Lower Eldorado Ecosystem Management Project, Clearwater National Forest, Clearwater County, Idaho

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Lower Eldorado Ecosystem Management Project, Clearwater National

Forest, Clearwater County, Idaho

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 proposed

timber harvest which would remove approximately 18.7 million board feet

of timber from 2,146 acres and build 6.2 miles of new roads. To improve

watershed conditions, the proposal would also close up to 30 miles of

roads in the area which are no longer needed.

The area is located on the Pierce District of the Clearwater

National Forest, Townships 33, 34, and 35 North, Ranges 6 and 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 the 13,995 acre analysis area. Management Areas

(MA) within the analysis area include: MA-E1, emphasizing growth and

yield of timber; MA-C4, emphasizing big game winter range and timber

production; MA-M1, emphasizing research natural areas; MA-M2,

emphasizing riparian management; and MA-A6, emphasizing historic travel

routes.

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

in writing by September 22, 1997.

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

2, Box 191, Kamiah, ID 83536.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lois Hill, EIS Project Team Leader, (208) 935-2513.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In response to the public demand for

sustainable forest management, the Forest Service has developed an

ecologically based, integrated resource approach to the management of

National Forest lands. ``Ecosystem Management'' means recognizing the

complexity and interdependencies of resources within ecosystems, so the

effects of management actions can be predicted and monitored after

activities occur.

A landscape level vegetation assessment was conducted in 1996. The

results indicate that the present species and age class distributions

in this area would not have occurred under natural conditions. Large

numbers of small trees are present, due to over fifty years of wildfire

suppression. Crowded stands are susceptible to root rot pathogens, bark

beetles, defoliators, and dwarf mistletoe. The loss of western white

pine through blister rust, along with fire suppression, has led to a

percentage of grand fir in many stands which is much higher than that

which occurred historically. The 1996 assessment also indicated that

late mature stands are lacking in this area, and often occur in smaller

patches than would have occurred naturally. Natural patch sizes in this

area ranged up to 20,000 acres.

The proposed action is designed to restore terrestrial and aquatic

ecosystem health, and to provide benefits to people within the

capabilities of the ecosystem. Vegetation treatments to reintroduce

western white pine would be considered. Prescribed regeneration and

intermediate harvest would improve forest composition and function.

Commercial and precommercial thinning would improve species

composition, moving toward a mix more consistent with historical

conditions. Intermediate treatments in over-stocked, stressed sites

would target grand fir, while maintaining desirable seral species such

as western white pine, ponderosa pine, and western larch. Silvicultural

management practices would be analyzed for their potential to keep old

stands longer. Dead and dying timber in the area would be salvaged.

The proposal includes timber harvest of varying intensities, from

rehabilitation only (slashing nonmerchantable dead trees and

replanting) to clearcuts with reserve trees. Harvest practices may not

follow traditional unit configurations or prescriptions. The natural

changes in tree densities, natural history, and health of the landscape

will dictate how areas would be treated. Biological corridors and

riparian areas in the natural landscape would be considered, as well as

human imposed landscapes and restrictions such as visual quality

corridors, cultural sites, and recreation areas. Harvest prescriptions

may be scattered, span large areas, or overlap.

Because some streams in the area are not meeting desired instream

conditions for cobble embeddedness, erosion sources in the watershed

would be corrected by closing and stabilizing roads that are no longer

needed. Culvert replacements, riparian planting, instream rock and

woody debris clusters, channel constriction structures, log drop

structures. and sediment traps would be proposed to improve fish

habitat conditions or accessibility. The proposal would also include

riparian planting to improve stream shading and woody debris

availability.

Views from the Lewis and Clark trail, which runs through a portion

of the analysis area, would be protected through site specific

silvicultural prescriptions.

The decision to be made is what, if anything, should be done to

address the following issues in the Lower Eldorado Project Area: (a)

Treating vegetation to respond to concerns about overly dense stands;

(b) increasing patch sizes to more closely resemble landscape patterns

that occurred historically, while retaining as much of the late

successional component as possible; (c) preserving scenic quality near

the Lewis and Clark trail for the long term; (d) managing the road

system to improve watershed conditions while maintaining an adequate

long term transportation system in the area; and (e) increasing timber

productivity and contributing to the Forest's sustained yield of timber

products.

Preliminary alternatives to the proposed action have been developed

in response to issues raised during internal scoping. They include: (a)

An alternative which would propose no timber harvest adjacent to the

Lewis and Clark Trail; (b) an alternative which would minimize new road

construction; and (c) an alternative which would reduce overabundant

immature and mature stands in the Lolo drainage;

[[Page 42740]]

Public participation will be an important part of the analysis.

Internal scoping began with the development of the Pierce Ranger

District Five Year Plan in early January, 1997. External scoping will

begin with this notice. Public meetings to announce this proposal,

including at least one field review of the project area, will be

scheduled between July and September of 1997. Issues which emerge from

internal and external scoping will be used to develop additional

alternatives to this proposal.

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

Forest Service will cooperate with other Federal agencies, as well as

County, State, and tribal governments who display an interest in the

project, and who require assessment and concurrence.

The responsible official for decisions regarding this analysis is

James Caswell, Clearwater National Forest Supervisor. His address is

12730 Highway 12, Orofino, ID 83544.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in January,

1998. At that time, the EPA will publish a Notice of Availability of

the draft EIS in the Federal Register. 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 final EIS is scheduled to be completed by

May, 1998.

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 Angoon 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 impact statement or the merits of the alternatives

formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer

to the Council on Environmental Regulations for implementing the

procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 40

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names

and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the

public record on this proposed action and will be available for public

inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and

considered; however, whose who submit anonymous comments will not have

standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR part 215 or

217.

Dated: July 31, 1997.

James L. Caswell,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 97-20932 Filed 8-7-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M