[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 155 (Friday, August 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41565-41568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-20286]


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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

North Lochsa Face Vegetative Management; Clearwater National 
Forest; Idaho County, ID

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Clearwater 
National Forest will prepare an EIS (environmental impact statement) 
for vegetative management activities, within the North Lochsa Face 
analysis area, that will restore and maintain the health of forest 
ecosystems and support the economic and social needs of people and 
their communities. The analysis area is located on the Lochsa Ranger 
District on the Clearwater National Forest, headquartered in Orofino, 
Idaho.
    The EIS will tier to the Clearwater National Forest Land and 
Resource Management Plan Final EIS of September, 1987, which provides 
overall guidance of all land management activities on the Clearwater 
National Forest. Analyses will also be conducted in compliance with the 
Stipulation of Dismissal agreed to for the lawsuit between the Forest 
Service and the Sierra Club, et al (signed September 13, 1993).
    The agency invites written comments and suggestions on the issues 
and management opportunities for the area being analyzed.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
by no later than September 23, 1996, to receive timely consideration in 
the preparation of the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS is anticipated to be 
filed with the Environmental Protection Agency in December 1996. The 
Final EIS and Record of Decision are expected to be issued in May 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions on the proposed 
action or requests to be placed on the project mailing list to James L. 
Caswell, Forest Supervisor, Clearwater National Forest, 12730 U.S. 
Highway 12, Orofino, ID, 83544, FAX: 208-476-8329.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (George Harbaugh, Interdisciplinary 
Team Leader, Lochsa Ranger District, P.O. Box 398, Kooskia, ID 83539, 
telephone (208) 926-4275.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The North Lochsa Face analysis area covers 
approximately 128,000 acres of mostly forested, steep mountains on the 
Lochsa Ranger District. It lies between Highway 12 and the Lolo 
Motorway (Forest Road 500) just north of the small communities of 
Lowell and Syringa. Lewiston is 95 miles west of the area on Highway 
12; Missoula is 130 miles to the east. The Lochsa River, a designated 
Wild and Scenic River, runs alongside Highway 12. The Lochsa District 
boundary and the Lolo Motorway form the north border of the analysis 
area. The Pete King Creek drainage forms the southwest boundary. 
Highway 12 and the Lochsa River form the south/southeast boundary up to 
Fish Creek, and the remaining boundary is the eastern watershed divide 
of Fish Creek.
    The area is relatively isolated and undeveloped. However, U.S. 
Highway 12, the only highway in central Idaho that connects Washington 
and Montana, carries a great deal of traffic year-round. It is the 
primary route for trucks hauling grain, logs and other products from 
Montana and the northern tier of states, as well as southern Canada, to 
the shipping port of Lewiston. This route also provides the quickest 
crossing for passenger traffic from the Portland, Oregon, area to 
points in the northern tier of states. Recreation traffic on this 
highway, especially in the summer, can be heavy.
    Two small communities, Lowell and Syringa, lie at the southern tip 
of the analysis area. Both offer motels and a service station for 
highway travelers and tourists. Within a 60 mile radius of the analysis 
area lie the towns of Kooskia, Kamiah, Grangeville, Orofino, Pierce, 
Weippe, and Sites. All are primarily timber-dependent communities, 
whose economies are directly affected by Forest Service management. The 
analysis area is within Idaho County, but any activity in the analysis 
area would also affect those communities within adjacent Clearwater and 
Lewis Counties.
    The Clearwater Forest Plan provides guidance through its goals, 
objectives, standards, guidelines and management area direction. The 
analysis area consists of Management Areas A6, A7, C3, C4, C6, C8S, E1, 
M1, and US, with inclusions of Management Area M2 in all areas. Below 
is a brief description of the applicable management direction.
    Management Area A6--Historic Lolo Trail Corridor (11,262 acres)--
Manage to provide opportunity for recreational activities oriented to 
traveling over, understanding, and appreciating the route as a historic 
travel route. Minimize timber harvest activity conflicts with 
recreation.
    Management Area A7--Middle Fork of the Clearwater Wild and Scenic 
River Corridor (4,105 acres)--Protect and enhance scenic values, 
cultural values, water quality, big game, non-game, and fishery 
habitats with special emphasis on the anadromous fishery, and developed 
and dispersed recreation that will contribut to public use and 
enjoyment of the free flowing rivers and their immediate environment. 
Harvest timber when enhancement of key resources will occur and adverse 
impacts to key resources would be of low magnitude and short duration, 
and to achieve specific vegetation management objectives.
    Management Area C3--Elk Winter Range (16,797 acres)--Provide winter 
forage and thermal cover for big-game. Classify this land as unsuitable 
for timber production.
    Management Area C4--Elk Winter Range/Timber (14,979 acres)--Provide 
sufficient winter forage and thermal cover for existing and projected 
big game populations while achieving timber production outputs.
    Management Area C6--Elk Summer Range (28,263 acres)--Protect the 
soil and water from adverse effects of man's activities. Classify this 
land as unsuitable for timber production.
    Management Area C8S--Elk Summer Range/Timber (22,900 acres)--Manage 
these areas to maintain high quality wildlife and fishery objectives 
while producing timber from the productive Forest land.

