[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 250 (Thursday, December 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73508-73509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33984]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Steamboat Resource Area, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, 
Shoshone County, Idaho

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice, intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The project area is approximately 27,000 acres in size, and is 
located in the Steamboat Creek basin (T50N, R2E, Sec. 1-6, 8-15; T50N, 
R3E, Sec. 5-8, 18; T51N, R1E, Sec. 24-26, 35-36; T51N, R23, Sec. 9-11, 
13-36; T51N, R3E, Sec. 30-32; Boise Meridian). The Forest Service will 
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze and disclose 
the environmental effects of the project.
    The purpose of this proposal is twofold: over the short term, the 
goal is to reduce the negative effects specific roads are having on 
streams in the watershed. The long-term goal is to trend the watershed 
toward a condition of increased resilience to withstand future 
disturbances (such as wildfire, disease, or insect infestations) by 
improving the overall health and stability of both the terrestrial and 
aquatic ecosystems.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing by January 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Coeur d'Alene River Ranger 
District, 2502 East Sherman Avenue, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, 83814-5899.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherri Lionberger, Project Team 
Leader, (208) 769-3065.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The resource area has been modified by the 
effects of past harvest, road building, and historic natural 
disturbances. White pine blister rust continues to cause mortality in 
the white pine, and the species composition is changing to a less 
resilient type of forest. Streamside roads that infringe on flood 
plains, large areas of regeneration harvests, outdated skidding 
practices, and natural flood events have combined to increase sediment 
and destabilize stream channels, causing a loss of fisheries habitat 
locally as well as further downstream. This history has led to 
vegetative and watershed conditions in need of rehabilitation to trend 
the resource area toward more naturally-resilient characteristics. The 
proposal will include the following possible actions: (1) Improving 
aquatic resource conditions by reducing the amount of sediment entering 
the stream from existing roads through repair or removal of specific 
road segments and/or road channel crossings; and (2) Increasing the 
stocking and size of rust-resistant white pine and other long-lived 
seral conifers through regeneration and stand-tending activities such 
as timber harvest, prescribed fire, tree planting, pruning and 
thinning. The scope of this analysis is limited to activities related 
to the purpose and need, and measures necessary to mitigate the effects 
these activities may have on the environment. The decision will 
identify if, when, how and where to schedule activities to meet these 
goals.
    Similar activities were examined in this area under the Boston 
Brook Resource Area Environmental Assessment, published in September 
1997. No decisions were implemented based on that document. Since that 
time, there have been changes in both resource conditions and Forest 
Service policies, which warrant another look at this area. A new name 
is being used for the current proposal to make it easier for the public 
to recognize the area to be analyzed and to avoid confusion with the 
earlier analysis.
    The issues raised and alternatives developed as a result of the 
public participation for the Boston Brook Environmental Assessment will 
be brought forward for the EIS. Modifications may be made based on 
updated resource information, changes in Forest Service policy, and/or 
additional public comments.
    Key issues that will drive alternative development have been 
preliminarily identified based on past scoping activities and known 
resource concerns. To date, these key issues include protection or 
improvement of aquatic resources (water quality and fisheries habitat), 
and protection or improvement of forest vegetation (timber stands and 
rare plants). There are other issues which may not drive alternative 
developed but which will be analyzed to disclose environmental effects. 
For example, protection of key big-game habitat, and ensuring access 
for recreation activities.

[[Page 73509]]

    In addition to the ``No Action'' alternative, five action 
alternatives have been identifies for consideration:
     An alternative that would include both road removal and 
timber harvest, utilizing small harvest openings that would not result 
in any increase in water yields.
     An alternative that would include both road removal and 
timber harvest, creating harvest openings of at least 5 acres in the 
rain-on-snow zones, to minimize increases in water yields while 
creating openings large enough to re-establish seral species such as 
white pine and western larch.
     An alternative that would include both road removal and 
timber harvest, simulating historical disturbance patterns which 
involve patches larger than 5 acres. These larger harvest units would 
be more economically efficient in terms of harvest and reforestation 
costs.
     An alternative designed to resemble a ``pulse'' event such 
as a large fire, by harvesting at least 1,000 acres in one general 
area, leaving islands or structure similar to the mosaic found after a 
fire. This approach would start the trend toward more resilient timber 
stands with longer-lived seral species, and would result in less 
fragmentation of stands than would harvest utilizing smaller openings 
in greater number.
     An alternative that would accomplish watershed 
rehabilitation work, without timber harvest activities.
    Comments from the public and other agencies will be used in 
preparation of the draft EIS. The scoping process will be used to:
    (1) Identify additional potential issues;
    (2) Eliminate minor issues or those issues which have been covered 
by a relevant previous environmental analysis;
    (3) Identify additional alternatives to the proposed action;
    (4) Identify potential environmental effects of the proposed action 
and alternatives (i.e., direct, indirect and cumulative effects).
    While public participation in this analysis is welcome at any time, 
comments received within 30 days of the publication of this notice will 
be especially useful in the preparation of the draft EIS, which is 
expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency and 
available for public review in March 2000. 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. In addition, the public is encouraged to visit 
with Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior 
to the decision. The Forest Service will be seeking information, 
comments, and assistance from federal, state, and local agencies, the 
Coeur d'Alene Tribe, and other individuals or organizations that may be 
interested in or affected by the proposed action.
    The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal. 
District Ranger Susan Jeheber-Matthews is the responsible official.
    The Forest Service believes it is important at this early stage 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.C. 
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: December 15, 1999.
Susan Jeheber-Matthews,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 99-33984 Filed 12-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M