Deadwood Ecosystem Analysis `96, Boise National Forest, Idaho

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Deadwood Ecosystem Analysis `96, Boise National Forest, Idaho

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Lowman Ranger District of the Boise National Forest will

prepare an environmental impact statement on a proposal to treat 22,910

acres within the 44,552 acre Deadwood Ecosystem Analysis `96 Project

Area through timber harvest, precommercial thinning and/or prescribed

fire. The proposal would reduce stand densities and alter tree species

composition to favor densities and tree species which are resistant

and/or resilient to wildfire, insect attack, and disease.

It is believed that density reduction and reintroduction of fire

will improve the resistance and resilience of stands. Through

treatment, these stands would be maintained in the early seral state.

Stands in early seral condition have a high proportion of shade

intolerant tree species which are resistant to insect and disease

attack and capable of withstanding catastrophic fire.

The proposal includes construction of 11.2 miles of road within the

Deadwood Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA).

The Deadwood River drainage is located in the west-central

mountains of Idaho, in Boise and Valley Counties, Townships 9-11 North

and Ranges 6-8 East, Boise Meridian. Preliminary analysis has

demonstrated that large numbers of stands are at risk from insect and

disease epidemics and catastrophic wildfires. The Deadwood Ecosystem

Analysis `96 timber sale proposes to treat timber stands in the

southern portion of the Deadwood River drainage to reduce densities and

increase stand diversity and, as a by-product of this vegetative

manipulation, provide wood fiber to the local economy.

Stands in the southern portion of the Deadwood River drainage were

chosen for priority treatment because they are warmer and drier than

stands in the northern portion. The southern portion has been

identified by the Boise National Forest Hazard and Risk Assessment as

at risk to catastrophic wildfire. Fire suppression and a limited amount

of logging have been concentrated in this area. As a result, the stands

(which previously had a fire return interval of approximately 20 years)

have not burned as frequently as necessary to maintain resistance and

resilience. In an effort to maintain ponderosa pine, an early seral

species, within this ecosystem, stands capable of growing ponderosa

pine have been selected for treatment. Additional stands which would

not normally contain ponderosa pine will be treated to break up dense

overstories and reduce stress, increasing growth rates and reducing the

threat of insect attack and diseases and reducing the potential for

catastrophic fires.

Proposed Action

Prescribed Fire Only--3,690 acres--to reduce on the ground fuels

and stand densities. Burning would be at low intensity designed to stay

on the ground and kill smaller trees. Some openings would be created,

and a few areas may burn at moderate intensity, killing some larger

trees. This includes 1,840 acres of the eligible Wild and Scenic river

corridor.

Sanitation Salvage then Prescribed Fire--9,230 acres--to salvage

dead, dying, insect infested and diseased trees. Dense pockets of trees

in these stands would be thinned from below to remove the least fire

resistant trees followed by prescribed fire.

Sanitation/Salvage with Precommercial Thinning Favoring Ponderosa

Pine then Douglas-fir--900 acres--Dwarf mistletoe or bark beetle

infested Douglas-fir stands would have the overstory removed except for

those trees necessary for wildlife or large woody debris. There may be

\1/2\ to 3 acre openings created in heavily mistletoe infected and root

rot affected areas. The understory will be precommercially thinned at a

spacing which will range from 12 to 20 feet, depending on tree size.

This precommercial thinning will retain ponderosa pine trees whenever

available. If possible, fire will be used after the treatment.

Approximately 7,530 acres will be treated by selecting leave trees

to create an uneven-aged stand primarily occupied by relatively large

ponderosa

[[Page 41564]]

pine trees which are capable of producing seed for reproduction. Basal

areas in these stands will be reduced to increase the resistance and

resilience of the stands. These stands have been determined to be at

risk to insects and disease attacks. By reducing densities, insect and

disease infested trees, and/or trees of a certain species which may

cause a stand to be unhealthy, the growth of the stands will improve

and stress will be reduced. This treatment, described as ``thinning

from below'' will be accomplished in the following ways:

1. Stands with several age/size classes of primarily ponderosa pine

would be treated with density reduction. Young trees (8-14 inches

d.b.h.) would be thinned to increase growth potential and reduce

overcrowding. Trees in the 14- to 24-inch diameter class would also be

thinned to encourage seed production. Some trees larger than 24 inches

in diameter would be harvested if they show signs of disease, decay, or

insect infestation. In areas where adequate ponderosa pine trees exist

in all age/size classes, a small portion of large trees may be

harvested to improve spacing and increase the economic viability of the

timber sale.

