West Fork Squaw Timber Sale; Clearwater National Forest, Idaho County, ID

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

West Fork Squaw Timber Sale; Clearwater National Forest, Idaho

County, ID

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will analyze and disclose the environmental

impacts of a proposal to harvest timber, regenerate harvested timber

stands, rehabilitate existing sediment sources, reconstruct existing

roads, and construct new roads in a portion of the West Fork Squaw

Creek and Spring Creek drainages on the Powell Ranger District. An

environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared which will

document the analysis. This EIS will tier to the Clearwater National

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final EIS of September 1987,

which provides overall guidance in achieving the desired condition for

the area. The primary purpose and need of the proposed action is to

implement land management direction for the West Fork Squaw Creek and

Spring Creek drainages. The goal is to develop a viable timber sale

proposal that is compatible with current resource management

objectives.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received

by January 31, 1994, to receive timely consideration in the preparation

of the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS will be filed with the Environmental

Protection Agency by May 1, 1994. The Final EIS and Record of Decision

are expected in November of 1994.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the Responsible Official, Margaret

J. Gorski District Ranger, Powell Ranger District, Powell Ranger

Station, Lolo, Montana 59847.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ralph Johnson, West Fork Squaw

Analysis Interdisciplinary Team Leader, or Margaret J. Gorski, District

Ranger, Powell Ranger District, Lolo, Montana 59847. (208) 942-3113.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The analysis area in which the proposed

management activities would occur consists of approximately 3,650 acres

of National Forest land in the West Fork of Squaw Creek and Spring

Creek drainage on the Powell Ranger District. The study area includes

all or portions of Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 24 of T37N, R12E

and Sections 6, 7, 18, and 19, of T37N, R13E, Boise Meridian, Idaho

County, Idaho.

The Land and Resource Management Plan for the Clearwater National

Forest provides the overall guidance for management activities in the

potentially affected area through its goals, objectives, standards,

guidelines and management area direction. In the West Fork Squaw Creek

analysis area, four Forest Plan Management Areas are found: E1 which

emphasized optimum timber management, M2 which emphasizes protection of

riparian values, A6 which emphasizes the cultural and visual resources

from the historic trail corridor, and US which is lands unsuitable for

timber production. The areas of proposed timber harvest, regeneration

and associated road construction and reconstruction activities are

located in Management Area E1, which emphasizes optimum sustained

timber production.

To date, considerable scoping and analysis has been done in regard

to the proposed action. In April 1991 the staff of the Powell Ranger

District began an Integrated Resource Analysis (IRA) of the West Fork

of Squaw Creek (Silvicultural compartment 621) to identify the existing

and desired conditions. During December of 1991, a Position Statement

was sent to the staff of the Clearwater National Forest, State

agencies, the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, and other known

local interest groups and individuals informing the public of the

analysis and seeking comment. In January 1992, an Interdisciplinary

Team (IDT) was assigned to continue the analysis after receiving a

number of comments during the initial scoping phase. This team

identified the primary issues in February 1992 after reviewing the

input received.

The key issues identified by the Interdisciplinary Team are:

1. Scenery--Proposed logging and road construction may influence,

either positively or negatively, the view from the Lolo Trail Corridor,

which consists of the Lolo motorway, Nez Perce National Historic Trail,

and the Lewis & Clark National Historic Landmark.

2. Fisheries and Water Quality--Proposed logging and road

construction will be analyzed for sediment production and potential

mitigation measures to determine effects on the west fork and mainstem

of Squaw Creek (recently recovered to minimum Forest Plan standards)

affecting the Spring/Summer Chinook salmon and the bull trout.

3. Old Growth, Wildlife, and Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive

Species--

Old Growth--Proposed logging and road construction may reduce the

level of old-growth habitat in the analysis area and further fragment

corridors linking areas of old-growth habitat. Potential Old Growth

stands within or adjacent to proposed activities will be field

verified.

Wildlife--Timber harvesting and road construction may create new

openings, decreasing suitable habitat needed for wildlife. Threatened,

Endangered and Sensitive Species--Timber harvesting and road

construction may affect Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species or

their habitat.

4. Timber Management--Proposed logging may increase overall stand

productivity by removing timber which has reached biological maturity

and by removing timber which is infected with bark beetles and disease

pathogens. Proposed logging would also contribute timber to the local

and National timber supply.

5. Economics--Proposed logging and environmental protection

measures may affect the economic viability of a timber sale offering.

In response to the identified issues and concerns, the IDT has

described four management alternatives. One of these is the ``no-

action'' alternative in which timber harvest, timber stand

regeneration, and road construction/reconstruction activities would not

be implemented. Three other alternatives will examine various levels

and locations of timber harvest, rehabilitation of active sediment

sources, and road construction/reconstruction activity. Various mixes

of timber and non-timber resource values of each alternative will also

be examined.

Under the action alternatives that the Interdisciplinary Team has

described to this point, timber harvest ranges from 1.9 to 3.9 million

board feet (MMBF), with harvest directly affecting from 323 to 472

acres. To access proposed harvest units, up to 0.9 mile of new road

construction and no road reconstruction would be required.

The preliminary analysis indicates that tentative alternatives may

have significant effects to the environment. The Responsible Official,

Margaret J. Gorski, Powell District Ranger, has decided to continue the

analysis and document it with an Environmental Impact Statement. Due to

changed environmental conditions, the proposed action is changed from

the original position statement.

The Forest Service is now seeking further information and comments

from Federal, State, local agencies, and other individuals or

organizations who are interested in or affected by the proposed action.

This additional input will be used in preparing the Draft EIS (DEIS).

The process will include:

1. Identification of additional potential issues.

2. Identification of issues to be analyzed in depth.

3. Elimination of insignificant issues.

4. Identification of additional reasonable alternatives.

5. Identification of potential environmental effects of the

alternatives.

6. Determination of potential cooperating agencies.

The EIS will disclose the environmental effects of alternative ways

of implementing the Forest Plan. The Forest Service will analyze and

document the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the

alternatives. In addition, the EIS will disclose site specific

mitigation measures and their expected effectiveness.

Public participation will be especially important at several points

in the analysis. People are encouraged to visit with Forest Service

officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. A

Final EIS is expected to be filed in November 1994. Two key time

periods have been identified for receipt of formal comments on the

analysis:

1. Scoping period (now through January 1994).

2. Review of the Draft EIS in June 1994.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, will be

informally consulted throughout the analysis. To meet the requirements

of the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will

review the EIS and Biological Assessment of the effects on Threatened

and Endangered species, including the grizzly bear, gray wolf, and fall

chinook salmon.

The DEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and available for public review by May 1994. At that time,

the EPA will publish a Notice of Availability of the DEIS in the

Federal Register. After a 45-day public comment period, the comments

received will be analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in the

final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The FEIS is scheduled to

be completed by November 1994. The Forest Service will respond in the

FEIS to the comments received on the DEIS. The responsible official is

the District Ranger of the Powell Ranger District, Clearwater National

Forest, Lolo, Montana 59847. The decision and reasons for the decision

will be documented in a Record of Decision.

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 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 Agoon 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 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: January 11, 1994.

Margaret J. Gorski,

District Ranger, Powell Ranger District, Clearwater National Forest.

[FR Doc. 94-1526 Filed 1-21-94; 10:00 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M