[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-7709]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 31, 1994]


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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 

Charlie Tyson Project, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, St. 
Maries Ranger District, Benewah County, ID

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Forest Service is gathering 
information to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This is 
proposing management activities designed to move the Charlie Tyson 
project area toward its desired future condition, a healthy and diverse 
ecosystem. Desired future condition goals specific to the project area 
were developed by an interdisciplinary team for the purpose of 
maintaining ecosystem productivity and diversity while incorporating 
human values and needs. The goals for this project area are listed 
below:
    1. The first goal is to provide vegetation patterns and natural 
variability that include important components within the range of 
historic levels. Using historic vegetation patterns as a reference 
point, the project will strive to maintain more mature timber (80+years 
old) in larger patches than currently exist in the project area. To 
maintain historic natural variability for the project area, the project 
will strive to promote more canopy layers and more species components. 
This entails perpetuating seral tree species, subalpine fir/spruce, 
quaking aspen and open ridge tops with large ponderosa pine. This shift 
toward the historic range of vegetation patterns also entails 
maintaining riparian areas with stable stream channels and fish 
habitats supporting viable populations of desired fish species; thus 
the area would be fully supporting beneficial uses.
    2. The second goal is to incorporate additional human values and 
needs by providing commercial wood products, a long range 
transportation plan where only essential roads for land management 
exist, a visually attractive landscape, a diverse array of recreational 
activities and maintaining existing grazing allotments. There are areas 
with past clearcut harvest units that detract from the visual 
attractiveness of the landscape; the harsh edges of these clearcuts 
could be softened by partial cutting. For recreation, emphasis for this 
area is on dispersed use and trail development; unauthorized trail use 
will be addressed and three historic Forest Service trails could be 
added to the trail system.
    3. The third goal is to maintain wildlife habitats. Currently, the 
project area has a lack of quality security for wildlife. Activities 
proposed will include restricting trail and road access for various 
kinds of users.
    It will take time to implement the desired future condition 
described above; proposed management activities would entail using 
techniques to shift the project area toward desired future condition. 
Management techniques would include prescribed fire, timber harvesting, 
road building, road use restrictions and closures, wildlife security 
area(s), watershed/fish habitat improvements and trail development. The 
Forest Service estimates that this proposed action would include: 415 
acres of underburning, 2773 acres of timber harvesting (commercial 
thinning--1892 acres, group selection--46 acres, irregular 
shelterwood--381 acres, group shelterwood--403 acres, seedtree--20 
acres, clearcutting--31 acres), 10.6 miles of new road construction, 
1.7 road miles taken off the road system and a 6200 acre area closure 
to all motorized vehicles in the Charlie-Preston drainages (providing 
5000 acres of wildlife security). The proposed action also entails 
implementing fish/watershed improvement projects in the East Fork of 
Charlie, Preston and Brown Creeks and adding three historic Forest 
Service Trails back on the trail system for maintenance.

DATES: Written comments concerning the scope of this analysis must be 
received May 2, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to District Ranger, St. Maries Ranger 
District, P.O. Box 407, St. Maries, ID 83861.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about the proposed action 
and EIS should be directed to Tracy J. Gravelle, St. Maries Ranger 
District, Phone: 208-245-2531.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Charlie Tyson project area lies within 
Benewah County, Idaho and encompasses the Charlie Creek drainage. It is 
located approximately 1 air mile south of Emida, Idaho. The project 
area contains 18,100 acres of which approximately 14,400 acres are 
administered by the Forest Service. Management activities would be 
administered by the St. Maries Ranger District of the Idaho Panhandle 
National Forests. This EIS will tier to the Forest Plan (September 
1987) which provides overall guidance for the Idaho Panhandle National 
Forests in terms of Goals, Objectives, Standards and Guidelines, and 
Management Area direction.
    Preliminary scoping, including public and other agency 
participation, was initiated in August 1991 and has recommenced this 
year. A public meeting for the area was held on September 4, 1991 in 
St. Maries, Idaho. An additional public open house was held in the town 
of Emida, Idaho on January 19, 1994. Two periods of time are identified 
for the receipt of comments on this analysis. These two public comments 
periods are: During this scoping process and the period between draft 
and final environmental impact statements. Comments received within 30 
days from the date of this publication (Federal Register) will be 
especially useful in the preparation of the draft EIS.
    Several issues have been identified from scoping, field surveys and 
reconnaissance. The principal issues identified to date are:
    1. The vegetation patterns and species composition of the area do 
not mimic the natural variability noted from data compiled in the early 
1900's.
    2. There is a lack of quality wildlife security which is 
perpetuated by existing road management and well established All 
Terrain Vehicle use in the project area.
    3. The forest surrounding the project area is fairly well 
fragmented.
    4. There are areas with past clearcut harvest units that detract 
from the visual attractiveness of the landscape.
    5. There is unauthorized trail building in the area.
    6. The old Forest Service Nakarna-Tyson (#338), Eena Creek (#337) 
and Moolock Creek (#320) trails lie within the project area. These 
trails are still being used by the public and are in good condition. 
This is an opportunity to pub these trails back on the system.
    7. There are some areas needing watershed/fish habitat 
rehabilitation and this is an opportunity to complete this work. In 
addition, if management activities were to be implemented, what would 
be potential impacts on the fish habitat, water quality and stream 
channel equilibrium.
    8. If management activities were to be implemented, what would be 
the potential impacts on wildlife habitats.
    9. How must sustainable timber harvest is available from the 
project area.
    10. The local community has voiced their concern over availability 
of small timber sales. These sales enable smaller timber operators the 
opportunity to purchase timber sales.
    Development of alternatives is underway. The analysis will consider 
the No Action alternative in addition to the proposed action (described 
above) and two alternative actions. The two alternative actions would 
respond in varying degrees to the purpose and need defined above. These 
two alternatives are as follows:
    1. One alternative would confine proposed timber management 
activities to areas which can be reached by existing roads, i.e. no new 
system roads would be necessary. This proposal would include 
underburning, timber harvesting, a wildlife security area in the 
Charlie-Preston Creek drainages, watershed/fish improvements and trail 
development. Potential harvest units for this alternative present many 
small sale opportunities.
    2. One alternative is being proposed for management activities that 
are limited to certain areas of the project area. This addresses the 
wildlife security issue for a different part of the project area. This 
alternative would include underburning, timber harvesting, road 
construction, potential road obliteration, a wildlife security area in 
the Eena, Moolock, Brown, Pamas and Short Creek drainages, watershed/
fish improvements and trail development. Potential harvest units for 
this alternative present many small sale opportunities.
    The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers 
notice at this early stage 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 EIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the 
final EIS 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). Reviewers may 
wish to refer to CEQ regulations 40 CFR 1503.3.
    The draft environmental impact statement should be available for 
public review in May, 1994. The final EIS is scheduled to be completed 
by September, 1994. The District Ranger, who is the responsible 
official for this EIS, will make a decision regarding this proposal. 
This decision and reasons for the decision will be documented in a 
Record of Decision.

    Dated: March 25, 1994.
Bradley J. Gilbert,
District Ranger, St. Maries Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National 
Forests.

    The policy of the USDA Forest Service prohibits discrimination on 
the basis of race, color, national origin, age, religion, sex, 
disability, familial status, or political affiliation. People believing 
they have been discriminated against in any Forest Service related 
activity should write to: Chief, Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96090, 
Washington, DC 20090-6090.

[FR Doc. 94-7709 Filed 3-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M