2. In stands that contain a mix of species, the action would remove

primarily Douglas-fir, allowing the ponderosa pine sufficient room to

grow and reducing competition and stress within the stands.

3. Other stands are capable of growing ponderosa pine, but do not

currently contain ponderosa pine due to successional changes. These

stands currently contain primarily Douglas-fir. Where practical, stands

would be treated to remove Douglas-fir and replanted with ponderosa

pine. These activities would occur in small pockets where annosus root

rot and dwarf mistletoe are occurring.

Precommercial and Commercial Thinning Favoring Lodgepole Pine--500

acres--thinned to 11-foot spacing. Slash will be jackpot burned.

Two to Five Acre Clearcuts--300 Total Acres--Small clearcuts would

be used to break up the stands that have a continuous crown, remove the

subalpine fir, and make the stands more resistant to natural fire.

Stands would regenerate themselves with lodgepole pine.

Prescribed Fire in Subalpine Fir Habitats--700 acres--break up

stands of dense subalpine fir which are highly susceptible to large

stand destroying fires.

All treated stands would be prescribed burned following timber

harvest or precommercial thinning. The prescribed fire would reduce

fuels and reduce the proportion of late seral tree species which are

more susceptible to fire.

Issues and Alternatives

Previous scoping and public meetings have identified several

issues. These issues include:

1. Road construction in the Deadwood IRA would develop the roadless

area and reduce the acres that have a roadless character.

2. Logging activities in the Deadwood IRA would develop the

roadless area and reduce acres that have a roadless character.

An alternative to eliminate the proposed road construction in the

Deadwood IRA will be analyzed in detail.

Comments

Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received in

writing on or before September 9, 1996. Mail comments to, or for

further information contact, Jackie Andrew, Lowman Ranger District,

Boise National Forest, HC 77 Box 3020, Lowman, ID 83637, Telephone:

208-259-3361.

Public Involvement

The Deadwood Ecosystem Analysis '96 Project was proposed as a

result of the Deadwood Landscape Analysis, completed in 1994. The

Deadwood Landscape Analysis sought to analyze the current conditions

within the Deadwood River drainage in contrast to the conditions

believed to exist prior to logging, fire suppression, and drought which

may have affected those conditions. This analysis was performed to

comply with the National Forest Management Act. The analysis suggested

that vegetative manipulation was warranted to restore the resistance

and resilience of the ecosystem to catastrophic events such as fire,

disease, and insect attack. Initial plans were to include all proposals

for the Deadwood River drainage in a single Environmental Impact

Statement. However, due to the complexity of the analysis, the area was

divided into several project level environmental impact statements. In

July 1995, P.L. 104-19 (Rescission Act) was signed into law. Since the

Deadwood project contained an identifiable salvage component, the

project was placed under the Rescission Act. The first project area to

be analyzed was the southern portion, for which the Deadwood Salvage

'96 Environmental Assessment was prepared. It was distributed for

comment in April 1996. The Secretary of Agriculture issued

clarification in July 1996. As a result, Forest Supervisor David D.

Rittenhouse has removed the Deadwood Salvage '96 project area from

consideration under the Rescission Act. The Deadwood Ecosystem Analysis

'96 project includes the same area analyzed as the Deadwood Salvage '96

Environmental Assessment.

Numerous public mailings, meetings and site visits were conducted

to collect public comment and concerns during the preparation of the

Landscape Analysis and Environmental Assessment.

Public/Agency Contacts

Contacts have been made with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

regarding threatened and endangered species listed for the project

area, and landowners in or near the project area. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service has concurred with the Forest Service determination

that the proposed action is not likely to affect threatened or

endangered species.

Schedule

A Draft Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be

distributed in September 1996. The Final Environmental Impact Statement

and Record of Decision is expected to be complete 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 stage but that are not raised until after

the completion of the final environmental impact statement may be

waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angood 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 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

[[Page 41565]]

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.

Responsible Official

David D. Rittenhouse, Forest Supervisor, Boise National Forest is

the responsible official. He will decide if the area should be managed

to reduce the risk of insect attack, disease, and wildfire and, if so,

which proposal for treatment will be implemented.

Dated: August 5, 1996.

David D. Rittenhouse,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 96-20324 Filed 8-8-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M