[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42739-42740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20932]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
 or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
 and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
 delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
 statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
 appearing in this section.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / 
Notices  

[[Page 42739]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Lower Eldorado Ecosystem Management Project, Clearwater National 
Forest, Clearwater County, Idaho

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 proposed 
timber harvest which would remove approximately 18.7 million board feet 
of timber from 2,146 acres and build 6.2 miles of new roads. To improve 
watershed conditions, the proposal would also close up to 30 miles of 
roads in the area which are no longer needed.
    The area is located on the Pierce District of the Clearwater 
National Forest, Townships 33, 34, and 35 North, Ranges 6 and 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 the 13,995 acre analysis area. Management Areas 
(MA) within the analysis area include: MA-E1, emphasizing growth and 
yield of timber; MA-C4, emphasizing big game winter range and timber 
production; MA-M1, emphasizing research natural areas; MA-M2, 
emphasizing riparian management; and MA-A6, emphasizing historic travel 
routes.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing by September 22, 1997.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In response to the public demand for 
sustainable forest management, the Forest Service has developed an 
ecologically based, integrated resource approach to the management of 
National Forest lands. ``Ecosystem Management'' means recognizing the 
complexity and interdependencies of resources within ecosystems, so the 
effects of management actions can be predicted and monitored after 
activities occur.
    A landscape level vegetation assessment was conducted in 1996. The 
results indicate that the present species and age class distributions 
in this area would not have occurred under natural conditions. Large 
numbers of small trees are present, due to over fifty years of wildfire 
suppression. Crowded stands are susceptible to root rot pathogens, bark 
beetles, defoliators, and dwarf mistletoe. The loss of western white 
pine through blister rust, along with fire suppression, has led to a 
percentage of grand fir in many stands which is much higher than that 
which occurred historically. The 1996 assessment also indicated that 
late mature stands are lacking in this area, and often occur in smaller 
patches than would have occurred naturally. Natural patch sizes in this 
area ranged up to 20,000 acres.
    The proposed action is designed to restore terrestrial and aquatic 
ecosystem health, and to provide benefits to people within the 
capabilities of the ecosystem. Vegetation treatments to reintroduce 
western white pine would be considered. Prescribed regeneration and 
intermediate harvest would improve forest composition and function. 
Commercial and precommercial thinning would improve species 
composition, moving toward a mix more consistent with historical 
conditions. Intermediate treatments in over-stocked, stressed sites 
would target grand fir, while maintaining desirable seral species such 
as western white pine, ponderosa pine, and western larch. Silvicultural 
management practices would be analyzed for their potential to keep old 
stands longer. Dead and dying timber in the area would be salvaged.
    The proposal includes timber harvest of varying intensities, from 
rehabilitation only (slashing nonmerchantable dead trees and 
replanting) to clearcuts with reserve trees. Harvest practices may not 
follow traditional unit configurations or prescriptions. The natural 
changes in tree densities, natural history, and health of the landscape 
will dictate how areas would be treated. Biological corridors and 
riparian areas in the natural landscape would be considered, as well as 
human imposed landscapes and restrictions such as visual quality 
corridors, cultural sites, and recreation areas. Harvest prescriptions 
may be scattered, span large areas, or overlap.
    Because some streams in the area are not meeting desired instream 
conditions for cobble embeddedness, erosion sources in the watershed 
would be corrected by closing and stabilizing roads that are no longer 
needed. Culvert replacements, riparian planting, instream rock and 
woody debris clusters, channel constriction structures, log drop 
structures. and sediment traps would be proposed to improve fish 
habitat conditions or accessibility. The proposal would also include 
riparian planting to improve stream shading and woody debris 
availability.
    Views from the Lewis and Clark trail, which runs through a portion 
of the analysis area, would be protected through site specific 
silvicultural prescriptions.
    The decision to be made is what, if anything, should be done to 
address the following issues in the Lower Eldorado Project Area: (a) 
Treating vegetation to respond to concerns about overly dense stands; 
(b) increasing patch sizes to more closely resemble landscape patterns 
that occurred historically, while retaining as much of the late 
successional component as possible; (c) preserving scenic quality near 
the Lewis and Clark trail for the long term; (d) managing the road 
system to improve watershed conditions while maintaining an adequate 
long term transportation system in the area; and (e) increasing timber 
productivity and contributing to the Forest's sustained yield of timber 
products.
    Preliminary alternatives to the proposed action have been developed 
in response to issues raised during internal scoping. They include: (a) 
An alternative which would propose no timber harvest adjacent to the 
Lewis and Clark Trail; (b) an alternative which would minimize new road 
construction; and (c) an alternative which would reduce overabundant 
immature and mature stands in the Lolo drainage;

[[Page 42740]]

    Public participation will be an important part of the analysis. 
Internal scoping began with the development of the Pierce Ranger 
District Five Year Plan in early January, 1997. External scoping will 
begin with this notice. Public meetings to announce this proposal, 
including at least one field review of the project area, will be 
scheduled between July and September of 1997. Issues which emerge from 
internal and external scoping will be used to develop additional 
alternatives to this proposal.
    The lead agency for this project is the U.S. Forest Service. The 
Forest Service will cooperate with other Federal agencies, as well as 
County, State, and tribal governments who display an interest in the 
project, and who require assessment and concurrence.
    The responsible official for decisions regarding this analysis is 
James Caswell, Clearwater National Forest Supervisor. His address is 
12730 Highway 12, Orofino, ID 83544.
    The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in January, 
1998. 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 
environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the 
Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in 
the Federal Register. The final EIS is scheduled to be completed by 
May, 1998.
    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 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 Regulations for implementing the 
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 40 
CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names 
and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the 
public record on this proposed action and will be available for public 
inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and 
considered; however, whose who submit anonymous comments will not have 
standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR part 215 or 
217.

    Dated: July 31, 1997.
James L. Caswell,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 97-20932 Filed 8-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M