[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