[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52521-52523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26624]


      
 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
 or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
 and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
 delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
 statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
 appearing in this section.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 1997 / 
Notices  

[[Page 52521]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Pinkham Timber Sales and Associated Activities; Kootenai National 
Forest, Lincoln County, Montana

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 rehabilitation, and 
construction of temporary and specified roads in the Pinkham Creek 
drainage. The Pinkham Creek drainage is located approximately 5 air 
miles southwest of Eureka, Montana.
    The proposed actions to harvest and reforest timber stands, 
construct, reconstruct and rehabilitate 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 CFR 1508.25). The purposes of the project are 
to restore ecological processes in order to achieve sustainable 
conditions, reduce the risk of large-scale, severe wildlife in an 
urban/wildland interface area, and provide for human needs and desires.
    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 by December 
8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The Responsible Official is Robert Schrenk, Forest 
Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest. Written comments and suggestions 
concerning the scope of the analysis may be sent to: Robert Thompson, 
District Ranger, Rexford Ranger District, 1299 Highway 93 North, 
Eureka, Montana 59917.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Terry Chute, Planning Coordinator, Rexford Ranger District, Phone: 
(406) 296-2536.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The decision area contains approximately 
65,100 acres within the Kootenai National Forest in Lincoln County, 
Montana. All of the proposed projects would occur on National Forest 
lands in the Pinkham Creek drainage near Eureka, Montana. The legal 
location of the decision area is as follows: all or portions of 
Township 36 North, Range 28 West; Township 36 North, Range 27 West; 
Township 35 North, Range 28 West; Township 35 North, Range 27 West; 
Township 34 North, Range 28 West; Township 34 North, Range 27 West; 
Township 33 North, Range 28 West; Township 33 North, Range 27 West; 
Principal Montana Meridian.
    All proposed activities are outside the boundaries of any 
inventoried 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 proposes to commercially thin and prescribed 
burn about 5,050 acres; regeneration harvest and prescribe burn about 
1,425 acres; salvage harvest about 290 acres; and slash and prescribe 
burn (with no associated harvest) about 1,750 acres over the next 10 
years. An estimated harvest volume of approximately 59,530 hundred 
cubic feet of commercial timber products would be produced. An 
estimated 1.1 mile of specified road construction would be needed to 
access timber harvest areas. An estimated 38 miles of road 
reconstruction would also be needed to improve drainage and safety on 
roads needed to access timber harvest areas. An unspecified amount of 
road no longer in use would be rehabilitated by various methods which 
include recontouring, ripping and seeding, rehabilitated by various 
methods which include recontouring, ripping and seeding, rehabilitation 
of stream crossings, and installment of barriers resulting in 
abandonment.
    Three management strategies have been developed in response to the 
following conditions:
    1. Reduce the risk of catastrophic fire by treating areas of high 
or accumulating fuel concentrations. The treatments proposed under this 
strategy include commercial timber harvest, slashing and prescribed 
burning. Timber harvest would include salvage, commercial thinning and 
regeneration methods. Methods used would depend on the composition of 
stands proposed for treatment and available options for achieving 
desired conditions and trends.
    2. Minimize the risk of epidemic bark beetle attack by developing 
desirable tree species composition and reducing stand density. This 
strategy is related to Strategy 1, as epidemic bark beetle activity 
causes tree mortality that can greatly increase fuel accumulations. The 
treatments proposed under this strategy include commercial thinning, 
slashing and prescribed burning.
    3. Minimize the effect of high levels of root rot by regenerating 
areas of high root rot activity to less susceptible tree species. This 
strategy is related to Strategies 1 and 2 as root rot weakens and 
predisposes trees to bark beetle attack. The subsequent increase in 
tree mortality can greatly increase fuel accumulations. The treatment 
proposed with this strategy would use regeneration harvest methods to 
reestablish stands of tree species less susceptible to root rot. In the 
Decision Area, Douglas-fir is the tree species that is most susceptible 
to root rot. Western larch and western white pine are less susceptible, 
and are well suited to the portions of the Decision Area affected by 
root rot.
    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; 6, 10, 11, 12 and 15. Briefly described, MA 6 is 
managed to provide for opportunities for developed recreation 
activities. MA 10 is managed to maintain or enhance the winter range 
habitat effectiveness for big game species. 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 12 is managed to 
maintain or

