[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6942-6944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3800]


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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Meadow Timber Sales and Associated Activities; Kootenai National 
Forest, Lincoln County, MT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, will prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental effects of timber 
harvest, prescribed fire, road closures, road obliteration, 
construction of temporary and specified roads in the western portions 
of the Tobacco River drainage. The Tobacco River drainage is located 
approximately 38 air miles northeast of Libby, Montana, near the 
communities of Fortine and Eureka, Montana.
    The proposed actions to harvest and reforest timber stands, 
construct and reconstruct roads, prescribe burning, and restrict roads 
are being considered together because they represent either connected 
or cumulative actions as defined by the Council on Environmental 
Quality (40 CPR 1508.25). The purposes of the project are to provide 
timber to support local communities, regulate disturbance patterns and 
natural cycles to provide forest structure to maintain habitat for 
viable populations, and manage access to protect important wildlife 
habitat and provide recreational opportunities.
    The EIS will tier to the Kootenai National Forest Land and Resource 
Management Plan and Final EIS of September, 1987, which provides 
overall guidance for forest management of the area. All activities 
associated with the proposal will be designed to maintain high quality 
wildlife, fisheries, and watershed objectives.

DATES: Written comments and suggestions should be received on or before 
March 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The Responsible Official is Edward C. Monnig, District 
Ranger, Fortine Ranger District, P.O. Box 116, Fortine, Montana, 59918. 
Written comments and suggestions concerning the scope of the analysis 
may be sent to him at that address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joleen Dunham, Project Coordinator, Fortine Ranger District. Phone: 
(406) 882-4451.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The decision area contains approximately 
21,500 acres within the Kootenai National Forest in Lincoln County, 
Montana. All of the proposed projects would occur on National Forest 
lands in the western portion of the Tobacco River drainage near Eureka, 
Montana. The legal location of the decision area is as follows: 
Sections 8-10, 14-29, and 33-36 of Township 36 North, Range 27 West; 
Sections 29-33 of Township 36 North, Range 26 West; Sections 4-9, 15-36 
of Township 35 North, Range 26 West; Sections 1-3, 10-15, 23-26, and 
35-36 of Township 35 North, Range 27 West; Sections 1-25 of Township 34 
North, Range 26 West; Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 24 of Township 
34 North, Range 27 West; and Sections 18, 19, and 30 of Township 34 
North, Range 25 West, Principal Montana Meridian.
    All proposed activities are outside the boundaries of any roadless 
area or any areas considered for inclusion to the National Wilderness 
System as recommended by the Kootenai National Forest Plan or by any 
past or present legislative wilderness proposals.
    The Forest Service to harvest approximately 14 million board feet 
of timber through application of a variety of harvest methods on 
approximately 3,026 acres of forest land. An estimated 0.8 miles of 
temporary road and 3.8 miles of specified road construction would be 
needed to access timber harvest areas. Approximately 2.4 miles of this 
new specified road construction would be managed with yearlong 
restriction to motorized use. An estimated 31 miles of road 
reconstruction would also be needed to access timber harvest areas. All 
temporary roads would be obliterated following completion of sale 
activities. An additional 24 miles of road no longer in use would be 
obliterated by various methods which include rehabilitation of stream 
crossings, recontouring, ripping and seeding, and installment of 
barriers resulting in abandonment. The type of method would be based on 
site specific conditions. An estimated 33 miles of existing road would 
be restricted year round to improve watershed conditions, minimize 
future road maintenance