[[Page 41566]]

    Management Area E1--Timer Management (24,640 acres)--Provide 
optimum, sustained production of timber products in a cost-effective 
manner while protecting soil and water quality.
    Management Area M1--Lochsa Research Natural Area (1,022 acres)--
Manage established RNAs to protect their inherent natural features and 
maintain them in undisturbed ecosystems.
    Management Area M2--Riparian Areas (inclusions)--Manage under the 
principles of multiple use as areas of special consideration, 
distinctive values, and integrated with adjacent management areas to 
the extent that water and other riparian-dependent resources are 
protected.
    Management Area US--Unsuitable Land (3,764 acres)--Manage to 
maintain and protect soil and watershed values and vegetative cover. 
Manage for resources other than timber such as dispersed recreation, 
and big-game summer range as appropriate.
    The proposed actions are based on the North Lochsa Face Landscape 
and Watershed Assessment, April 1996, which was a National Forest 
Management Act (NFMA) analysis completed by a team of Forest and 
District specialists. The team was given two major objectives. The 
first was to prepare a scientific assessment of the ecological 
condition of the North Lochsa Face area, focusing on structure, 
function, and composition. The second major objective was to describe 
the social values associated with this piece of land, and integrate 
those social values into future management of the area. The analysis 
also provided an opportunity to modify interim PACFISH watershed 
guidelines. Copies of the assessment are available upon request from 
the District office.
    The proposed actions reflect treatment needs identified for this 
landscape from a scientific basis. Numerous social constraints have not 
been overlaid on the proposed actions, but will be reflected in future 
alternative development. Also, in replicating natural disturbance 
patterns, it is likely that some of the timber harvest and/or 
prescribed burning proposals will result in Forest openings greater 
than 40 acres. The following actions are proposed for the North Lochsa 
Face area during the next 5-year planning period (1997-2001):
    Proposed Action: Timber Harvest-Approximately 6,900 acres of highly 
stocked stands in the Fish and Hungery Creek drainages, 4,000 acres in 
the Canyon and Deadman Creek drainages, 2,500 acres in the Pete King 
drainage, and 6,000 acres in the remaining small drainages along the 
northern face of the Lochsa River are proposed for harvest. Stand 
diagnoses are still needed to determine the type of harvest treatment. 
However, at this time, it is anticipated that the primary type of 
proposed treatments will consist of commercial thinnings, with some 
regeneration harvest and selection cuts. Where needed, proposed road 
activities will consist mostly of reconstruction or reconditioning. It 
is anticipated that there will be minimal need, if any, for the 
construction of new roads. Almost two-thirds of the total area proposed 
for harvest is unroaded and will require helicopter yarding. Those 
remaining areas having existing road systems would be logged using 
conventional systems (skyline and tractor yarding). An additional 840 
acres of roadside salvage, mostly in the Canyon and Deadman Creek 
drainages, are proposed within a 200 foot strip on both sides of 23 
miles of open roads. Where economically feasible, opportunities for 
salvage harvesting will be considered beyond the roadside strips. 
Conventional systems would be used to yard the dead, dying, and high 
risk trees proposed for salvage. The total estimated volume to be 
harvested will be available after further data analysis and field 
reconnaissance.
    Purpose: To reduce stand densities, change species composition, and 
achieve age class/size distribution and structure patterns to desired 
levels; to reduce the risk of wildfire; to reduce burn intensities on 
the breaklands; to salvage dead, dying and high risk trees; to improve 
Forest health; and to provide a supply of timber for logging-dependent 
communities.
    Need: Many years of fire suppression have allowed a majority of the 
stands proposed for harvest to have basal areas higher than the normal 
range of variability. Increased stand densities, combined with the 
drought conditions of recent years, have stressed the trees, making 
them more susceptible to attack by bark beetles, root rots, and other 
pests. As the incidence of insects and disease has increased, higher 
fuel loads have resulted, increasing the risk of higher intensity 
fires. Also, since many of these acres are on the breaklands, the stand 
densities need to be reduced through timber harvest, before the 
following proposal on prescribed burning can be implemented.
    Known stands in need of commercial thinning are less than 100 years 
old with over 175 trees per acre. There is a need to thin these stands 
back to about 100 trees per acre to reduce stress, redistribute growth, 
and reduce fuel loads.
    Many stands along open roads are experiencing declaring growth 
rates resulting from age, insects, disease, and overcrowding. The 
recent emergency salvage effort, conducted under authority of the 
Rescission Act, focused on similar stands through the Forest. Another 
23 miles of open roads within this analysis area have dead and dying 
stands along them, plus, recent aerial surveys have detected insect and 
disease damage in much of the analysis area. These stands need to be 
salvaged and regenerated to improve productively reduce attack by 
insects and disease, and utilize volumes usually lost to mortality.
    Historically, logging has been the primary means of support and a 
way of life for local community residents. Most communities were hit 
hard by the timber shortages of the 1980s, and there has been some 
movement towards economic diversification. However, logging still plays 
a significant role in the area, and the above mention harvest proposals 
would benefit those people who work in the mills and wood products 
industry.
    Proposed Action: Prescribed Burning--Approximately 5,000 to 8,000 
acres of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir habitats, mostly within the 
breaklands, are proposed for understory burns. Prescribed natural fire 
may take up additional acres, should lightening strikes occur in 
desirable areas. A prescribed natural fire management plan will be 
prepared as part of this analysis. Also, a Forest Plan amendment will 
be proposed to change the contain/confine status in brushfields in an 
effort to balance the suppression costs with resource values.
    Purpose: To use prescribed fire to maintain healthy ecosystems; and 
to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires.
    Need: Historically, the breaklands have had a short term fire 
regime of 26 to 50 years. Frequent fires maintained a very diverse 
structure composition, keeping stands open and allowing Douglas-fir, 
western larch, and to a lesser extent ponderosa pine to dominate a 
stand a regenerate. Over 60 years of fire suppression has caused the 
seral species to become less dominant in the overstory and replaced by 
uniform standards of trees with dense understories of western redcedar, 
grand fir, subalpine fir, and Douglas-fir. Under these conditions, the 
risk of a large catastrophic fire occurring in the breaklands is high. 
This risk is highest in Rye Patch Creek, lower Canyon Creek, Apgar 
Creek, and Glade Creek. Under-story burns will help perpetuate

