[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-3411]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: February 15, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service

 

Bear Environmental Impact Statement; Bitterroot National Forest, 
Ravalli County, MT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 
(EIS).

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement for the Bear assessment area located on the Darby Ranger 
District of the Bitterroot National Forest in Montana. The proposals 
listed in the Supplementary Information section are being considered 
together because they represent either connected or cumulative actions 
as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.25).

DATES: Public comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be 
submitted by March 4, 1994. Comments that were received during 
preparation of the Bear Environmental Assessment will be considered 
during preparation of this EIS and will not need to be resubmitted. No 
public scoping meetings are scheduled at this time. The Draft EIS is 
expected to be available to the public in April, 1994 and the Final EIS 
and Record of Decision is expected to be available to the public in 
June, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to District Ranger, Darby Ranger 
District, P.O. Box 388, Darby MT 59829.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions about the EIS should be directed to Rick Floch, Darby Ranger 
District, Phone: (406) 821-3913.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EIS will include the following proposed 
actions:
    (1) Vegetation Management--There is a need to improve health and 
productivity, and to reduce the risk of high intensity wildfire and its 
associated potential impacts in ponderosa pine stands in the Bear area. 
To do this, a combination of selection harvesting concentrating on 
removal of Douglas-fir, underburning and thinning on approximately 580 
acres is proposed. This will change species composition over time to 
one more representative of what occurred naturally, reintroduce fire 
back into the ecosystem, improve tree health and growth, and sustain 
the ecosystem.
    A combination of harvesting techniques is also proposed on about 
400 acres of lodgepole pine stands. Fire suppression in these stands 
has resulted in a variety of unfavorable conditions. In some stands, 
overstory lodgepole pine trees have died, leaving understories of 
subalpine fir and Douglas-fir that are heavily damaged by spruce 
budworm and infected by root pathogens. Lodgepole pine in these 
understories is also infected with dwarf mistletoe and many of the dead 
overstory trees have fallen, creating high fuel loads that will result 
in intense future wildfires. Harvesting in these stands would reduce 
this fire risk, salvage dead and dying trees, and sustain these 
ecosystems by perpetuating new stands of lodgepole pine. In other 
stands, understory lodgepole is healthy and overstory trees need to be 
removed to allow this next generation of trees to continue growing and 
perpetuating the ecosystem.
    (2) Watershed/Fisheries Rehabilitation--Major streams in the area 
include Two Bear, Bear Gulch, Lower Sleeping Child, Hog Trough, 
Railroad, Weasel and Skalkaho Creeks. A course filter analysis of 
watersheds has identified a range of different watershed conditions in 
the Bear area. A site-specific inventory of watershed improvement needs 
for the Upper Skalkaho, Railroad Creek, and Two-Bear areas was done 
during the 1992 field season. From this inventory, numerous 
rehabilitation activities were identified and are proposed in this EIS. 
They include culvert cleanout or removal, grass seeding, road 
obliteration, riparian vegetation re-establishment, road closing, and 
road reconstruction.
    (3) Houselog Salvage--Infrequent fire in the Bear area has resulted 
in some areas with an abundance of recently dead and dying lodgepole 
pine trees. The proposal includes the salvage of these trees over 275 
acres using over-the-snow type logging equipment.
    (4) Underburning--To restore fire back into the ecosystem, 
underburning over the next 3 years is proposed. To assess cumulative 
effects, underburning over a 10 year period on approximately 2,380 
acres will be analyzed. Many of these areas are on southern exposures 
where underburning will begin to regenerate more fire-tolerant species, 
reduce high natural fuel loadings and improve browse for wildlife.
    (5) Precommercial Thinning--Past timber harvesting in some areas 
has resulted in overstocked plantations that need thinning to improve 
productivity. Approximately 475 acres of existing plantations are 
proposed for precommercial thinning.
    (6) Transportation Management Road densities for several 3rd order 
drainages in the Bear area are not meeting Forest Plan standards for 
elk habitat effectiveness. Approximately 33 miles of road are proposed 
to be closed in order to meet or exceed Forest Plan standards for road 
densities. Some of these road sections are included in the road 
closures for watershed rehabilitation.
    Alternatives to this proposed action will include No Action; an 
alternative that does not propose timber harvesting in any roadless 
area; two alternatives that treat the Bear area at differing landscape 
level intensities; an alternative that models 1987 Forest Plan outputs; 
and an alternative that includes only the watershed/fisheries 
rehabilitation projects.
    Preliminary issues that the EIS will address include:
    (a) How will the proposal affect ecosystem health and productivity?
    (b) Can houselogs be salvaged from the area and what would the 
effect be?
    (c) How will the proposal impact roadless areas?
    (d) What will be the impacts of this proposal on wildlife?
    (e) What effect will the proposal have on water and fishery 
resources:
    (f) What affect will the proposal have on old growth?
    (h) What are the cumulative impacts of private land logging in the 
area?
    Management activities under consideration would occur in an area 
encompassing approximately 43,000 acres and include all National Forest 
land between Sleeping Bear/Two Bear Creeks, and all of the upper part 
of the Skalkaho Creek drainage. A portion of the assessment area being 
considered for harvest is within the Sleeping Child roadless area 
(X1074). None of the activities proposed would build any new or 
temporary road.
    The scope of the proposed action is limited to the associated 
activities and analysis area identified above.
    The responsible official, who is Thomas G. Wagner, Darby District 
Ranger, will consider the comments and responses received concerning 
both the Bear Environmental Assesssment and this EIS, as well as all 
applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making a decision 
regarding the Bear proposal.
    The responsible official will document the decision and reasons for 
the decision in the Record of Decision. The decision will be subject to 
review under applicable Forest Service Regulations.
    The Draft EIS is expected to be available to the public in April, 
1994 and the Final EIS and Record of Decision is expected to be 
available to the public in June, 1994. The comment period on the draft 
will be 45 days from the date the EPA's notice of availability appears 
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. 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 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: January 31, 1994.
Thomas G. Wagner,
District Ranger, Bitterroot National Forest.
[FR Doc. 94-3411 Filed 2-14-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M