[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1526]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 24, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
West Fork Squaw Timber Sale; Clearwater National Forest, Idaho
County, ID
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service will analyze and disclose the environmental
impacts of a proposal to harvest timber, regenerate harvested timber
stands, rehabilitate existing sediment sources, reconstruct existing
roads, and construct new roads in a portion of the West Fork Squaw
Creek and Spring Creek drainages on the Powell Ranger District. An
environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared which will
document the analysis. This EIS will tier to the Clearwater National
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final EIS of September 1987,
which provides overall guidance in achieving the desired condition for
the area. The primary purpose and need of the proposed action is to
implement land management direction for the West Fork Squaw Creek and
Spring Creek drainages. The goal is to develop a viable timber sale
proposal that is compatible with current resource management
objectives.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received
by January 31, 1994, to receive timely consideration in the preparation
of the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS will be filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency by May 1, 1994. The Final EIS and Record of Decision
are expected in November of 1994.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the Responsible Official, Margaret
J. Gorski District Ranger, Powell Ranger District, Powell Ranger
Station, Lolo, Montana 59847.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ralph Johnson, West Fork Squaw
Analysis Interdisciplinary Team Leader, or Margaret J. Gorski, District
Ranger, Powell Ranger District, Lolo, Montana 59847. (208) 942-3113.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The analysis area in which the proposed
management activities would occur consists of approximately 3,650 acres
of National Forest land in the West Fork of Squaw Creek and Spring
Creek drainage on the Powell Ranger District. The study area includes
all or portions of Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 24 of T37N, R12E
and Sections 6, 7, 18, and 19, of T37N, R13E, Boise Meridian, Idaho
County, Idaho.
The Land and Resource Management Plan for the Clearwater National
Forest provides the overall guidance for management activities in the
potentially affected area through its goals, objectives, standards,
guidelines and management area direction. In the West Fork Squaw Creek
analysis area, four Forest Plan Management Areas are found: E1 which
emphasized optimum timber management, M2 which emphasizes protection of
riparian values, A6 which emphasizes the cultural and visual resources
from the historic trail corridor, and US which is lands unsuitable for
timber production. The areas of proposed timber harvest, regeneration
and associated road construction and reconstruction activities are
located in Management Area E1, which emphasizes optimum sustained
timber production.
To date, considerable scoping and analysis has been done in regard
to the proposed action. In April 1991 the staff of the Powell Ranger
District began an Integrated Resource Analysis (IRA) of the West Fork
of Squaw Creek (Silvicultural compartment 621) to identify the existing
and desired conditions. During December of 1991, a Position Statement
was sent to the staff of the Clearwater National Forest, State
agencies, the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, and other known
local interest groups and individuals informing the public of the
analysis and seeking comment. In January 1992, an Interdisciplinary
Team (IDT) was assigned to continue the analysis after receiving a
number of comments during the initial scoping phase. This team
identified the primary issues in February 1992 after reviewing the
input received.
The key issues identified by the Interdisciplinary Team are:
1. Scenery--Proposed logging and road construction may influence,
either positively or negatively, the view from the Lolo Trail Corridor,
which consists of the Lolo motorway, Nez Perce National Historic Trail,
and the Lewis & Clark National Historic Landmark.
2. Fisheries and Water Quality--Proposed logging and road
construction will be analyzed for sediment production and potential
mitigation measures to determine effects on the west fork and mainstem
of Squaw Creek (recently recovered to minimum Forest Plan standards)
affecting the Spring/Summer Chinook salmon and the bull trout.
3. Old Growth, Wildlife, and Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive
Species--
Old Growth--Proposed logging and road construction may reduce the
level of old-growth habitat in the analysis area and further fragment
corridors linking areas of old-growth habitat. Potential Old Growth
stands within or adjacent to proposed activities will be field
verified.
Wildlife--Timber harvesting and road construction may create new
openings, decreasing suitable habitat needed for wildlife. Threatened,
Endangered and Sensitive Species--Timber harvesting and road
construction may affect Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species or
their habitat.
4. Timber Management--Proposed logging may increase overall stand
productivity by removing timber which has reached biological maturity
and by removing timber which is infected with bark beetles and disease
pathogens. Proposed logging would also contribute timber to the local
and National timber supply.
5. Economics--Proposed logging and environmental protection
measures may affect the economic viability of a timber sale offering.
In response to the identified issues and concerns, the IDT has
described four management alternatives. One of these is the ``no-
action'' alternative in which timber harvest, timber stand
regeneration, and road construction/reconstruction activities would not
be implemented. Three other alternatives will examine various levels
and locations of timber harvest, rehabilitation of active sediment
sources, and road construction/reconstruction activity. Various mixes
of timber and non-timber resource values of each alternative will also
be examined.
Under the action alternatives that the Interdisciplinary Team has
described to this point, timber harvest ranges from 1.9 to 3.9 million
board feet (MMBF), with harvest directly affecting from 323 to 472
acres. To access proposed harvest units, up to 0.9 mile of new road
construction and no road reconstruction would be required.
The preliminary analysis indicates that tentative alternatives may
have significant effects to the environment. The Responsible Official,
Margaret J. Gorski, Powell District Ranger, has decided to continue the
analysis and document it with an Environmental Impact Statement. Due to
changed environmental conditions, the proposed action is changed from
the original position statement.
The Forest Service is now seeking further information and comments
from Federal, State, local agencies, and other individuals or
organizations who are interested in or affected by the proposed action.
This additional input will be used in preparing the Draft EIS (DEIS).
The process will include:
1. Identification of additional potential issues.
2. Identification of issues to be analyzed in depth.
3. Elimination of insignificant issues.
4. Identification of additional reasonable alternatives.
5. Identification of potential environmental effects of the
alternatives.
6. Determination of potential cooperating agencies.
The EIS will disclose the environmental effects of alternative ways
of implementing the Forest Plan. The Forest Service will analyze and
document the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the
alternatives. In addition, the EIS will disclose site specific
mitigation measures and their expected effectiveness.
Public participation will be especially important at several points
in the analysis. People are encouraged to visit with Forest Service
officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. A
Final EIS is expected to be filed in November 1994. Two key time
periods have been identified for receipt of formal comments on the
analysis:
1. Scoping period (now through January 1994).
2. Review of the Draft EIS in June 1994.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, will be
informally consulted throughout the analysis. To meet the requirements
of the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will
review the EIS and Biological Assessment of the effects on Threatened
and Endangered species, including the grizzly bear, gray wolf, and fall
chinook salmon.
The DEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and available for public review by May 1994. At that time,
the EPA will publish a Notice of Availability of the DEIS in the
Federal Register. After a 45-day public comment period, the comments
received will be analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in the
final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The FEIS is scheduled to
be completed by November 1994. The Forest Service will respond in the
FEIS to the comments received on the DEIS. The responsible official is
the District Ranger of the Powell Ranger District, Clearwater National
Forest, Lolo, Montana 59847. The decision and reasons for the decision
will be documented in a Record of Decision.
The comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will
be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency 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
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 Agoon 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 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.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
and concerns on the proposed action, 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 statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated
and discussed in the statement. 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.
Dated: January 11, 1994.
Margaret J. Gorski,
District Ranger, Powell Ranger District, Clearwater National Forest.
[FR Doc. 94-1526 Filed 1-21-94; 10:00 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M