[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 145 (Friday, July 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39116-39117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18989]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service


Clarke Mountain E.I.S.; Clearwater National Forest, Clearwater 
County, ID

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental effects of a proposed 
timber harvest in the Clarke Mountain area. There will be some newly 
constructed roads to access some of the timber stands. The proposal 
also includes fishery and wildlife improvement projects such as 
reconstructing several roads, abandoning and/or obliterating several 
miles of roads, restricting access on other roads, as well as improving 
recreation facilities. An Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) loop trail system 
will also be proposed that is approximately 33 miles long, utilizing 
several existing roads and trails
    The area is located on the Pierce District of the Clearwater 
National Forest, Townships 37 and 38 North, Range 7 East, Boise 
Meridian.
    The purpose of the proposal and subsequent effects analysis is to 
meet the intent of the Clearwater Forest Plan, using an ecosystem 
management approach for management ares included in the 12,700 acre 
treatment area. There are five management areas (MA) within the 
analysis area. MA-E1 emphasizes growth and yield of timber, MA-M2 
emphasizes protection of riparian resources, MA-C4 emphasizes big-game 
winter range along with timber production, MA-C3 emphasizes management 
of big-game winter range in areas unsuitable for timber production, and 
MA-US are unsuitable areas for timber or big game habitat.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing September 9, 1996 to receive timely consideration in the 
preparation of the draft EIS. The draft EIS will be filed with the 
Environmental Protection Agency in November 1996. The final EIS and 
Record of Decision is expected to be issued in February 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Douglas Gober, District Ranger, 
Pierce Ranger District, Route 2, Box 191, Kamiah, ID 83536.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian Palmer, EIS Project Team Leader, (208) 935-2513.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: The responsible official for decisions regarding 
this analysis is James L. Caswell, Clearwater National Forest 
Supervisor. He will select the preferred alternative based upon the 
analysis. His address is 12730 Highway 12, Orofino, ID 83544.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposal includes timber harvest of 
varying intensities from precommercial thinnings to clear cuts with 
reserve trees. Harvest would amount to about 19 million board feet of 
timber from about 1200 acres, and approximately 5 miles of road would 
be built and about 15 miles reconstructed. Site-specific riparian 
buffers will be developed for each cutting unit and will meet intent of 
the Inland Fish Strategy (INFISH).
    Because instream conditions are not meeting desired conditions for 
cobble embeddedness, erosion sources in the watershed would be 
corrected, including stabilizing and/or closing roads that are no 
longer needed and reconstructing roads needed for a long term 
transportation plan. Live stream crossings would be minimized on any 
new road construction.
    Approximately 6500 of the 12,700 acre treatment area was acquired 
by the Forest Service between 1987 and 1992 in land exchanges with a 
private company. The majority of this acquired land had been heavily 
roaded and harvested before the Forest Service acquired it.
    Functioning old growth areas will be analyzed and designated and 
future old growth areas would be planned for and will be on landtypes 
and in areas that historically had the best chance of maintaining old 
growth on them. Three of these future areas within the Clarke Mountain 
treatment area were identified in the Fuzzy Bighorn Environmental 
Assessment, but all these areas are several decades away from 
functioning as old growth. Presently, the Forest Service would manage 
biological corridors, and designate five percent or

[[Page 39117]]

more old growth habitat per 10,000 acre compartment.
    Because use is increasing in dispersed camping areas, the Forest 
Service would install dispersed camping signs in the analysis area.
    Because there are dying stands of white pine, lodgepole pine stands 
over 80 years old, several pathogens at work in many stands, a high 
fuel buildup in several stands, and other silvicultural treatment needs 
in the analysis area, the Forest Service would rehabilitate dying white 
pine plantations, salvage dead and dying timber, improve the species 
mix through commercial and precommercial thinning, and harvest stands 
that have reached maturity while maintaining the old growth component.
    Because OHV (Off-Highway Vehicle) use is increasing, and it is 
generally hard to find designated areas with semi-primitive type 
quality and viewsheds, the Forest Service would create an OHV loop 
trial system that would utilize an old jeep road along Elk Mountain 
Ridge and improve a route to Clark Mountain Lookout. The trailhead 
would be at Cottonwood Flats along Orogrande Creek.
    Scoping began internally with an Integrated Resource Analysis, the 
findings of which will be incorporated into the Clarke Mtn. EIS. 
Scooping will continue with the public with the announcement of this 
new proposal and these comments will help:
    1. Identify potential issues.
    2. Identify major issues to be analyzed in depth.
    3. Identify alternatives to the proposed action.
    4. Identify potential environmental effects of each alternative.
    5. Determine potential cooperating agencies and task assignments.
    Some public comments have already been received to date, Internally 
identified issues coupled with public concerns, points out the 
following issues driving alternatives:
    1. The effect of building roads in a ``roadless area''.
    2. Regeneration harvest units over 40 acres in size.
    3. The economics of planning a viable sale because of the expense 
of helicopter logging.
    The lead agency for this project is the U.S. Forest Service. The 
Forest Service will cooperate with other Country, State, Federal 
Agencies and tribes who display an interest in the project, and who 
require assessment and concurrence.
    The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in November 
1996. 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. 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 impact 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: July 8, 1996.
James L. Caswell,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 96-18989 Filed 7-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M