Sand Ecosystem Restoration, Wenatchee National Forest, Chelan County, Washington

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Sand Ecosystem Restoration, Wenatchee National Forest, Chelan

County, Washington

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

[[Page 43502]]

SUMMARY: The Forest Service, USDA, will prepare an environmental impact

statement (EIS) to analyze and disclose the environmental impacts of a

site specific proposal for the Sand Ecosystem Restoration. The proposed

action is 7 miles south of the town of Cashmere, Washington on

approximately 6,000 acres of National Forest System Land in the

Slawson, Sherman, Sand, Little Camas, Poison, Mission, Bear Gulch, and

Fairview Canyon drainages on the Leavenworth Ranger District of the

Wenatchee National Forest. It is partially located within the Devil's

Gulch Roadless Area. The purpose of the EIS will be to develop and

evaluate a range of alternatives for ecosystem restoration activities

within the Sand Planning Area. The objectives include: (1) Reducing the

number of trees in dense stands and (2) reducing fuel loading. To

achieve these objectives the alternatives may include the following

actions: timber harvest; yarding tops; pruning; slash piling;

prescribed burning; pre-commercial thinning; reforestation; seeding;

road construction; and road decommissioning.

The alternatives will include a no action alternative, and at least

one alternative that proposes no action in the Devil's Gulch Roadless

Area. The proposed project will be consistent with direction given in

the Wenatchee National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as

amended by the April 13, 1994, Record of Decision for Amendments to

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within

the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. This Forest Service proposal is

scheduled for implementation in 1998-2003. The agency invites written

comments on the scope of this project. In addition, the agency gives

notice of this analysis so that interested and affected people are

aware of how they may participate and contribute to the final decision.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope and analysis of this proposal must

be received by October 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions concerning the scope

of the analysis to Rebecca Heath, District Ranger, Leavenworth Ranger

District, 600 Sherbourne, Leavenworth, Washington 98826.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions and comments about this EIS should be directed to Bob Stoehr,

Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Leavenworth Ranger District, 600

Sherbourne, Leavenworth, Washington 98826; phone 509-548-6977,

extension 226.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This analysis was prompted by the Mission

Creek Watershed Analysis. This study found that fire exclusion and

other management over the last 90 years have changed many dry forests

from open, parklike stands to very dense and stagnated stands which are

now susceptible to large, intense wildfires as well as bark beetle

infestations. The environmental analysis will look at different ways to

move this part of the Mission Creek Watershed toward a more healthy,

sustainable condition.

The proposed action is to treat approximately 6,000 acres.

Treatments would be made through a combination of activities including:

(1) Thinning of dense stands, and (2) pruning and fuel reduction

through the use of prescribed fire. This proposal will include

helicopter yarding as the primary method of tree removal, and may

require the construction of approximately 4 miles of access roads.

To date, the following key issues have been identified: Remnant

stands of old ponderosa pine; dry forest ecosystem sustainability;

threatened and endangered wildlife species; fire risk; inventoried

roadless area; and economic viability.

The decision to be made through this analysis is where, how, and to

what extent should the various vegetation management and fuels

reduction treatments be implemented within the Sand Planning Area, and

what roading, if any, should occur.

A range of alternatives will be considered, including a no action

alternative, and an alternative that proposes no actions in the Devil's

Gulch Roadless Area. Other alternatives will be developed in response

to relevant issues received during scoping. All alternatives will need

to respond to specific conditions in the Sand Planning Area.

Public participation will be especially important at several points

during the analysis. The Forest Service will be seeking information,

comments, and assistance from Federal, State, tribes, and local

agencies, as well as individuals or organizations who may be interested

in or affected by the proposed actions. This information will be used

in preparation of the draft EIS. The scoping process includes:

1. Identifying potential issues.

2. Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth.

3. Eliminating non-significant issues or those which have been

covered by a relevant previous environmental process.

4. Exploring additional alternatives.

5. Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed

action and alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects

and connected actions).

6. Determining potential cooperating agencies and task assignments.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review in June,

1998. EPA will publish a notice of availability of the draft EIS in the

Federal Register. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days

from the date the EPA notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of

the draft EIS will be distributed to interested and affected agencies,

organizations, tribes, and members of the public for their review and

comment. It is very important that those interested in the management

of the Wenatchee National Forest participate at that time.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues

and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should

be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to

specific pages or chapters of the draft EIS. Comments may also address

the adequacy of the draft EIS 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).

At this early stage, the Forest Service believes it is important to

give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public

participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of

a draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental

review of their 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,

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 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 EIS.

[[Page 43503]]

The final EIS is scheduled to be completed in August 1998. In the

final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to comments and

responses received during the comment period that pertain to the

environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS and applicable

laws, regulations, and policies considered in making the decision

regarding this proposal. Sonny O'Neal, Forest Supervisor, Wenatchee

National Forest, is the responsible official. As the responsible

official he will document the decision and reasons for the decision in

the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to Forest Service

Appeal Regulations 36 CFR Part 215.

Dated: July 28, 1997.

Elton Thomas,

Natural Resources Group Leaders.

[FR Doc. 97-21543 Filed 8-13-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M