[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64319-64321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-30815]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service


Forest Plan Amendment 21; Flathead National Forest, Flathead, 
Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Missoula, and Powell Counties, State of 
Montana

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: Notice of Intent to prepare a Revised Supplement to the 
December 1985, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Flathead 
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). The revised 
supplemental environmental impact statement proposes to amend LRMP 
goals, objectives and standards, as well as LRMP monitoring 
requirements, for timber and wildlife to ensure maintenance of viable 
populations of old-growth associated species for the period pending 
revision of the LRMP, which is anticipated by January 2001. The 
original Notice of Intent was published June 28, 1990, (55 FR 26475). A 
revised notice was published April 2, 1992, (57 FR 11283).
    This notice revises the scope of the proposed amendment.

DATES: The draft supplement to the EIS is scheduled for public 
distribution in May of 1997 and the final supplement is scheduled for 
release in September 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about the proposed action 
and EIS should be directed to Nancy Warren, Interdisciplinary team 
leader, or Rodd Richardson, Acting Forest Supervisor. Flathead National 
Forest, 1935 Third Avenue East, Kalispell, MT 59901. Phone: (406) 755-
5401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 22, 1986, Northern Region, 
Regional Forester, James C. Overbay issued the Flathead National Forest 
Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (FEIS), and Record of Decision (ROD). The LRMP contains six 
types of decisions: (1) Forest-wide multiple use goals and objectives; 
(2) Forest-wide standards and guidelines; (3) establishment of 
management areas and managmenet area direction; (4) designation of land 
suitable for timber production; (5) non wilderness allocations and 
wilderness recommendations; and (6) monitoring and evaluation 
requirements. The LRMP does not authorize or approve any ground-
disturbing activities.
    In accordance with 36 CFR 219.19, the LRMP designates three 
vertebrate species as Management Indicator Species for those species 
groups most

[[Page 64320]]

likely to be affected by forest management activities. The tree 
dependent group indicator species is the marten; the old growth 
dependent group is represented by the pileated woodpecker; and the 
riparian tree dependent group indicator species is the barred owl. 
Other indicator species include the threatened or endangered species 
(grizzly bear, gray wolf, bald eagle and peregrine falcon); commonly 
hunted species (mule deer, elk, and whitetailed deer); and fish species 
(bull trout and cutthroat trout). The LRMP includes a forest-wide 
standard to ``maintain old-growth habitat and snags at elevations below 
5,000 feet at a number and distribution that will achieve the desired 
potential populations of old growth and cavity-dependent species.''
    In an August 31, 1988, decision on administrative appeals #1467 and 
#1513 of the Flathead National Forest LRMP, the Chief of the Forest 
Service directed that the Regional Forester ``document additional 
analysis of the habitat requirements, and the distribution of habitat, 
for pine marten, barred owls, and pileated woodpeckers. This evaluation 
should lead to the development of additional standards that will ensure 
that these species will remain well distributed throughout the 
forest.'' Pending completion of this assignment, the Chief directed the 
Regional Forester to ``implement an old growth retention standard 
requiring 10 percent of each 3rd order watershed to be left in old 
growth habitat in blocks large enough to provide habitat for management 
indicator species and spaced to allow interaction between 
individuals.''
    The Flathead National Forest has taken several steps to implement 
the direction contained in this administrative appeal decision. These 
steps include: memoranda, issued in December 1988 and updated in March 
1991, to Flathead National Forest District Rangers and other resource 
managers providing procedures for implementing the old growth retention 
standard and a June 1992 Supplemental Monitoring Report that was sent 
to members of the public on the Flathead National Forest's mailing 
list. The 1992 Supplemental Monitoring Report displays historical and 
existing old growth habitat conditions; provides definitions of old-
growth habitat based on the best scientific data available at the time; 
documents additional analysis of the habitat requirements of pine 
marten, barred owl, and pileated woodpeckers; documents the 
distribution of these habitats; and provides lists of other wildlife 
species associated with old-growth habitat. In addition, the Flathead 
National Forest prepares NEPA documents on all project proposals that 
may affect old growth related species. These NEPA documents, which are 
typically subject to public review and comment, disclose the potential 
impacts of the proposed action on old growth habitat and old growth 
related species.
    On June 28, 1990, the Forest Service published in the Federal 
Register a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact 
statement on a proposal to amend the Flathead National Forest LRMP to 
adopt standards for management of habitat for pileated woodpecker, 
marten, and barred owl (55 FR 26475). The Forest Service published a 
notice on April 2, 1992, to clarify that the proposal was to prepare a 
supplement to the1985 LRMP EIS (57 FR 11283).
    The Forest Service issued a Draft Supplemental EIS for Proposed 
LRMP Amendment #16 in June 1992 (57 FR 29490). The DSEIS considers five 
alternatives, including one (Alternative 5) that continues the current 
implementation of the Chief's interim old-growth direction. The 
interdisciplinary team concluded that all action alternatives, 
including continuation of current management direction, would result in 
population sizes and distributions that are adequate to maintain a 
stable population trend over a 150-year period. The interdisciplinary 
team also concluded that both Alternative 3 (the most restrictive 
alternative) and Alternative 5 (continuation of existing LRMP plus the 
Chief's direction) would ``* * * maintain habitat and Management 
Indicator Species' populations that were well distributed across the 
forest. The risk of creating isolated subpopulations and fragmenting 
habitat areas under these two alternatives is low.``
    The notice of availability of the draft supplemental EIS on 
proposed Amendment 16 was published in the Federal Register on July 2, 
1992. The Forest Supervisor granted the request of some respondents for 
an extension of the comment period beyond the required 45 days. The 
extended comment period closed on October 15, 1992. The Flathead 
National Forest received 271 written comments and 11 documented 
telephone calls and office visits.
    Public comments on the draft supplement included requests that the 
Forest Service expand the scope of the proposed action, that the Forest 
Service delay completion of the SEIS until LRMP revision, ad that the 
scope of the analysis be expanded to include several national forests. 
In response to these comments, the Forest issued on May 5, 1993, a 
letter to the public stating that it may blend the work on Amendment 
#16 into its efforts to prepare for Forest Plan revision. The letter 
stated that the Forest will continue to implement the Chief's interim 
direction pending completion of revision. The Forest Supervisor stated:

