[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-915]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: January 14, 1994]


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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 

Compartment 28 (Zulu Smoot) Timber Sales; Kootenai National 
Forest; Lincoln County, MT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) to analyze and disclose the environmental impacts of a 
proposal to harvest timber and construct and reconstruct roads in the 
Zulu and Can Creek and South Fork of the Yaak River drainages located 
about 18 air miles northeast of Troy, Montana. This EIS will tier to 
the Kootenai National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and EIS, 
which provide overall guidance for achieving the desired forest 
condition of the area. The purpose of the proposed action is to harvest 
dead, dying or high risk (to mountain pine beetle infestation) stands 
of lodgepole pine to reduce potential excessive future natural fuel 
loadings, increase the health and productivity of stands that are 
currently declining in vigor and provide a more balanced distribution 
of timber age classes in the Project Area.

DATES: Written comments and suggestions should be received no later 
than February 28, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to John R. Righter, District Ranger, 
Three Rivers Ranger District, 1437 North Highway 2, Troy, Montana, 
59935.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monte Fujishin, Supervisory Forester, 
(406) 295-4693.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The timber management activities under 
consideration would occur within a 13,234 acre analysis area which 
includes 8,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Area X166, Pink Mountain 
(6,400 acres), and portion of 684, Roderick (approximately 1,600 
acres).
    The proposed action would harvest about 7.2 million board feet from 
15 harvest units totalling 706 acres. Approximately six miles of new 
specified road would be constructed and 2 miles of existing road would 
be reconstructed. Approximately 1.5 miles of temporary road would be 
required and approximately .6 miles of constructed skid trail. With 
this proposed action, a portion of the roadless areas may be affected.
    There are a variety of purposes for timber harvest and 
reforestation in the South Fork Yaak area; the primary purposes are: 
(1) To improve timber productivity by replacing stands of dead dying or 
high risk lodgepole pine with younger, more vigorously growing trees; 
(2) to salvage the dead and lodgepole pine; (3) to reduce potentially 
future catastrophic wildfire conditions by removal of natural dead or 
dying fuels; and (4) to increase the overall health and vigor of other 
stands being considered for management. Additionally, the purpose of 
road construction and reconstruction is to facilitate access to the 
timber stands to be harvested.
    The project area consists of approximately 13,234 acres located in 
Sections 2-11, 4-22, 28-30, T34N, R31W; Sections 1, 12, 13, 24, 25, 
T34N, R32W; Sections 29-34, T35N, R31W; and Section 36, T35N, R32W; 
P.M.M., Lincoln County, Montana.
    The decision to be made is what, if anything, should be done in the 
South Fork Yaak River Project Area to: (a) Increase timber health and 
productivity and contribute to the Forest's sustained yield of timber 
products, (b) reduce natural fuel loadings of dead and dying lodgepole 
pine as a result of past and potential mountain pine beetle 
infestations, (c) dispose of slash and reforest harvested lands, (d) 
develop and manage the road system to facilitate removal of timber, 
reforest stands and maintain or improve wildlife security and (e) 
create a situation of better age class distributions of stands within 
project area.
    The Kootenai Forest Plan provides guidance for management 
activities within the potentially affected area through its goals, 
objectives, standards and guidelines, and management area direction. 
The areas of proposed timber harvest and reforestation would occur 
within Management Areas 12, 15, 17 and 14. Timber harvest would occur 
only on suitable timber land. Road construction and reconstruction 
would occur in these four management areas. Below is a brief 
description of the applicable management direction.
    Management Area 12--These are areas that contain productive timber 
lands which are suitable for timber harvest, provided that big game 
summer habitat objectives are met.
    Management Area 14--These are areas that contain productive timber 
lands which are suitable for timber harvest, provided that grizzly bear 
habitat objectives are met.
    Management Area 15--These are areas that contain productive timber 
lands which are suitable for timber harvest.
    Management Area 17--These are areas that contain productive timber 
lands which are suitable for timber harvest, viewing objectives are 
met.
    The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. One of 
these will be the ``no action'' alternative, in which none of the 
proposed activities will be implemented. Additional alternatives will 
examine varying levels and locations for the proposed activities to 
achieve the proposal's purposes, as well as to respond to the issues 
and other resource values.
    The EIS will analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative 
environmental effects of the alternatives. Past, present, and projected 
activities on National Forest Lands will be considered. The EIS will 
disclose the analysis of site-specific mitigation measures and their 
effectiveness.
    Public participation is an important part of the analysis, 
commencing with the initial scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7) which has 
already occurred in December of 1991. 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 and other individuals or organizations who may be 
interested in or affected by the proposed action. No public meetings 
are scheduled at this time.
    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 potential issues.
    2. Identify major issues to be analyzed in depth.
    3. Eliminate minor issues or those which have been covered by a 
relevant previous environmental analysis, such as the Kootenai Forest 
Plan EIS.
    4. Identify alternatives to the proposed action.
    5. Identify potential environmental effects of the proposed action 
and alternatives (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative effects).
    6. Determine potential cooperating agencies and task assignments.
    Preliminary scoping, including public and agency participation, was 
initiated in December, 1991, and has continued through this year. Until 
recently, an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) were envisioned. However, it became apparent 
to the Interdisciplinary Team that there could be significant effects 
on the human environment in Roadless Areas X166 and 684.
    The principal environmental issues identified to date are related 
to:
    1. Impacts on the character of the area of Roadless Area 684 and 
X166.
    2. Impacts on fish habitat and other beneficial uses due to 
potential sediment increase.
    3. Impacts on big game security and habitat.
    4. Fuels accumulations in terms of potential catastrophic wildfire 
situations.
    Other issues commonly associated with timber harvesting and road 
construction include: effects on water quality, cultural resources, 
soils, old growth, and visuals. This list may be verified, expanded, or 
modified based on public scoping for this proposal.
    Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been 
initiated with regard to listed species. The Montana Department of 
Health and Welfare-Division of Environmental Quality, Montana 
Department of Fish and Game, and the Kootenai Salish Indian Tribe will 
also be consulted.
    While public participation in this analysis is welcome at any time, 
comments received within 45 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 EPA and available for public review in 
March, 1994. A 45-day comment period will follow publication of a 
Notice of Availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register. The 
comments received will be analyzed and considered in preparation of a 
final EIS, which will be accompanied by a Record of Decision. The final 
EIS is expected to be filed in June, 1994.
    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 EISs 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, 513 (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 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 should be as specific as 
possible. 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.

    Dated: January 5, 1994.
Robert L. Schrenk,
Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest.
[FR Doc. 94-915 Filed 1-13-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M