Steamboat Resource Area, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Shoshone County, Idaho

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Steamboat Resource Area, Idaho Panhandle National Forests,

Shoshone County, Idaho

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice, intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The project area is approximately 27,000 acres in size, and is

located in the Steamboat Creek basin (T50N, R2E, Sec. 1-6, 8-15; T50N,

R3E, Sec. 5-8, 18; T51N, R1E, Sec. 24-26, 35-36; T51N, R23, Sec. 9-11,

13-36; T51N, R3E, Sec. 30-32; Boise Meridian). The Forest Service will

prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze and disclose

the environmental effects of the project.

The purpose of this proposal is twofold: over the short term, the

goal is to reduce the negative effects specific roads are having on

streams in the watershed. The long-term goal is to trend the watershed

toward a condition of increased resilience to withstand future

disturbances (such as wildfire, disease, or insect infestations) by

improving the overall health and stability of both the terrestrial and

aquatic ecosystems.

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

in writing by January 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Coeur d'Alene River Ranger

District, 2502 East Sherman Avenue, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, 83814-5899.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherri Lionberger, Project Team

Leader, (208) 769-3065.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The resource area has been modified by the

effects of past harvest, road building, and historic natural

disturbances. White pine blister rust continues to cause mortality in

the white pine, and the species composition is changing to a less

resilient type of forest. Streamside roads that infringe on flood

plains, large areas of regeneration harvests, outdated skidding

practices, and natural flood events have combined to increase sediment

and destabilize stream channels, causing a loss of fisheries habitat

locally as well as further downstream. This history has led to

vegetative and watershed conditions in need of rehabilitation to trend

the resource area toward more naturally-resilient characteristics. The

proposal will include the following possible actions: (1) Improving

aquatic resource conditions by reducing the amount of sediment entering

the stream from existing roads through repair or removal of specific

road segments and/or road channel crossings; and (2) Increasing the

stocking and size of rust-resistant white pine and other long-lived

seral conifers through regeneration and stand-tending activities such

as timber harvest, prescribed fire, tree planting, pruning and

thinning. The scope of this analysis is limited to activities related

to the purpose and need, and measures necessary to mitigate the effects

these activities may have on the environment. The decision will

identify if, when, how and where to schedule activities to meet these

goals.

Similar activities were examined in this area under the Boston

Brook Resource Area Environmental Assessment, published in September

1997. No decisions were implemented based on that document. Since that

time, there have been changes in both resource conditions and Forest

Service policies, which warrant another look at this area. A new name

is being used for the current proposal to make it easier for the public

to recognize the area to be analyzed and to avoid confusion with the

earlier analysis.

The issues raised and alternatives developed as a result of the

public participation for the Boston Brook Environmental Assessment will

be brought forward for the EIS. Modifications may be made based on

updated resource information, changes in Forest Service policy, and/or

additional public comments.

Key issues that will drive alternative development have been

preliminarily identified based on past scoping activities and known

resource concerns. To date, these key issues include protection or

improvement of aquatic resources (water quality and fisheries habitat),

and protection or improvement of forest vegetation (timber stands and

rare plants). There are other issues which may not drive alternative

developed but which will be analyzed to disclose environmental effects.

For example, protection of key big-game habitat, and ensuring access

for recreation activities.

[[Page 73509]]

In addition to the ``No Action'' alternative, five action

alternatives have been identifies for consideration:

An alternative that would include both road removal and

timber harvest, utilizing small harvest openings that would not result

in any increase in water yields.

An alternative that would include both road removal and

timber harvest, creating harvest openings of at least 5 acres in the

rain-on-snow zones, to minimize increases in water yields while

creating openings large enough to re-establish seral species such as

white pine and western larch.

An alternative that would include both road removal and

timber harvest, simulating historical disturbance patterns which

involve patches larger than 5 acres. These larger harvest units would

be more economically efficient in terms of harvest and reforestation

costs.

An alternative designed to resemble a ``pulse'' event such

as a large fire, by harvesting at least 1,000 acres in one general

area, leaving islands or structure similar to the mosaic found after a

fire. This approach would start the trend toward more resilient timber

stands with longer-lived seral species, and would result in less

fragmentation of stands than would harvest utilizing smaller openings

in greater number.

An alternative that would accomplish watershed

rehabilitation work, without timber harvest activities.

Comments from the public and other agencies will be used in

preparation of the draft EIS. The scoping process will be used to:

(1) Identify additional potential issues;

(2) Eliminate minor issues or those issues which have been covered

by a relevant previous environmental analysis;

(3) Identify additional alternatives to the proposed action;

(4) Identify potential environmental effects of the proposed action

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

While public participation in this analysis is welcome at any time,

comments received within 30 days of the publication of this notice will

be especially useful in the preparation of the draft EIS, which is

expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency and

available for public review in March 2000. 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. In addition, the public is encouraged to visit

with Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior

to the decision. The Forest Service will be seeking information,

comments, and assistance from federal, state, and local agencies, the

Coeur d'Alene Tribe, and other individuals or organizations that may be

interested in or affected by the proposed action.

The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal.

District Ranger Susan Jeheber-Matthews is the responsible official.

The Forest Service believes it is important at this early stage 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.C.

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: December 15, 1999.

Susan Jeheber-Matthews,

District Ranger.

[FR Doc. 99-33984 Filed 12-29-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M