Charlie Tyson Project; Idaho Panhandle National Forests, St. Maries Ranger District, Benewah County, Idaho

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Charlie Tyson Project; Idaho Panhandle National Forests, St.

Maries Ranger District, Benewah County, Idaho

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Forest Service is gathering

information to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This

EIS is proposing management activities designed to move the Charlie

Tyson project area toward its desired future condition, a healthy and

diverse ecosystem. Desired future condition goals specific to the

project area were developed by an interdisciplinary team for the

purpose of maintaining ecosystem productivity and diversity while

incorporating human values and needs. The goals for this project area

are listed below:

1. The first goal is to provide vegetation patterns and natural

variability that include important components within the range of

historic levels. Using historic vegetation patterns as a reference

point, the project will strive to maintain more mature timber (80+

years old) in larger patches than currently exist in the project area.

To maintain historic natural variability for the project area, the

project will strive to promote more canopy layers and more species

components. This entails perpetuating seral tree species, subalpine

fir/spruce, quaking aspen and open ridge tops with large ponderosa

pine. This shift toward the historic range of vegetation patterns also

entails maintaining riparian area with stable stream channels and fish

habitats supporting viable populations of desired fish species; thus

the area would be fully supporting beneficial uses.

2. The second goal is to incorporate additional human values and

needs by providing commercial wood products, a long range

transportation plan where only essential roads for land management

exist, a visually attractive landscape, a diverse array of recreational

activities and maintaining existing grazing allotments. There are areas

with past clearcut harvest units that detract from the visual

attractiveness of the landscape; the harsh edges of these clearcuts

could be softened by partial cutting. For recreation, emphasis for this

area is on dispersed use and trail development; unauthorized trail use

will be addressed and three historic Forest Service trails could be

added to the trail system.

3. The third goal is to maintain wildlife habitats. Currently, the

project area has a lack of quality security for wildlife. Activities

proposed will include restricting trail and road access for various

kinds of users.

It will take time to implement the desired future condition

described above; proposed management activities would entail using

techniques to shift the project area toward desired future condition.

Management techniques would include prescribed fire, timber harvesting,

road building, road use restrictions and closures, wildlife security

area(s), watershed/fish habitat improvements and trail development. The

Forest Service estimates that this proposed action would include: 415

acres of underburning, 2773 acres of timber harvesting (commercial

thinning--1892 acres, group selection--46 acres, irregular

shelterwood--381 acres, group shelterwood--403 acres, seedtree--20

acres, clearcutting--31 acres), 10.6 miles of new road construction,

1.7 road miles taken off the road system and a 6200 acre area closure

to all motorized vehicles in the Charlie-Preston drainages (providing

5000 acres of wildlife security). The proposed action also entails

implementing fish/watershed improvement projects in the East Fork of

Charlie, Preston and Brown Creeks and adding three historic Forest

Service Trails back on the trail system for maintenance.

DATES: Written comments concerning the scope of this analysis must be

received within 30 days from the date of this publication in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to District Ranger, St. Maries Ranger

District, P.O. Box 407, St. Maries, ID 83861.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about the proposed action

and EIS should be directed to Tracy J. Gravelle, St. Maries Ranger

District, Phone: 208-245-2531.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Charlie Tyson project area lies within

Benewah County, Idaho and encompasses the Charlie Creek drainage. It is

located approximately 1 air mile south of Emida, Idaho. The project

area contains 18,100 acres of which approximately 14,400 acres are

administered by the Forest Service. Management activities would be

administered by the St. Maries Ranger District of the Idaho Panhandle

National Forests. This EIS will tier to the Forest Plan (September

1987) which provides overall guidance for the Idaho Panhandle National

Forests in terms of Goals, Objectives, Standards and Guidelines, and

Management Area direction.

Preliminary scoping, including public and other agency

participation, was initiated in August 1991 and has recommenced this

year. A public meeting for the area was held on September 4, 1991 in

St. Maries, Idaho. An additional public open house was held in the town

of Emida, Idaho on [[Page 24830]] January 19, 1994. Two periods of time

are identified for the receipt of comments on this analysis. These two

public comment periods are: During this scoping process and the period

between draft and final environmental impact statements. Comments

received within 30 days from the date of this publication (Federal

Register) will be especially useful in the preparation of the draft

EIS.

Several issues have been identified from scoping, field surveys and

reconnaissance. The principal issues identified to date are:

1. The vegetation patterns and species composition of the area do

not mimic the natural variability noted from data compiled in the early

1900's.

2. There is a lack of quality wildlife security which is

perpetuated by existing road management and well established All

Terrain Vehicle use in the project area.

3. The forest surrounding the project area is fairly well

fragmented.

4. There are areas with past clearcut harvest units that detract

from the visual attractiveness of the landscape.

5. There is unauthorized trail building in the area.

6. The old Forest Service Nakarna-Tyson (#338), Eena Creek (#337)

and Moolock Creek (#320) trails lie within the project area. These

trails are still being used by the public and are in good condition.

This is an opportunity to put this trail back on the system.

7. There are some areas needing watershed/fish habitat

rehabilitation and this is an opportunity to complete this work. In

addition, if management activities were to be implemented, what would

be potential impacts on the fish habitat, water quality and stream

channel equilibrium.

8. If management activities were to be implemented, what would be

the potential impacts on wildlife habitats.

9. How much sustainable timber harvest is available from the

project area.

10. The local community has voiced their concern over availability

of small timber sales. These sales enable smaller timber operators the

opportunity to purchase timber sales.

Development of alternatives is underway. The analysis will consider

the No Action alternative in addition to the proposed action (described

above) and two alternative actions. The two alternative actions would

respond in varying degrees to the purpose and need defined above. These

two alternatives are as follows:

1. One alternative would confine proposed timber management

activities to areas which can be reached by existing roads, i.e. no new

system roads would be necessary. This proposal would include

underburning, timber harvesting, a wildlife security area in the

Charlie-Preston Creek drainages, watershed/fish improvements and trail

development. Potential harvest units for this alternative present many

small sale opportunities.

2. One alternative is being proposed for management activities that

are limited to certain areas of the project area. This addresses the

wildlife security issue for a different part of the project area. This

alternative would include underburning, timber harvesting, road

construction, potential road obliteration, a wildlife security area in

the Eena, Moolock, Brown, Pamas and Short Creek drainages, watershed/

fish improvements and trail development. Potential harvest units for

this alternative present many small sale opportunities.

The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers

notice at this early stage 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 EIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the

final EIS 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. 334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Reviewers may

wish to refer to CEQ regulations 40 CFR 1503.3.

The draft environmental impact statement should be available for

public review in May, 1994. The final EIS is scheduled to be completed

by September, 1994. The District Ranger, who is the responsible

official for this EIS, will make a decision regarding this proposal.

This decision and reasons for the decision will be documented in a

Record of Decision.

Dated: March 3, 1995.

Bradley J. Gilbert,

District Ranger, St. Maries Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National

Forests.

The policy of the USDA Forest Service prohibits discrimination on

the basis of race, color, national origin, age, religion, sex

disability, familial status, or political affiliation. People believing

they have been discriminated against in any Forest Service related

activity should write to: Chief, Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96090,

Washington, DC 20090-6090.

[FR Doc. 95-11451 Filed 5-9-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M