[[Page 6943]]

costs, and to regulate overall open road density to improve big game 
security. The proposal also includes prescribed burning on 
approximately 4,200 acres to reduce the potential for future wildfires, 
prepare sites for regeneration, enhance wildlife habitat, and maintain 
forest health.
    Prescribed harvest treatments in this proposal are as follows:
    Regeneration Harvest: Windfirm trees favoring western larch and 
ponderosa pine would be selected and designated to remain on site as 
reserve trees. Reserve trees would average about 10 trees per acre in a 
varied distribution. Reserve trees would include 1-2 acre islands and 
edge strips of approximately 40 trees per acre that would cover 5-15% 
of the stand area. All other merchantable trees would be harvested. 
Reserve trees would remain through the next rotation and form the upper 
story of a multi-storied stand. Underburning would occur to prepare 
site for regeneration of new seedlings. This treatment is proposed on 
1,127 acres.
    Improvement Cut: Stand densities would be reduced to 80-100 square 
feet of basal area per acre by removing the lowest quality and least 
vigorous trees greater than 7 inches diameter at breast height. 
Existing snags and large down woody material would be left on site. The 
remaining trees would provide a fully stocked stand of the best form 
and vigor to increase future options for higher quality old growth 
conditions. Underburning would occur to stimulate growth and vigor of 
shrubs and forbs, and create habitat for flammulated owl and other 
species that have adapted to open forest conditions. This treatment is 
proposed on 1,037 acres.
    Thin from Below: Stand densities would be reduced to 60-80 square 
feet of basal area per acre by removing the lowest quality and least 
vigorous trees less than 9 inches diameter at breast height. Existing 
snags and large down woody material would be left on site. The 
remaining trees would provide a fully stocked stand to favor past range 
of species composition. Underburning would occur to help re-establish 
habitat that was created through past fire regimes. This treatment is 
proposed on 677 acres.
    Patch Cut with Improvement Cut between patches: Harvest openings 
the size of 5-20 acres would occur in areas of insect and disease 
pockets and low vigor Douglas-fir thickets. The remainder of the stand 
would have densities reduced to 80-100 square feet of basal area per 
acre by removing the lowest quality and least vigorous trees greater 
than 7 inches diameter at breast height. Three entries would take place 
throughout a 30-year period using the patch cut treatment removing 
approximately one-third of the stand area with each entry but retaining 
a component of mature trees throughout the next rotation as the upper 
canopy in a two-storied stand. Underburning would occur to stimulate 
growth and vigor of shrubs and forbs, create habitat for flammulated 
owl and other species that have adapted to open forest conditions, and 
re-establish habitat that was created through past fire regimes. This 
treatment is proposed on 185 acres.
    Burning with Slashing: Underburning would be done outside harvest 
units to reduce fuel loads, provide a stand mosaic and wildlife 
betterment. The prescription would involve burning during the spring 
and early summer conditions which provide good smoke dispersion and 
safe burning conditions. The results would be a stand which includes 
areas of unburned material with some trees up to 9 inches diameter at 
breast height killed and up to 10% of the larger trees scorched with 
approximates past natural fires. This treatment is proposed on 1160 
acres.
    The Kootenai National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 
provides overall management objectives in individual delineated 
management areas (MA's). The proposed projects encompass five 
predominant MA's; 3, 11, 13, 15, and 16. Briefly described, MA 3 is 
managed to provide for opportunities for dispersed recreation 
activities in a natural-appearing environment using trails and 
primitive roads for access. MA 11 is managed to maintain or enhance the 
winter range habitat effectiveness for big-game species and produce a 
programmed yield of timber. MA 13 is designated to provide special 
habitat necessary for old growth dependent wildlife. MA 15 focuses upon 
timber production using various silvicultural practices while providing 
for other resource values such as soils, air, water, wildlife, 
recreation, and forage for domestic livestock. MA 16 is managed to 
produce timber while providing for a pleasing view. Timber harvest is 
proposed only in MA's 3, 11, 15, and 16. Prescribed burning for fuels 
and wildlife habitat is the only activity proposed in MA 13. This 
proposal includes openings greater than 40 acres in MA's 11, 15, and 16 
to replicate historic disturbance patterns. If these large openings are 
included in the final decision, a 60 day public review will be provided 
during the comment period on the Draft EIS. Approval of the Regional 
Forester for exceeding the 40 acre limitation for regeneration harvest 
would be required prior to the signing of the Record of Decision. In 
addition, site specific amendments to the Forest Plan regarding open 
road density in MA 15 and visual quality objectives in MA 16 may be 
necessary.
    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 would 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.
    Preliminary Issues: Tentatively, several issues of concern have 
been identified. These issues are briefly described below:

