[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 108 (Thursday, June 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30838-30839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14635]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Kalispell; Idaho Panhandle National Forests; Bonner County, Idaho 
and Pend Oreille County, WA

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; 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 salvage 
thinning, reforestation, site preparation and use of prescribed fire in 
an ecosystem management project in the Kalispell Creek drainage. The 
area is located west of Priest Lake in the northern Selkirk Mountains, 
Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Priest Lake Ranger District, Bonner 
County, Idaho and Pend Oreille County, Washington. Part of the proposed 
activities are within the Hungry Mountain Roadless Area (01-156). The 
project area is within the Kalispell-Granite Grizzly Bear Management 
Unit.
    The purposes of this project are to improve the health and vigor of 
stands, to salvage dead and dying timber, to rehabilitate 50- to 70-
year-old plantations of off-site ponderosa pine and white pine which is 
not blister-rust resistant, to reintroduce the role of fire into dry-
site ecosystems, and to contribute to meeting society's demand for wood 
products. The proposal's actions to harvest and reforest stands and 
utilize prescribed fire are being considered together because they 
represent either connected or cumulative actions as defined by the 
Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.25).
    This project-level EIS tiers to the Idaho Panhandle National 
Forests Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and Final EIS 
(September, 1987), which provides overall guidance of all land 
management activities on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, 
including timber and access management.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before July 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Kent Dunstan, District Ranger, 
Priest Lake Ranger District, HCR 5, Box 207, Priest River, ID 83856; or 
e-mail comments to cjcary/[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Contact Bob Stutz, EIS Team Leader; telephone (208) 443-2512.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Ecosystem management activities are proposed 
on a total of approximately 5,050 acres within the Kalispell Creek 
drainage. Existing roads, 15.6 miles of temporary winter roads 
constructed from snow, and 11 helicopter landing sites would provide 
access for vegetative treatments. No new road construction would occur. 
The proposal includes 4,094 acres of salvage in plantations which are 
50 to 70 years old, followed by planting on 3,803 acres within those 
plantations; prescribed burning on 206 acres of dry-site ecosystems; 
prescribed burning on 1,049 acres for fuel breaks and/or site 
preparation; thinning on 245 acres of immature, overly-dense stands; 
and reforestation on 505 acres which would not be harvested before 
planting.
    The Kalispell drainage has experienced a series of significant 
natural and human-caused disturbances within the last 70 years. The 
major disturbances include a wildfire in 1926 and a subsequent reburn 
in 1939. Logging occurred from 1927 to 1932, including salvaging in a 
portion of the area burned by the 1926 fire. Following these events, 
approximately 9,000 acres of ponderosa pine and white pine were 
planted, as well as a scattering of Douglas-fir and spruce. The 
ponderosa pine seedlings were from a seed source not suited to this 
area, and the white pine seedlings were not rust-resistant stock, 
resulting in uncharacteristically high levels of insects and diseases. 
Current mortality is high, and ongoing mortality in the non rust-
resistant white pine is estimated to be three percent per year.
    The goal of this project is to restore the vegetation in the 
analysis area towards historic stocking levels and species 
compositions. This would create conditions that more closely resemble 
the historical stands that were adapted to the site, climate, and fire 
regimes in this ecosystem and that are sustainable over time.
    The purpose and need for ecosystem management in this area is four-
fold, as follows: (1) To salvage and rehabilitate high mortality stands 
that were planted with ``off-site'' ponderosa pine and non blister-
rust-resistant white pine; (2) to reintroduce the role of fire in the 
ecosystem, where it has been disrupted through fire suppression, in a 
way that will emulate effects of mixed severity fire under a natural 
fire regime; (3) to provide tree species and stocking levels that 
existed historically; (4) to contribute to the short-term supply of

[[Page 30839]]

timber to help meet the national demand for wood products and to 
support the local economy.
    The analysis area consists of approximately 24,400 acres of 
National Forest lands included in T35N., T36N. and T37N. in R.45E., 
T35N. and T36N., R.46E., Willamette Meridian, Washington; and T.60N., 
and T61.N. in R.4W., and T.60N and T.61N., R.5W., Boise Meridian, 
Idaho.
    The decision to be made is how much, if any, timber harvest should 
occur; how many acres, if any, of reforestation and site preparation 
should be accomplished; how many acres, if any, prescribed burning 
should be performed; and the timing of such activities. The decision 
would also include the type and level of access, if any.
    The Forest Plan provides guidance for management activities within 
the analysis area through goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and 
management area directions. The proposed activities would take place in 
designated Management Areas (MAs) 1, 4, 9 and 16. Goals for each of 
these MAs include protecting soil productivity, meeting or exceeding 
state water quality standards, providing opportunities for dispersed 
recreation, and meeting visual quality objectives. Below is a brief 
description of other management direction for these areas.
    Management Area 1: Manage for long-term growth and production of 
commercially valuable wood products and to provide wildlife habitat.
    Management Area 4: Manage big game winter range to provide forage 
for wildlife needs through timber harvest and permanent forage areas.
    Management Area 9: Manage lands to maintain and protect existing 
improvements and resource productive potential.
    Management Area 16: Riparian area dependent resources will be 
featured, while producing other resource outputs at levels compatible 
with objectives for riparian resources.
    The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives, including 
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 as well as responding 
to issues and other resource values.
    The EIS will analyze the direct, indirect and cumulative 
environmental effects of the alternatives. Past, present, and 
reasonably foreseeable activities in the analysis area will be 
considered. Analysis of site-specific mitigation measures and their 
effectiveness will be disclosed.
    Public participation is an important part of the analysis process, 
commencing with the initial scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7) which will 
begin with the publication of this notice. The public is encouraged to 
take part in the process and 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. 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.
     Exploring 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).
    The following issues have been identified: Grizzly bear security 
habitat, water and sediment yield and fisheries habitat, roadless area 
character, soils, and big game winter range. This list may be changed 
based on continuing public participation.
    The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by 
September, 1997. At that time EPA will publish a notice of availability 
in the Federal Register. The comment period on the Draft EIS will close 
45 days from the date the notice of availability appears in the Federal 
Register. It is very important that those interested in the management 
of this area participate at that time. 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. The Final EIS is scheduled to be 
completed by December, 1997.
    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 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 scoping 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. Comments received in response to this solicitation, 
including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered 
part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available 
for public inspection.
    To be most helpful, 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 1503.0 in addressing these points.
    I am the responsible official for this environmental impact 
statement.

    Dated: May 28, 1997.
Kent Dunstan,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 97-14635 Filed 6-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M