[[Page 41567]]

the types of stand composition and structure naturally occurring when 
fire is reincorporated as an ecological process on the landscape.
    Proposed Action: Stocking Control--Approximately 7,500 acres of 
stands having more than 1,000 trees per acre, less than 7'' diameter 
breast height (dbh), are proposed to be thinned back to 400-500 trees 
per acre, using chainsaws or natural prescribed fire as methods of 
treatment. These stands are scattered throughout the analysis area, and 
further screening based on accessibility will probably eliminate those 
stands out of reach. Another estimated 860 acres of overstocked stands 
are proposed to have their tolerant species (grand fir, cedar, 
subalpine fir, and mountain hemlock) thinned back to increase the 
percentage of seral species (Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, white pine, 
larch, and lodgepole pine) left in the stand. These stands will also be 
screened for accessibility.
    Purpose: To reduce the number of trees per acre in overstocked 
stands; and where desired, to reduce the density of tolerant species in 
favor of the seral species.
    Need: High stocking levels, especially on the drier LTAs, lead to 
limited availability of water and nutrients for individual trees, 
predisposing them to insect and disease problems and increased fire 
risk. Shade-tolerant species on a site are more sensitive to water 
deficits, with the same results as overstocking. Also, stands having 
high percentages of seral species are better adapted to fire regimes.
    Proposed Action: Planting Riparian Areas--Approximately 450 acres, 
consisting of a strip 300 feet wide, 6 miles long on both sides of Fish 
Creek, are proposed to be interplanted with conifers such as cedar and 
spruce, and cottonwoods. Approximately 150 acres, consisting of a 
similar strip along 2 miles of Pete King Creek, are proposed to be 
full-planted with cedar and white pine tree species.
    Purpose: To reduce stream temperatures by re-establishing stands of 
trees (shade) in riparian areas.
    Need: The stream terraces within both of these drainages would 
typically have a high percentage of old-growth trees. However, only 
remnants remain due to the 1934 fire that overran these areas. With 
shade being limited, stream temperatures in both Pete King Creek and 
Fish Creek are currently above water quality standards. The re-
establishment of shade providing trees is needed to reduce stream 
temperature to desired levels.
    Proposed Action: Reforestation of Shrubfields--There are 
approximately 5,300 acres of shrubfields with none or low tree 
stocking, mostly within the Fish, Hungery, Deadman, Bimerick, and Glade 
Creek drainages. Currently, a mechanical slash buster is being used on 
about 600 acres of shrubfields in the Middle Butte area. As the brush 
is cut back, the prepared sites are being planted with seral tree 
species. At this time, it is proposed to monitor the effectiveness of 
this treatment and research that of other treatments, such as, slashing 
followed by a light burn, underplanting followed by release, and 
possible ground applications of herbicides. Following this monitoring 
and research effort, some or all of the 5,300 acres of shrubfields may 
be proposed for treatment.
    Purpose: To comply with the NFMA mandate to restore and maintain 
appropriate forest cover; to put suitable lands back into optimal 
timber production; to allow for soil recovery; and to provide future 
thermal cover for wildlife.
    Need: Seral shrubfields, comprised of ninebark, mountain maple, 
alder, snowberry, ocean spray, willow, and other species, have come to 
dominate these areas after repeated large fires eliminated tree seed 
sources. These past fires have reduced site productivity through 
changing soil physical and chemical properties along with surface soil 
