[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 290-292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-79]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service

 

White Sand Ecosystem Management Project; Clearwater National 
Forest, Idaho County, ID

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, will prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental effects of vegetation 
retention, vegetation treatments, access management, and fish habitat 
enhancement in the vicinity of White Sand Creek, Beaver Creek, Savage 
Creek, Rabbit Creek, and Colt Creek drainages. The area is located 
south and east of the Powell Ranger Station, Powell Ranger District, 
Clearwater National Forest, Idaho County, Idaho. Most of the proposed 
project's activities are within the North Fork Spruce - White Sand 
(#1309) and Sneakfoot Meadows (#1314) Roadless Areas. The proposal's 
actions are being considered together because they represent either 
connected or cumulative actions as defined by the Council on 
Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.25).
    The purposes of the project are to implement the Clearwater Forest 
Plan within the context of Ecosystem Management principles; conserve 
biological diversity; retain the undeveloped character of White Sand 
scenery; restore ecosystem function in fire-dependant forest 
communities; reduce the risk of large fires and improve opportunities 
for use of prescribed natural fire; create vistas and visually 
rehabilitate several existing harvest unit boundaries; produce wood 
products and increase timber growth and yield in a way that provides 
long-term sustainability of both wood products and other ecosystem 
elements; protect water quality, fish populations, wildlife, and 
roadless characteristics influenced by access; improve safety of roads 
for current public use and expected increases and changes in use; 
enhance trail-based recreation; and manage limiting factors that affect 
fish populations in White Sand streams.
    This project-level EIS will tier to the Clearwater National Forest 
Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and Final EIS 
(September, 1987), which provides overall guidance of all land 
management activities on the Clearwater National Forest.

DATES: Written comments and suggestions should be received on or before 
February 18, 1994, to receive timely consideration in the preparation 
of the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS will be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency in September, 1994. The Final EIS and Record of 
Decision are expected to be issued in February, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions on the proposed 
action or requests for a map of the proposed action or to be placed on 
the project mailing list to Margaret Gorski, District Ranger, Powell 
Ranger District, Clearwater National Forest, Lolo, MT 59847.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Pope, EIS Team Leader, Powell 
Ranger District, CLearwater National Forest, Phone (208) 942-3113.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action is based on the findings 
of the White Sand Integrated Resource and Ecosystem Analysis (IRA). The 
White Sand IRA is the first analysis on the Powell Ranger District 
using policy direction and emerging concepts of Ecosystem Management 
(EM). The overriding purpose of EM policy is to better blend the needs 
of people and environmental values so that National Forests represent 
diverse, healthy, productive, and sustainable ecosystems.
    The planning area consists of approximately 40,000 acres of 
National Forest land located in sections 33-36 of T.37N., R.14E.; 
sections 13-15, 20-24 and 26-35 of T.37N., R.15E.; sections 1-3, 10-16 
and 22-27 of T.36N., R.14E.; sections 1-11, 13-14 and 25-36 of T.36N., 
R.15E.; sections 1, 2, 11 and 12 of T.35N., R.14E.; sections 2-9, 17 
and 18 of T.35N. and R.15E.; Boise Meridian.
    The proposed action was designed to meet various ecological and 
social needs expressed in the White Sand IRA. Proposed action 
activities fall into four broad categories: vegetation retention, 
vegetation treatments, access management, and fish habitat enhancement. 
The purpose of the proposed action is to:

Vegetation Retention

--Conserve biological diversity
--Retain the undeveloped character of White Sand scenery

Vegetation Treatments

--Restore ecosystem function in fire-dependant forest types
--Reduce the risk of large fires in White Sand landscape and improve 
opportunities for use of prescribed natural fire
--Create vistas and visually rehabilitate several existing harvest unit 
boundaries
--Implement the Clearwater Forest Plan within the context of Ecosystem 
Management
--Produce wood products and increase timber growth and yield in a way 
that provides long-term sustainability of both wood products and other 
ecosystem elements

Access Management

--Protect water quality, fish populations, and roadless characteristics 
influenced by access
--Improve safety of roads for current public use and expected increases 
or changes in use
--Enhance trail-based recreation

Fish habitat Enhancement

--manage limiting factors that affect fish populations in White Sand 
streams

    The proposed action would accomplish the following activities over 
the next ten years:

Vegetation Retention and Treatments

--1,314 acres of underburning in fire-dependant vegetation communities, 
59 acres of planting understocked seedling stands, 14 acres of 
precommercial thinning overstocked sapling stands, create one vista 
area for picnicking and viewing scenery, implement the following 
prescriptions for managing the forest: 704 acres of uneven-aged 
regeneration harvest, 1313 acres of even-aged regeneration harvest, 55 
acres of commercial thinning, and 50 acres of uneven-aged regeneration 
harvest with underburning. These prescriptions would result in harvest 
of about 14,418 thousand board feet (MBF) of timber

Access Management

--2.7 miles of temporary road construction to provide access for 
harvesting, 6.0 miles of permanent road construction to provide access 
for harvesting, 10.7 miles of road reconstruction to improve safety, 
re-align the junction of roads 360 and 359 to improve safety, create 3 
temporary helicopter landings for harvesting, manage road access by 
closing all new roads with gates or earthen barriers after completion 
of management activities, 5.7 miles of new trail construction, and 13.6 
miles of existing trail reconstruction

Fish Habitat Enhancement

--5.4 miles of fish habitat improvement by increasing active debris, 
developing pools, and modifying debris dams and passage barriers

