[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30869-30871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11355]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Payette National Forest, ID; Upper Bear Timber Sale

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service will prepare the Upper Bear Timber 
Sale environmental impact statement (EIS). The proposed action in its 
EIS is to reduce fuels within a ``fuels reduction zone'' (FRZ), manage 
forest vegetation, and manage roads. The EIS will analyze the effects 
of the proposed action and alternatives. The agency gives notice of the 
full National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and decision 
making process on the proposal so interested and affected members of 
the public may participate and contribute to the final decision. The 
Payette National Forest invites written comments and suggestions on the 
scope of the analysis and the issues of address.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by June 8, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Faye L. Krueger, Council District 
Ranger at P.O. Box 567, Council, Idaho, 83612.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about the proposed project 
and scope of analysis should be directed to Alan R. Dohmen, Team 
Leader, at the above address, or phone at (208) 253-0100.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The analysis area is about 25 air miles 
north-northwest of Council, Idaho, in Adams County. The area can be 
reached by taking Forest Road #110 (Bear Creek) via Forest Roads #105 
(Landore Road) and #002 (Council-Cuprum Road). The project area 
consists of National Forest Systems lands located in all or portions of 
sections 1-11, 16-18, 22-19 and 32-36, Township 5S, Range 2W, Boise 
Meridian. It is located entirely within the 11,000-acre Upper Bear 
subwatershed, and a small portion of the 9,500-acre Middle Bear 
subwatershed. The proposed action will be in compliance with the 
Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan 
of 1988), as amended, which provides overall guidance for management of 
this area.

Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose and need for the proposed action is to: (1) Improve 
timber stand growth and yield; (2) Reduce the incidence and hazard of 
insect and disease in timbered stands through harvest and salvage, (3) 
Reduce

[[Page 30870]]

the risk of wildland fire to forestland, investments, adjacent private 
lands, and facilities, and (4) Reduce the potential of sediment 
delivery to Bear Creek from roads, and eliminate roads unneeded for 
future management. The proposal has three main objectives it would 
achieve. It would: (1) Reduce the risk of extreme fire behavior (crown 
fire) in the Upper and Middle Bear drainages. This in turn would: (a) 
Reduce the risk that wildfire would damage and/or destroy tree 
plantations in the Bear Creek drainage, thereby maintaining past 
investments; (b) protect structures located at the Bear Work Center; 
(c) provide an area that would allow firefighters to safely suppress an 
escaped wildfire; and (d) provide a foundation to expand future fuels 
reduction activities into other portions of the Upper Bear drainage. 
(2) Reduce overstocked timber stands and plantations through timber 
harvest and thinning. This in turn would: (a) Improve seral tree 
species health and decrease opportunities for insect and disease 
outbreaks; (b) improve tree growth by reducing the competition between 
trees for sunlight, moisture, and nutrients, (c) reforest with seral 
tree species, and (d) contribute to the Council District's portion of 
the Payette National Forest allowable sale quantity. (3) Design a 
transportation system that responds to human access needs while 
reducing impacts and improving watershed conditions for hydrologic 
function, soil productivity, and fisheries and wildlife habitat. This 
in turn would: (a) Improve the hydrological function and productivity 
on soils committed to roads that may no longer be needed for future 
management, (b) reduce current and potential sediment delivery to 
streams from roads, especially within Riparian Conservation Areas 
(RCAs), (c) improve fish passage at road crossings, (d) avoid 
management activities that have the potential to increase temperatures 
in Wildhorse River; a downstream; 303(d) listed Waterbody; (e) avoid 
additional cumulative impacts to the Snake River; a downstream 303(d) 
listed Waterbody, and (f) manage open densities to maintain the Forest 
Plan Elk Habitat Effectiveness (EHE) rating in Issue Reporting Area 
(IRA) 112, and improve the Forest Plan EHE rating in IRA 114.