erosion losses. Forest vegetation is slowly returning to areas with 
deeper soils, but without treatment, some of the shrubfields may remain 
for many years.
    Although these shrubfields represent an important early seral 
stage, the areas they occupy must proceed through natural successional 
processes to allow soil recovery from past fires. To accommodate big 
game use, shrubfields must be permitted to shift spatially across the 
landscape over time. This process creates a mosaic pattern of forage 
and thermal cover areas beneficial to big game while allowing for soil 
restoration to occur.
    Proposed Action: Restoring Native Species Composition--Off-site 
ponderosa pine plantations occupy a total of 330 acres in the Boundary 
Peak area and 1,950 acres in the Bimerick Creek drainage. During this 
planning period, approximately 1,000 acres of off-site ponderosa pine 
are proposed to be removed by use of timber harvest, slashing, and/or 
burning. Use of timber harvest is still very questionable at this time, 
since these trees are of poor form and quality (low value), and access 
to them is very limited. Local seed sources would be used to replant 
the sites with genetically adapted seral species.
    Purpose: To better utilize these sites by replacing off-site 
ponderosa pine with adapted stock; and to prevent the contamination of 
the local gene pool, which could affect the species' ability to adapt 
and thrive.
    Need: After the 1934 fire these areas were planted with ponderosa 
pine by the Civilian Conservation Corps. The trees planted were from 
distant sources, including the Bitterroot, Cabinet, Chelan, and 
Deschutes National Forests. Recent research has shown that ponderosa 
pine is genetically adapted to specific elevations and geographic 
areas. This stock was not matched to the planting sites with those 
criteria. As a result, these trees have been slower growing than those 
from local seed sources, and are now falling victim to diseases that 
would normally not affect trees of this age. Root rots, blights, needle 
casts, and insect infestations have all been noted.
    Proposed Action: Control of Noxious Weeds--The initial proposal is 
to prioritize where to control noxious weeds along all roads and 
trails, plus the grazing allotment area near Woodrat Mountain. The 
proposal will be further refined to concentrate control efforts on 
those areas receiving high use, such as, recreation areas and open 
roads. Methods of control to be analyzed include herbicides, manual or 
mechanical eradication, prescribed fire, and available biological 
control agents.
    Purpose: To control new infestations and minimize the spread of 
noxious weeds; to comply with the Idaho Noxious Weed Law; and to 
participate in the integrated weed management system.
    Need: Forest travel-ways (roads and trails) are the main seed 
depositories and transportation corridors for invasive/non-native plant 
species. Given the nature of use of the travel-ways within the analysis 
area (logging equipment, livestock grazing, backcountry horsemen, and 
weekend explorers), it would be safe to assume that all roads and 
trails have at least one invasive/non-native weed species established 
on them.
    Surveys conducted along US Hwy 12 documented Spotted Knapweed 
(Centaurea maculosa) present continually from Kooskia to Lolo Pass, 
with scattered patches of Canada thistle (cirsium arvense), Meadow 
Hawkweed (Hieracium pretense), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), Common 
crupina (Crupina vulgaris), St. Johnswort (Hypericum preforatum), 
Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), Field bindweed (Convolvulus 
arvensis), and Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium). Also documented 
were two potential invaders, Sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) and 
Everlasting peavine (Lathyrus

