[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plains, large areas of regeneration harvests, outdated skidding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
