Clarke Mountain E.I.S.; Clearwater National Forest, Clearwater County, ID

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Clarke Mountain E.I.S.; Clearwater National Forest, Clearwater

County, ID

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact

statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental effects of a proposed

timber harvest in the Clarke Mountain area. There will be some newly

constructed roads to access some of the timber stands. The proposal

also includes fishery and wildlife improvement projects such as

reconstructing several roads, abandoning and/or obliterating several

miles of roads, restricting access on other roads, as well as improving

recreation facilities. An Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) loop trail system

will also be proposed that is approximately 33 miles long, utilizing

several existing roads and trails

The area is located on the Pierce District of the Clearwater

National Forest, Townships 37 and 38 North, Range 7 East, Boise

Meridian.

The purpose of the proposal and subsequent effects analysis is to

meet the intent of the Clearwater Forest Plan, using an ecosystem

management approach for management ares included in the 12,700 acre

treatment area. There are five management areas (MA) within the

analysis area. MA-E1 emphasizes growth and yield of timber, MA-M2

emphasizes protection of riparian resources, MA-C4 emphasizes big-game

winter range along with timber production, MA-C3 emphasizes management

of big-game winter range in areas unsuitable for timber production, and

MA-US are unsuitable areas for timber or big game habitat.

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

in writing September 9, 1996 to receive timely consideration in the

preparation of the draft EIS. The draft EIS will be filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency in November 1996. The final EIS and

Record of Decision is expected to be issued in February 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Douglas Gober, District Ranger,

Pierce Ranger District, Route 2, Box 191, Kamiah, ID 83536.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Palmer, EIS Project Team Leader, (208) 935-2513.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: The responsible official for decisions regarding

this analysis is James L. Caswell, Clearwater National Forest

Supervisor. He will select the preferred alternative based upon the

analysis. His address is 12730 Highway 12, Orofino, ID 83544.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposal includes timber harvest of

varying intensities from precommercial thinnings to clear cuts with

reserve trees. Harvest would amount to about 19 million board feet of

timber from about 1200 acres, and approximately 5 miles of road would

be built and about 15 miles reconstructed. Site-specific riparian

buffers will be developed for each cutting unit and will meet intent of

the Inland Fish Strategy (INFISH).

Because instream conditions are not meeting desired conditions for

cobble embeddedness, erosion sources in the watershed would be

corrected, including stabilizing and/or closing roads that are no

longer needed and reconstructing roads needed for a long term

transportation plan. Live stream crossings would be minimized on any

new road construction.

Approximately 6500 of the 12,700 acre treatment area was acquired

by the Forest Service between 1987 and 1992 in land exchanges with a

private company. The majority of this acquired land had been heavily

roaded and harvested before the Forest Service acquired it.

Functioning old growth areas will be analyzed and designated and

future old growth areas would be planned for and will be on landtypes

and in areas that historically had the best chance of maintaining old

growth on them. Three of these future areas within the Clarke Mountain

treatment area were identified in the Fuzzy Bighorn Environmental

Assessment, but all these areas are several decades away from

functioning as old growth. Presently, the Forest Service would manage

biological corridors, and designate five percent or

[[Page 39117]]

more old growth habitat per 10,000 acre compartment.

Because use is increasing in dispersed camping areas, the Forest

Service would install dispersed camping signs in the analysis area.

Because there are dying stands of white pine, lodgepole pine stands

over 80 years old, several pathogens at work in many stands, a high

fuel buildup in several stands, and other silvicultural treatment needs

in the analysis area, the Forest Service would rehabilitate dying white

pine plantations, salvage dead and dying timber, improve the species

mix through commercial and precommercial thinning, and harvest stands

that have reached maturity while maintaining the old growth component.

Because OHV (Off-Highway Vehicle) use is increasing, and it is

generally hard to find designated areas with semi-primitive type

quality and viewsheds, the Forest Service would create an OHV loop

trial system that would utilize an old jeep road along Elk Mountain

Ridge and improve a route to Clark Mountain Lookout. The trailhead

would be at Cottonwood Flats along Orogrande Creek.

Scoping began internally with an Integrated Resource Analysis, the

findings of which will be incorporated into the Clarke Mtn. EIS.

Scooping will continue with the public with the announcement of this

new proposal and these comments will help:

1. Identify potential issues.

2. Identify major issues to be analyzed in depth.

3. Identify alternatives to the proposed action.

4. Identify potential environmental effects of each alternative.

5. Determine potential cooperating agencies and task assignments.

Some public comments have already been received to date, Internally

identified issues coupled with public concerns, points out the

following issues driving alternatives:

1. The effect of building roads in a ``roadless area''.

2. Regeneration harvest units over 40 acres in size.

3. The economics of planning a viable sale because of the expense

of helicopter logging.

The lead agency for this project is the U.S. Forest Service. The

Forest Service will cooperate with other Country, State, Federal

Agencies and tribes who display an interest in the project, and who

require assessment and concurrence.

The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in November

1996. 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. 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: July 8, 1996.

James L. Caswell,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 96-18989 Filed 7-25-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M