[[Page 41568]]

latifolius). Sulfur cinquefoil is the only species present that is 
known to persist under a forested canopy. It is not yet a listed 
Noxious Weed species in Idaho, but is considered a serious threat to 
big game winter range habitat.
    In 1995, FS Road 101 was surveyed from U.S. Hwy 12 to Mex Mountain. 
This survey revealed Spotted Knapweed present almost continually on 
both sides of the road as well as scattered infestations of Dalmation 
toadflax, Canada thistle, Everlasting peavine, St. Johnswort and Orange 
Hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum). Roads 417, 514, 455 and 418 were also 
traveled during this survey. Spotted Knapweed, Orange Hawkweed and 
Canada thistle were found on these roads.
    Proposed Action: Watershed Restoration and Rehabilitation--Of all 
the watersheds within the analysis area, Pete King has had the greatest 
amount of mass wasting. Due to more stable landforms or timber 
management associated activities, the other watersheds have experienced 
less mass wasting. Treatments proposed include: removing sediment from 
stream channels; placing large organic debris in the creeks; placing 
seed, fertilizer, and straw mulch on exposed soil surfaces; and 
rehabilitating over-steepened road cutslopes and old skid trails and 
roads that remain exposed to rainfall and running water.
    Purpose: To identify and stabilize stream sediment sources and 
provide a pathway of actions that lead to a healthy functioning 
watershed.
    Need: The analysis area is composed of relatively managed 
watersheds, with the exceptions of Fish/Hungery Creeks and some of the 
face watersheds. Mass wasting, such as debris torrents associated with 
channels, increased substantially after the large fire in 1934. Large 
landslide events, mostly related to roads, occurred in the 1970s, 1987, 
and 1996. This year's event can be related to higher than normal 
rainfall and saturated soils. Except for Canyon/Deadman Creeks, the 
other major drainages are in the upper ranges of natural variability 
for sediment. Data on Canyon and Deadman Creeks show sediment gradually 
declining, but these low energy systems do not clean themselves out.
    A range of alternatives will be considered, including a no action 
alternative and the proposals identified above. Based on the issues 
identified through scoping, all action alternatives will vary in the 
number and location of acres to be treated, the type of treatment, and 
the kind of mitigation measures. Issues will drive the formulation of 
feasible alternatives.
    The EIS will analyze the direct, indirect and cumulative 
environmental effects of the alternatives. Past, present and projected 
activities on National Forest lands will be considered. The EIS will 
disclose the analysis of site-specific mitigation measures and their 
effectiveness.
    Comments from the public and other agencies will be used in 
preparation of the Draft EIS. The scoping process will continue to 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.
    Preliminary issues identified as a result of internal and public 
scoping include: effects of the proposal on watersheds, air quality, 
economics, roadless areas, research natural areas, ecosystem 
management, social aspects, visual quality, heritage resources, the 
possible use of herbicides, helicopter logging systems, and safety. 
These issues will be verified, expanded and/or modified based on 
continued scoping for this proposal.
    Public participation is important all through the analysis process. 
Two key time periods have been identified for receipt of formal 
comments on the proposal and analysis:
    1. Scoping period, which starts with publication of this notice and 
continues for the next 45 days; and
    2. Review of the Draft EIS in December 1996 thru February 1997. The 
Forest Service expects to file the Draft EIS with the Environmental 
Protection Agency in December 1996. The comment period on the Draft EIS 
will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency 
publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register. The Final 
EIS and Record of Decision are expected in May 1997.
    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 
a draft EIS 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. 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 EIS.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
on the proposed action, comments on the Draft EIS should be as specific 
as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or 
chapters of the Draft EIS.
    Comments may also address the adequacy of the Draft EIS 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.)
    The Forest Supervisor is the responsible official for this 
environmental impact statement. His address is Clearwater National 
Forest, Forest Supervisor's Office, 12730 Highway 12, Orofino, ID 
83544.

    Dated: July 30, 1996.
James E. Caswell,
Forest Supervisor, Responsible Official.
[FR Doc. 96-20286 Filed 8-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M