[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16465-16466]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-8176]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Suction Dredging EIS--Clearwater National Forest; Clearwater 
National Forest, Clearwater County and Idaho County, ID

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental effects of proposed 
suction dredge mining activities in portions of Lolo Creek and Moose 
Creek (tributary to Kelly Creek). The proposed action would authorize 
issuance of permits for 29 recreational mining operations. In 2002, 
Clearwater National Forest biological analyses determined that the 
proposed suction dredging was likely to adversely affect steelhead 
trout in the Lolo Creek drainage and bull trout in the Moose Creek 
drainage.
    Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 228 subpart A sets forth rules 
and procedures for use of the surface of National Forest System Lands 
in connection with mineral operations. The regulations direct the 
Forest Service to prepare the appropriate level of National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and documentation when 
proposed operations may significantly affect surface resources. These 
regulations do not allow the Forest Service to deny entry or preempt 
the miners' statutory right granted under the 1872 Mining Law. The 36 
CFR 228 regulations include requirement for reclamation.
    The purpose of this proposed action is to authorize suction dredge 
operations on Lolo Creek and Moose Creek with minimal adverse 
environmental effects, and to efficiently fulfill the requirement in 36 
CFR 228.4(f) for conducting environmental analyses on mining Plans of 
Operations to determine reasonable measures to protect surface 
resources on National Forest System lands within the context of the 
laws. The need for the action is to facilitate efficient and timely 
approval of Plans of Operation for suction dredging, while minimizing 
or preventing adverse impacts related to or incidental to mining by 
imposing reasonable conditions that do not materially interfere with 
operations.
    Preliminary issues identified by the interdisciplinary team include 
the effects of the proposed action on tribal treaty rights, recreation, 
all species within fisheries habitat (including threatened species), 
the adjacent riparian area, and water quality. Terms and conditions, 
and alternatives to the proposed action will be analyzed to address 
these issues and others that may surface during public scoping.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing within 30 days from publication of this notice to receive 
timely consideration in the preparation of the draft EIS. The draft EIS 
is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency in 
September 2003. The final EIS and Record of Decision are expected to be 
issued in December 2003.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Forest Supervisor, Clearwater 
National Forest, ATTN: Vern Bretz, 12730 Highway 12, Orofino, Idaho 
83544.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vern Bretz at the above address or 
telephone (208) 476-8322, fax (208) 476-8329.
    Responsible Official: The responsible official for decisions 
regarding this analysis is Larry J. Dawson, Clearwater National Forest 
Supervisor. His address is 12730 Highway 12, Orofino, Idaho, 83544. He 
will decide which set of terms and conditions, when included as 
operational procedures in suction dredge Plan of Operations, will allow 
for increased protection of threatened fish species, stream channel 
features, and water quality while still providing for the type of 
mining most claimants pursue on this Forest.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The twenty-nine suction dredge proposals 
being analyzed are ``recreational classed'' dredges with nozzle 
diameters of 5 inches or less and are equipped with 15 horsepower motor 
or less.
    In 1997, steelhead trout were listed as a threatened species under 
the Endangered Species Act; bull trout were listed as threatened in 
1998. Because of the potential significance of suction dredging in 
waters with threatened species, suction dredge operators are required 
to file a plan of operations with the Forest Service. Forest Service 
regulations, found in 36 CFR 228, require that each plan of operation 
be analyzed to determine terms and conditions necessary for protection 
of surface resources prior to approval of the plan. The Clearwater 
National Forest is also required under section 7 of the Endangered 
Species Act to consult with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) about any activity that may 
affect a listed species; in this case, the effect of suction dredging 
in streams and rivers with threatened steelhead trout and bull trout. 
NMFS and FWS 2003 Biological Opinions further state that although 
recreational classed suction dredges are likely to adversely affect the 
listed fish, dredging with small suction dredges would not jeopardize 
either species if several terms and conditions were adhered to. For 
example, the terms and conditions may include, but are not limited to:
    1. A July 1 to August 15 dredge season. The timing of the dredge 
activity from July 1 to August 15 minimizes the likelihood of steelhead 
trout or bull trout being present.
    2. Dredge sites will be located in areas of large substrate not 
preferred for spawning steelhead trout and bull trout.
    3. A Forest Service fisheries biologist will inspect proposed 
dredge sites prior to dredging.
    4. No mechanized equipment will be allowed to operate below the 
mean high water mark except for the dredge itself and any life support 
system necessary to operate the dredge.
    5. Dredging shall be done in a manner so as to prevent the 
undercutting of stream banks.
    6. Only one mining site per one hundred (100) lineal feet of stream 
channel shall be worked at one time.
    7. Such dredges will not operate in the gravel bar areas at the 
tails of pools.
    8. Suction dredge operators will not operate in such a way that 
fine sediment from the dredge discharge blankets gravel bars.
    9. Dredge operators will not operate in such a way that the current 
is directed into the bank causing erosion or destruction of the natural 
form of the channel.

[[Page 16466]]

    10. Dredging and processing of stream bank materials will not be 
permitted, and large woody debris cannot be moved during mining 
operations.
    11. All petroleum products will be stored in spill proof containers 
at a location that minimizes the opportunity for accidental spillage.
    13. Dredge operators will anchor the suction dredge to the stream 
bank when refueling in the water. To minimize accidental spillage, 
transfer no more that one-gallon of fuel at a time during refilling, 
and place absorbent material under the tank while refueling to catch 
any spillage.
    14. Dredge operators will disperse all dredge piles and back-fill 
all dredge holes by the end of the operating season (August 15).
    Public participation will be an important part of this analysis. 
Issues that emerge from public scoping will be used to develop 
additional alternatives to this proposal. Methods being used to solicit 
public comment include news releases, weekly radio interviews, and 
newsletters. A web page for this project can be accessed by logging on 
to: http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/clearwater
    The lead agency for this project is the U.S. Forest Service. The 
Forest Service will consult with the Nez Perce Tribe, County, State, 
and Federal agencies that display an interest in the project.
    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 at 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, those who submit anonymous comments will not have 
standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR part 215.

    Dated: March 20, 2003.
Larry J. Dawson,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 03-8176 Filed 4-3-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M