Quartzite Watershed Management Project, Colville National Forest, Stevens County, Washington

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Quartzite Watershed Management Project, Colville National Forest,

Stevens County, Washington

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service, USDA, as lead agency, will prepare an

environmental impact statement (EIS) on a proposal to conduct

vegetation and road management, and implement riparian and wetland

management. The Proposed Action will be in compliance with the 1988

Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest

Plan) as amended, which provides the overall guidance for management of

this area. The Proposed Action is within portions of the Thomason

Creek, Sherwood Creek, and Upper Cottonwood Creek drainages on the

Colville Ranger District and is scheduled for implementation in fiscal

year 2001. The Forest Service invites written comments and suggestions

on the scope of the analysis. The agency will give notice of the full

environmental analysis and decision making process so interested and

affected people may be able to participate and contribute in the final

decision.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be

postmarked by September 3, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments and suggestions concerning the

management of this area to Catherine H. Lay, Acting District Ranger,

255 West 11th Kettle Falls, Washington, 99141.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about the Proposed Action

and EIS should be directed to Catherine H. Lay, Acting District Ranger,

or to Ed Shaw, Planner, 755 S. Main Street, Colville, Washington 99114

(phone: 509-684-7000).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As a result of ecosystem analysis, the

Colville National Forest is proposing watershed management activities

in the Quartzite Watershed. We recently completed the Quartzite

Ecosystem Analysis, an analysis that considered all lands within the

Thomason, Sherwood, and Upper Cottonwood drainages. One of the key

findings of the analysis is that fire exclusion has changed forest

vegetation. These changes in upland forest density, understory

composition, and tree species have increased forest susceptibility to

insects, disease, drought and atypical fire. The objective of

vegetation management proposals is to improve ecosystem integrity by

moving the vegetation toward the natural range of variation; by

developing forest matrix, patches and corridors that are consistent

with fire landscapes; and by improving the landscape patterns of native

species habitats. A second ecosystem analysis finding is that

vegetation diversity and in-stream fish habitat in low elevation

riparian areas has deteriorated. The objective of riparian and wetland

management is to improve ecosystem integrity by increasing the

diversity of vegetation, and by improving in-stream fish habitat in low

elevation riparian areas. A third ecosystem analysis finding concerns

roads. Forest roads provide access to conduct needed management. The

benefits of forest roads are many. However, the ecosystem analysis

notes that road corridors create habitat for noxious weeds that

displace native plants. They also have introduced change to a variety

of wildlife habitats. The connectiveity of wildlife travel corridors

has been disrupted in many places where roads cross riparian areas. In

addition, road access has fragmented seclusion habitat for large home

range vertebrates. Objectives for road management proposals are to

upgrade, maintain and develop those roads which are necessary for long-

term land management and important to public access, and to eliminate

unneeded roads.

The Proposed Action includes vegetation management using pre-

commercial and commercial thinning and harvest on about 4,600 acres.

Prescribed Fire would be used on up to 6,500 acres. A variety of road

management activities are included. To increase vegetation management

feasibility the proposed action includes 11.5 miles of new road

construction. (The National Forest will develop alternatives to the

proposed action that do not construct new roads.) To improve wildlife

habitat and water quality, 1.25 miles of road will be closed in the

Woodward Meadows area. And to improve public safety, a steep section

(0.25 miles) of the Jay Gould Ridge Road will be closed. In addition,

the proposed action would improve fisheries by applying gravel to roads

and improving road drainage at seven stream crossings. The Proposed

Action also includes 100 acres of riparian and wetland improvement

activities in Woodward Meadows, which is located in the Upper

Cottonwood Creek drainage. These activities include dechanneling

previously channeled streams through the meadow (roughly 2000 feet),

creating pot holes and planting native riparian plants to improve

wildlife habitat.

The projects would be located approximately 2 to 10 miles east of

U.S. Highway 395 near Chewelah, Washington. The Quartzite Watershed

Management Projects are proposed within the Thomason Creek, Sherwood

Creek, and Upper Cottonwood Creek drainages on the Colville Ranger

District. This analysis will evaluate a range of alternatives for

implementation of the project activities. The area being analyzed is

approximately 23,300 acres, of which 10,600 acres are National Forest

System lands. The other ownership areas are included only for analysis

of effects. The breakdown of management emphasis on the National Forest

System Lands is as follows: 2% is for old growth dependent species

habitat; 3% is for recreation; 18% is for big game winter range; 20% is

for scenic/winter range; 20% is for wood/forage; and 37% is for scenic/

timber. The project area does not include any wilderness, RARE II, or

inventoried roadless areas.

Some of the preliminary issues that were identified include:

scenery, water

[[Page 42640]]

quality, road construction, road closures, and timber commodities.

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

alternative. Based on issues identified to date, alternatives to date,

alternatives to be considered include: (1) The number, sizes, and

locations of areas considered for treatment; (2) the amount of road

constructed for access; (3) the type of harvest and post-harvest

treatments prescribed; and (4) the number, types, and locations of

other integrated resource projects.

Initial scoping began in May, 1999. The scoping process will

include the following: identify and clarify issues; identify key issues

to be analyzed in depth; explore alternatives based on themes which

will be derived from issues recognized during scoping activities; and

identify potential environmental effects of the proposed Action and

alternatives.

A public meeting is planned to be held at the Chewelah Municipal

Building on July 28th 1999, at 5:00 pm. The Forest Service is seeking

information, comments, and assistance from other agencies,

organizations, Indian Tribes, and individuals who may be interested in

or affected by the Proposed Action. This input will be used in

preparation of the draft EIS. Your comments are appreciated throughout

the analysis process.

Comments received in response to this notice, 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, those who submit anonymous comments will not have

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

217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request

the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing

how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality.

Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the

FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited

circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service

will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the

request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the

agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the

comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within a

specified number of days.

The draft EIS is to be filed with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by March, 2000. At

that time, copies of the draft EIS will be distributed to interested

and affected agencies, organizations, Indian Tribes, and members of the

public for their review and comment. The 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. It is important that those interested

in the management of the Colville National Forest participate at that

time.

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 EIS 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. 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 EIS

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.

The final EIS is scheduled to be available by August, 2000. In the

final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to substantive

comments received during the comment period for the draft EIS. The

responsible official is Colville National Forest Supervisor, Robert L.

Vaught. The responsible official will decide which, if any, of the

alternatives will be implemented. His decision and rationale for the

decision will be documented in the Record of Decision, which will be

subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR Part 215).

Dated: July 26, 1999.

Robert L. Vaught,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 99-20115 Filed 8-4-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M