1999.
We will develop a broad range of alternatives (including the No
Action Alternative) to the proposed action based on the comment
received and on further analysis. Accordingly, we expect the
alternative considered and the final decision to vary from what is put
forth in the proposed action.
Public participation is invited throughout the revision process and
will be especially important at several points during the process. We
will make information available through periodic newsletters, news
releases, the Internet (http://www.fs.fed.us/mrnf/rev/medrev/
medrev.htm), and various public meetings. The first public meetings
will be held after the Analysis of the Management Situation is
completed in late 1999. Meeting dates will be well published through
the media mentioned above.
Cooperative Agencies
The state of Wyoming, by and through the Office of Federal Land
Policy, is a Cooperating Agency (40 CFR 1501.6) by virtue of special
expertise in the areas of social assessment, public participation, and
wildlife management.
Release and Review of the EIS
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is expected to be
filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be
available for public comment in October of 2000. At that time, the EPA
will publish a notice of availability for the DEIS in the Federal
Register. The comment period on the DEIS will be 90 days from the date
the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of
the DEIS must structure their participation in the environmental review
of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the
reviewer's position and contention; 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. 1335, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court
rulings; it is very important that those interested in this proposed
action participate by the close of the three-month comment period so
that substantive comments and objections are made available to the
Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and
respond to them in the FEIS.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the DEIS should be as
specific as possible. It is also, helpful if comments refer to specific
pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the
adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and
discussed in the statements. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council
on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in
addressing these points.
[[Page 54613]]
After the comment period ends on the DEIS, comments will be
analyzed, considered, and responded by the Forest Service in preparing
the Final EIS. The FEIS, is scheduled to be completed in December of
2001. The responsible official will consider the comments, responses,
environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS, and applicable laws,
regulations, and policies in making decisions regarding the revision.
The responsible official will document the decisions and reasons for
the decisions in a Record of Decision for the revised Plan. The
decision will be subject to appeal in accordance with 36 CFR Part 217.
Dated: September 23, 1999.
Tom L. Thompson,
Acting Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region.
[FR Doc. 99-26175 Filed 10-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M