Jump to main content.

Sandpoint Ranger District Packsaddle Final Environmental Impact Statement--Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Bonner County, Idaho

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 [Federal Register: April 11, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 70)]
[Notices]               
[Page 17778-17780]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11ap97_dat-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

 
Sandpoint Ranger District Packsaddle Final Environmental Impact 
Statement--Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Bonner County, Idaho

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service (Sandpoint Ranger District) will 
supplement the Packsaddle Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 
to disclose the potential environmental effects of a new alternative 
(Alternative 8) based on new information. The Project Area is within 
the Pend Oreille Ecosystem, Sandpoint Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle 
National Forests, Bonner County, Idaho and includes the Packsaddle 
Inventoried Roadless Area.

[[Page 17779]]

    The new alternative would treat high severity root disease areas 
and begin converting timber stands away from root disease susceptible 
tree species (such as Douglas-fir and grand fir) to re-establish 
western white pine, western larch, and ponderosa pine. Alternative 8 
also proposes to use prescribed burning to reduce fuel loadings and 
restore natural processes (such as fire) that are currently lacking in 
the Project Area. Alternative 8 would treat 1,703 acres (1,165 acres 
group and irregular group shelterwood, 369 acres group and modified 
group selection, 96 acres sanitation/salvage, and 73 acres visual 
improvement). This alternative also proposes to treat eight units over 
40 acres in size (ranging from 45 to 240 acres). A combination of 
prescribed underburning, grapple piling, and limbing/lopping would be 
used to control fuel levels. This alternative would construct 3.4 miles 
of temporary roads which would be built for logging and post-harvest 
activities (such as prescribed burning and planting) access. These 
roads would be recontoured after these activities are complete. 
Additionally, Alternative 8 proposes to decommission 2.1 miles and 
totally close 4.0 miles of existing roads.
    This supplement will tier to Idaho Panhandle National Forests Land 
and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), September 1987 and 
reference the Integrated Scientific Assessment from the Upper Columbia 
River Basin study.

DATES: Written comments and suggestions should be received on or before 
June 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions on the proposed 
management activities to Tony Erba, Project Leader, Sandpoint Ranger 
District, 1500 Hwy 2, Suite 110, Sandpoint, ID 83864.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tony Erba, Team Leader, Sandpoint Ranger District, phone number (208) 
263-5111.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Packsaddle Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement was issued for public review and comment in June, 1994. The 
Final Environmental Impact Statement was completed in March, 1995. The 
Record of Decision was signed on May 3, 1996 under the authority of 
section 2001 of Public Law 104-19 (otherwise known as the Salvage 
Amendment). On July 2, 1996, Secretary of Agriculture Glickman issued a 
directive that salvage timber sale decisions in inventoried roadless 
areas were to be withdrawn from consideration until the Salvage Bill 
authority had expired. Thus, the Packsaddle Record of Decision was 
withdrawn.
    Since that time, numerous field visits to the Project Area have 
been conducted to verify the root disease conditions discussed in the 
FEIS. We have discovered that the proposal of using group and modified 
group selection methods to treat the root disease problem (as described 
in the FEIS' Alternative 7) is not desirable because of:
    (1) The need for continued access for treatment,
    (2) The high potential for regeneration damage while removing 
future mortality,
    (3) The threat to established regeneration with future prescribed 
burning opportunities, and
    (4) The expected mortality level would predispose the stand to a 
catastrophic wildfire since there would be greater amounts of dead and 
down material created to carry a fire from the ground into the tree 
crowns.
    Additionally, these treatments would essentially postpone treatment 
on the remaining stands while allowing the root disease situation to 
continually worsen.
    On National Forest lands, the Forest Service is responsible for 
promoting healthy ecosystems and restoring deteriorated ecosystems to 
provide for diversity of plant and animal communities, long-term 
resource sustainability, and future management options. This must be 
done in the context of meeting people's needs. Re-establishing 
appropriate tree species composition, and the processes that maintain 
it (i.e., fire), are important steps towards the goal of restoring 
ecosystems in the Packsaddle Project Area. Focusing the proposed timber 
harvest and associated prescribed burning activities in the highest 
severity root disease areas are critical to achieve this goal. These 
high severity areas represent clear examples where timber stand 
dynamics are operating well outside their natural potential (low tree 
densities and shortened life cycles for natural regeneration). Our 
analysis shows that conditions will continue to worsen, resulting in a 
further decline of ecosystem health and increased wildfire hazard if no 
action is taken. Given our mission to sustain healthy ecosystems into 
the future, it would be irresponsible of me to let these problems 
continue.
    We have looked at a variety of alternatives that address the root 
disease problem at varying levels and consider this project to be the 
first of a multi-step process to address ecosystem needs in the 
Packsaddle Project Area. We have developed Alternative 8 to effectively 
address the root disease problem while protecting other resource values 
in the Project Area. Alternative 8 proposes to use more intensive 
harvest methods (i.e., irregular group shelterwood) in large-sized 
units to begin converting these affected stands to tree species less 
susceptible to root disease infection. Several of these units would 
exceed 40 acres (combined areas ranging from 45 to 255 acres). By 
focusing on using a landscape scale management approach, Alternative 8 
best approaches the level of disturbance that typically occurred prior 
to when fires were suppressed on a regular basis. It would also 
minimize the impacts on other affected resources. I consider 
Alternative 8 to be a responsible approach to addressing the root 
disease problem in light of the public comments submitted on this 
project and our recent field visits.
    The Record of Decision is expected to be filed with the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review 
in June, 1997. At that time, the EPA will publish a Notice of 
Availability of the final environmental impact statement 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 
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 statement stage but that are not raised until after 
completion of the final environmental 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 60-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 regarding the new alternative, comments should be as 
specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific 
pages of the

[[Page 17780]]

supplement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the supplement or 
the merits of the new alternative formulated and discussed in the 
supplement. 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.
    I am the responsible official for this environmental impact 
statement. My address is Sandpoint Ranger District, 1500 Hwy 2, Suite 
110, Sandpoint, ID, 83864.

    Dated: March 27, 1997.
David S. Dillard,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 97-9357 Filed 4-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.