Proposed Action

    The Proposed Action would reduce fuels, manage forest vegetation, 
and manage roads. (1) Reduce Fuels--Use silvicultural treatments that 
use mechanical thinning and prescribed fire on 820 acres to create a 
``fuels reduction zone'' (FRZ). Within the FRZ, thinning of trees is 
proposed on 643 acres and underburning on the entire 820 acre. A range 
of 32 to 38 trees per acre is planned to be retained in this FRZ, which 
would differ from that planned in other harvest units. (2) Manage 
Forest Vegetation--(a) Use ground-based, skyline, and helicopter 
yarding systems to harvest timber on appropriately 980 acres, of which 
280 acres are within the FRZ. The harvest prescriptions would encompass 
780 acres of reserve tree (retain 3-10 healthy seral trees per acre), 
110 acres of shelterwood seed-cut (retain 10-15 healthy seral trees per 
acre), 90 acres of commercial thin, and an additional 680 acres of 
precommercial thin. Reforestation treatments would include 775 acres, 
of which approximately 370 acres would require plantation fencing. (b) 
Reduce generated fuels and/or prepare sites for planting by 
underburning or piling and burning of logging slash. (3) Manage Roads--
(a) Construct 4.5 miles of new roads (close following project 
implementation), and decommission 11.9 miles of existing roads. (b) 
Close year-round approximately 8.5 miles of road that are currently 
open year-round and/or seasonally.

Responsible Official

    The responsible official is the Forest Supervisor of the Payette 
National Forest.

Scoping Process

    Public notices have placed in local and regional newspapers. A 
public meeting is anticipated to occur following issuance of the draft 
EIS. The meeting will be announced in the Payette National forest's 
newspaper of record, the Idaho Statesman, Boise, Idaho.

Preliminary Issues

    (1) Water Quality--Prescribed fire, road construction, and timber 
harvest have the potential to increase erosion and sedimentation in the 
Upper Bear Subwatershed. Cumulative impacts from these activities also 
have the potential to affect beneficial uses in the 303(d) listed Water 
bodies downstream of the project. Increased road density reduces the 
geomorphic integrity of the watershed and increases the likelihood of 
road related erosion. (2) Fisheries--The proposed activities may 
increase sediment levels and affect aquatic habit for fish, 
particularly habitat for bull trout in the upper Bear Creek watershed. 
Some culverts may restrict fish passage. (3) Wildlife Habitat--Goshawks 
are known to nest in or around habitat similar to what is present in 
the project area. Prescribed fire and timer harvest activities can 
affect nest sites. Flammulated owls and white-headed woodpeckers are 
known to use old, large-diameter Ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir 
habitiat, which is in short supply in the project area. Proposed 
activities can affect nesting and foraging areas. Historically, the 
project area may have provided habitat for mountain quail. Proposed 
activities may affect potentially limited habitat for this and other 
species that use forested riparian habitat. Snag habitat may be in 
short supply in and around previous harvests units and along roads. 
Sufficient snag habitat must be retained where possible. (4) Noxious 
Weeds--Disturbance from new road construction, timber harvest, and 
burning could allow noxious weeds to become established and/or spread 
in the project area. (5) Recreation--The public uses the Bear Creek and 
Council-Cuprum Roads for recreational driving during the summer and 
fall. The quality of this recreational experience could be affected by 
the removal of timer, logging activity, log truck traffic, road 
closures and road decommissioning, prescribed burning activities, and 
smoke. (6) Road Construction and Decommissioning--New road construction 
can allow for improved access, but may also affect other resource 
values such as fisheries, water quality, and wildlife habitat.
    Design features for the Proposed Action will help reduce or 
eliminate other possible impacts (visual resource, heritage resources, 
water quality, soils, fisheries, wildlife, etc.).

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Environmental 
Review

    A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for 
comment. 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 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,

[[Page 30871]]

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 
raised by 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: May 1, 2002.
Robert S. Giles,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 02-11355 Filed 5-7-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M