![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot Project, Nez Perce National Forest, Idaho County, ID
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: March 7, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 13700-13701]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07mr01-23]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot Project, Nez Perce National Forest,
Idaho County, ID
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare environmental impact statement.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact
statement to disclose the environmental impacts of implementing
vegetation and watershed restoration activities and modification of the
transportation system within the Meadow Face analysis area. Individuals
interested in actions of this nature are encouraged to submit comments
and become involved in the planning process.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received
at the address below on or before April 6, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Darcy Pederson, District Ranger,
Route 2 Box 475, Grangeville, ID 83530.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Berg, Project Coordinator,
(208) 983-1983.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot Project
area is located on the Nez Perce National Forest in northern Idaho
within Idaho County. The project area lies approximately 7 air miles
southeast of Grangeville Idaho. The project area encompasses 27,000
acres and includes Meadow, Wickiup and Ralph Smith Creek watersheds,
which drain directly into the South Fork Clearwater River.
The Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot Project was authorized under the
1999 Department of Interior Appropriations Bill (Section 347). This
legislation authorized 28 pilot projects to test contracting mechanisms
that allow the exchange of goods for services, retention of receipts,
and end-result rather than prescriptive contract specifications. The
legislative intent includes meeting local and rural community needs and
provided a clear expectation for the pilot projects to be developed
cooperatively with local and affected communities.
The proposed activities described below were developed
cooperatively with a local citizens group called the Stewards of the
Nez Perce Forest. This group worked with the Forest Service to review
the ecological conditions in the analysis area as described in the
South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment (USFS, Nez Perce
National Forest, 1998) and Meadow Face Ecosystem Assessment at the
Watershed Scale (USFS, Nez Perce National Forest, 1999) and make
recommendations for actions to address current undesirable conditions
while meeting the objectives of the Nez Perce Forest Plan.
The actions proposed for implementation include modifying
vegetation through timber harvest and prescribed burning to achieve
forest conditions which more closely resemble historic. The analysis
area includes both low elevation, dry, ponderosa pine and mid-
elevation, moist, fir vegetation types. Due to fire suppression and
other past management activities the vegetation is denser with
increased shrubs and small trees. These conditions result in increased
fire risk and susceptibility to drought, insects and disease. To
address these conditions, approximately 5700 acres of harvest and 7300
acres of prescribed burning is proposed.
In addition to the vegetation conditions described above, the
analysis area has non-native and noxious plant species present. To
address this condition, approximately 230 acres of herbicide
application and native species restoration is proposed.
As part of the Meadow Face proposal, the transportation system of
roads and trails in the area would also be modified to reduce adverse
effects of the road system on forest resources, particularly soil and
water. To address these conditions, approximately 80 miles of road
decommissioning would occur. Road decommissioning would return these
road segments to forest production and they would no longer be
available as transportation routes.
Some streams in the analysis area have been affected by the
transportation system, past vegetation manamagement and grazing. These
streams would be
[[Page 13701]]
restored by relocating the channels to their natural course, addition
of woody debris and rock structures, and revegetation. These activities
would occur in approximately 5 miles of stream.
Following the cooperative project development process, the proposed
actions were scoped with the public in the summer of 2000 including a
direct mailing to over 400 individuals in August and a field trip in
September. Approximately 20 letters were received in response to the
original scoping, and 27 individual attended the field trip. Based on
the comments received, the following issues with the proposed action
been identified: (1) Effects to the aquatic environment; (2) Effects to
old and mature forest and dependent species; (3) Use of timber harvest,
prescribed burning and herbicides as forest management tools and; (4)
Effects to motorized recreation opportunities.
To address the issues identified above, alternatives to the
proposed action have been developed. These alternatives propose varying
levels of activities from those previously described. Some alternatives
would require amendment of the Nez Perce Forest Plan to allow
vegetation management within delineated old growth (Management Area
20). Some of the harvest proposed would exceed 40 acres in size and
would require approval from the Regional Forester (Northern Region).
Some of the activities associated with road repair and decommissioning
and stream channel restoration would require permits from the Corps of
Engineers to authorize work within a stream's high water mark.
The decisions to be made in response to this analysis include (1)
Are vegetation management activities needed and if so where, when and
how would they be implemented? (2) What transportation system is
necessary in the analysis area and how will it be managed? (3) How will
the roads identified as excess be returned to forest production? (4)
Are the stream channel restoration activities necessary and if so
where, when and how would they be implemented? (5) What mitigation is
needed to assure forest management activities are consistent with the
Nez Perce Forest Plan and environmental law? (6) Is an amendment to the
Nez Perce Forest Plan necessary to implement the proposed actions? (7)
What implementation and effectiveness monitoring is needed?
The responsible official for this project is the Nez Perce Forest
Supervisor. Comments to this notice should be sent to the address and
contacts identified above and should be submitted within 30 days of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. A Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is expected to be available in
April 2001 and a Final EIS in July 2001. Should an action alternative
be selected, implementation would be initiated in 2002. Implementation
of any or all of the actions authorized with this decision may occur
utilizing the stewardship contracting authorities granted in Section
347 of the 1999 Interior Appropriations Bill.
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 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 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. 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: February 27, 2001.
Michael J. Cook,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Nez Perce National Forest.
[FR Doc. 01-5593 Filed 3-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M