    Possible Forest Plan amendments or site-specific adjustments may be 
needed to implement the proposed action. For example, the Powell 
District will need to seek approval to exceed the 40 acre opening 
limitation, to create openings within the historic range of variation 
and minimize fragmentation of large blocks of old growth. Openings 
larger than 40 acres would retain remnants of the original tree cover 
to provide structural diversity within those stands. Possible Forest 
Plan amendments include:

--Management area allocation changes for the Wild and Scenic River 
Corridor, to be determined through the concurrent Wild and Scenic River 
Suitability Study for White Sand Creek
--Change the Forest Plan standard for Beaver Creek from A channel to B 
channel standards
--Change the Forest Plan standard for Crab Creek from Steelhead to 
Cutthroat
--Propose a Visual Travel Corridor for Elk Summit Road
--Propose several Visual Travel Corridors including parts of Beaver 
Ridge Trail 47 and roads 369, 368, 111, 362, 360, and 359

    The decision to be made is what, if anything, should be done in the 
White Sand Planning Area to achieve the purpose and need.
    The Clearwater Forest Plan provides guidance for management 
activities within the potentially affected area through its goals, 
objectives, standards and guidelines, and management area direction. 
The area of proposed timber harvest and reforestation would occur 
within Management Areas C8S, E1, E3, A4, and M2. Timber harvest would 
occur only on suitable timber land, except where needed to facilitate 
ecosystem burning. These areas would be harvested only to manage fuel 
conditions to prevent crown fires during reintroduction of fire to 
fire-dependant ecosystems. Ecosystem burning would occur within 
management area C6, Key Fishery Habitat. Below is a brief description 
of the applicable management direction.
    Management Area E1--Timber Management--Provide optimum, sustained 
production of timber products in a cost effective manner while 
protecting soil and water quality.
    Management Area E3--Aerial Harvesting Systems/Timber Management--
Similar to management area E1, except long-span cable, multi-span 
cable, or helicopter harvest systems will be utilized to limit road 
development.
    Management Area C8S--Big Game Summer Range/Timber Management--
Maintain high quality wildlife and fishery objectives while producing 
timber.
    Management Area A4--Visual Travel Corridor--Maintain or enhance an 
aesthetically pleasing, natural appearing forest setting surrounding 
designated roads, trails, and other areas considered important for 
recreational travel and use.
    Management Area M2--Riparian Lands--Meet watershed and riparian 
dependant resource objectives and compatible timber production.
    Management Area C6--Key Fishery Habitat--Soil and water will be 
protected in these lands encompassing or adjacent to high value fishery 
streams. Considered key summer range for elk and moose. This area is 
designated unsuitable for timber production.
    The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives to the 
proposed action. One of these will be the ``no action'' alternative, in 
which none of the proposed activities would be implemented. Additional 
alternatives will examine varying levels and locations for the proposed 
activities to achieve the proposal's purposes, as well as to respond to 
the issues and other resource values.
    The EIS will analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative 
environmental effects of the alternatives. Past, present, and projected 
activities on both private and National Forest lands will be 
considered. The EIS will disclose the analysis of site-specific 
mitigation measures and their effectiveness.
    Public participation is an important part of the project, 
commencing with the initial scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7), which 
starts with publication of this notice and continues for the next 45 
days. In addition, the public is encouraged to visit with Forest 
Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the 
decision. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and 
assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies, the Nez Perce 
Tribe, and other individuals or organizations who may be interested in 
or affected by the proposed action. Public meetings will be scheduled 
between now and publishing of the Draft EIS. Interested individuals and 
organizations are encouraged to contact the Powell District Ranger to 
be added to the project mailing list to receive future newsletters 
related to this project and notification of public meetings.
    Comments from the public and other agencies will be used in 
preparation of the Draft EIS. The scoping process will be used to:
    1. Identify potential issues.
    2. Identify major issues to be analyzed in depth.
    3. Eliminate minor issues or those which have been covered by a 
relevant previous environmental analysis, such as the Clearwater Forest 
Plan EIS.
    4. Identify alternatives to the proposed action.
    5. Identify potential environmental effects of the proposed action 
and alternatives (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative effects).
    6. Determine potential cooperating agencies and task assignments.
    Some public comments have already been received in conjunction with 
the White Sand IRA. Preliminary issues identified so far have been 
grouped into seven major categories: Biological Diversity and Ecosystem 
Management; Recreation, Wilderness, and Roadless Areas; Water Resources 
and Fisheries; Wildlife; Social and Economic; Heritage Resources; and 
Scenery. Issues commonly associated with effects of timber harvesting 
and road construction are grouped into these seven categories. The 
complete list is available upon request from the Powell District 
Ranger. This list may be verified, expanded, or modified based on 
public scoping for this proposal.
    The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in September of 
1994. At that time, the EPA will publish a Notice of Availability of 
the Draft EIS in the Federal Register. The comment period on the Draft 
EIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA's notice of availability 
appears in the Federal Register. It is very important that those 
interested in management of the White Sand area participate at that 
time. To be most helpful, comments on the Draft EIS should be as site-
specific as possible. The Final EIS is scheduled to be completed by 
February, 1995.
    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 
draft environmental impact statements 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 
draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised 
until after completion of the final environmental impact statement 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 45-day scoping 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 developing issues and alternatives.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
on the proposed action, comments should be as specific as possible. 
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.
    I am the responsible official for this environmental impact 
statement. My address is Clearwater National Forest, 12730 Highway 12, 
Orofino, ID 83544.

    Dated: December 15, 1993.
James L. Caswell,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 94-79 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M