--Road Closures: Specific roads will need to be closed to meet road 
densities for wildlife security and improve watershed conditions. Some 
individuals are concerned that too many roads are being restricted from 
public use and existing roads should be left open. What effect will 
these road closures have on the publics' access to recreational areas?
--Old Growth: Values associated with old growth forests include 
maintaining old growth dependent species and the aesthetic, spiritual 
and emotional values which people place on undisturbed stands of old 
trees. While the Kootenai Forest Plan requires a minimum 10% of the 
Forest to be retained as Old Growth habitat (MA 13), there is a concern 
that additional areas of mature interior forest should be protected. 
What effect will proposed activities have on the old growth habitat and 
old growth dependent species?
--Timber Supply and Forest Health: Some individuals are concerned that 
the Forest Service is not placing enough emphasis on providing goods 
and services to the public. In addition, there is concern that the 
health and vigor of forest stands could be improved through more 
aggressive timber harvest and management. How will the proposed 
activities improve timber growth and produce economic benefits to the 
public?
--Re-Introduction of Prescribed Fire: A key component of the proposal 
is the use of prescribed fire as a tool to restore the role that 
wildfires played in the structure of a pre-1900 forest landscape. How 
will the proposed activities affect the risk of wildfire to resources 
and private property?

    Public Involvement and Scoping: On August 15, 1996 an advertisement 
was placed in the Tobacco Valley News, Eureka, Montana, requesting 
public comment and information concerning

[[Page 6944]]

the Meadow Project Area. In addition, on August 16, 1996 a letter was 
mailed to approximately 250 individuals comprising the mailing list for 
the Meadow Project Area requesting written comments. Taking into 
account the comments received and information gathered during 
preliminary analysis, it was decided to prepare an EIS for the Meadow 
Timber Sales and Associated Activities. Comments received prior to this 
notice will be included in the documentation for the EIS.
    This environmental analysis and decision making process will enable 
additional interested and affected people to participate an contribute 
to the final decision. The public is encouraged to take part in the 
process and 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, local agencies and other individuals or organizations who may be 
interested in or affected by the proposed action. This input will be 
used in preparation of the draft and final EIS. The scoping process 
will include:

--Identifying potential issues.
--Identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth.
--Identifying alternatives to the proposed action.
--Considering additional alternatives which will be derived from issues 
recognized during scoping activities.
--Identifying potential environmental effects of this project and 
alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and 
connected actions).

    Estimated Dates for Filing: While public participation in this 
analysis is welcome at any time, comments received within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice will be especially useful in the 
preparation of the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS is expected to be filed 
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for 
public review by August, 1997. At that time, EPA will publish a Notice 
of Availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register. The comment 
period on the Draft EIS will be a minimum of 45 days from the date the 
EPA publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register.
    The Final EIS is scheduled to be completed by October, 1997. In the 
Final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to comments and 
responses received during the comment period that pertain to the 
environmental consequences discussed in the Draft EIS and applicable 
laws, regulations, and policies considered in making a decision 
regarding the proposal.
    Reviewers Obligations: 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 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 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 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 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 
discussed. 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.
    Responsible Official: Edward C. Monnig, District Ranger, Fortine 
Ranger District, Kootenai National Forest, P.O. Box 116, Fortine, 
Montana, 59918, is the Responsible Official. As the Responsible 
Official, I will decide which, if any, of the proposed projects will be 
implemented. I will document the decision and reasons for the decision 
in the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to Forest 
Service Appeal Regulations.

    Dated: February 4, 1997.
Edward C. Monnig,
District Ranger, Fortine Ranger District.
[FR Doc. 97-3800 Filed 2-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M