    In your letters concerning Amendment 16, many of you asked for 
more analysis of interrelationships and for a decision that is 
broader in scope. We are now deciding how best to proceed. Options 
range from writing a Final EIS without changing the scope of the 
decision, to instead blending our work on Amendment 16 into our 
efforts to prepare for the ten-year Forest Plan revision.
    In the meantime, we will continue to implement the Forest Plan. 
We will continue to apply the Chief's interim direction (maintain 10 
percent of each third-order drainage as old growth habitat). We will 
try to incorporate your comments and ideas into the process for 
monitoring and evaluation of the Forest Plan. And we will use some 
information from the Draft EIS in our project planning.

    The Forest Service is continuing its efforts to develop and adopt a 
coordinated ecosystem management strategy for national forests. On 
January 21, 1994, the Chief of the Forest Service and the Director of 
the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management initiated the 
Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project. The Project 
is expected to produce two major products: (1) a Basin-wide assessment 
of ecosystem processes and functions, species, social systems, and 
economic systems; and (2) environmental impact statements addressing, 
among other topics, wildlife habitat conservation, threatened and 
endangered species conservation, and biological diversity on lands 
administered by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management within 
the Interior Columbia River Basin. A Notice of Intent to prepare an 
environmental impact statement for the Upper Columbia River Basin 
(UCRB) was published in the Federal Register on December 7, 1994 (59 FR 
63071). The geographic scope of the UCRB EIS includes national forest 
and public lands in Idaho, western Montana, and small portions of 
Nevada, Wyoming, and Utah. The Flathead National Forest is within the 
area addressed in the UCRB EIS. The selected alternative may result in 
amendment or revision of applicable national forest land management 
plans. The scientific assessment documents are expected to be released 
by January 1, 1997. The UCRB draft environmental impact

[[Page 64321]]

statement is expected to be released in the Fall of 1996. The UCRB 
final environmental impact statement is scheduled for release in the 
fall of 1997 (61 FR 47859). The scientific assessment documents and the 
UCRB EIS are anticipated to include information relevant to the 
management issues on the Flathead National Forest regarding old growth 
habitat and associated species.
    The purpose of preparing a revised supplemental EIS for the 
Flathead National Forest LRMP is to amend LRMP goals, objectives and 
standards, as well as LRMP monitoring requirements, for timber and 
wildlife pending completion of the UCRB process and revision of the 
Flathead National Forest LRMP. To avoid confusion with the previous 
proposed action, the current proposal is labeled as Amendment 21.
    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: November 18, 1996.
Rodd E. Richardson,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 96-30815 Filed 12-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2200-00-M