[[Page 52522]]

enhance non-winter big game habitat and produce a programmed yield of 
timber. 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. Timber harvest and prescribed burning is proposed in all 
MA's. This proposal includes replicating historic disturbance patterns. 
Fourteen forest openings greater than 40 acres in size would be 
created, ranging in size from 44 to 373 acres. A 60 day public review 
and 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. The 60-day scoping period initiated 
with this Notice of Intent will serve as the public review period for 
openings over 40 acres.
    The Proposed Action would include two amendments to the Kootenai 
Forest Plan. A programmatic amendment to the Forest Plan for managing 
open road density at a level above the MA 12 standard may be necessary. 
A project-specific amendment for harvesting in big game movement 
corridors in MA 12 may also 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.
    Concerns: Several areas of concern were identified by the public as 
well as Forest Service personnel during preliminary assessment. These 
concerns are briefly described below:
     The Pinkham area is home to many people who care deeply 
about, and have multi-generational ties to the area. Public land in the 
valley is seen as an asset for recreation and people's quality of life.
     Clear-cutting: Many people said there has been too much 
clear-cutting in the area in the past, and they are ugly. Future 
harvest should be done selectively, leaving the large trees. On the 
other hand, some said that clear-cuts provide important habitat for 
deer, elk and grouse, and that clear-cutting should continue.
     Prescribed burning: People do not like the appearance. 
Many believe that trees that are burned up or killed could have 
provided firewood or wood products. A few said they understood the need 
for burning in some cases, but had reservations. Smoke in the valley 
from prescribed burning was also mentioned.
     Roads and road access: Comments varied. Many thought there 
were too many road closures, while others felt that more roads should 
be closed. Many people felt that there were enough or too many roads in 
the area, and that no new roads were needed. Several people identified 
the need to increase control of knapweed, which occurs along some roads 
in the area.
     Public use and recreation: There is a common sentiment 
that public recreational use has increased over the past several years. 
Hunting and snowmobiling were specifically mentioned as uses that have 
increased. Many people said that additional developed recreation sites 
were not desired or needed. Some desire increased maintenance of 
trails, especially historic pack trails. Others mentioned the 
decreasing availability of firewood. Off-road vehicle use was said to 
be increasing, which was not desired due to noise and ground 
disturbance. A majority of people said that maintaining traditional 
recreational opportunities was important.
     Wildlife: A variety of opinions and observations about 
wildlife were expressed. Some felt that populations of deer, elk and 
moose were increasing, while others said they were declining. Some said 
that management of the area should focus on recovery of threatened, 
endangered and sensitive wildlife species, while others believe that 
``multiple-use'' management should continue. One mentioned that 
designated winter range is used almost totally in summer and fall 
months.
     Livestock grazing: Many comments were received expressing 
displeasure and frustration with livestock grazing in the area. Open-
range cattle on private land, in streams, and in roadways were 
mentioned numerous times. Other comments expressed the desire to 
maintain or increase livestock grazing in the area.
     Timber management: Many people said that timber harvest is 
appropriate, and expressed a preference for selective harvests that 
retain both large and small trees, are adequately cleaned up following 
harvest, and provide opportunities for small operators. The appearance 
of recently logged areas is important to many people. Several stated 
that dead and dying trees should be harvested before they lose their 
value for timber products. Some people expressed their belief that the 
area has been over cut in the past and further timber harvest is 
inappropriate. Others said that timber should be managed as it has been 
in the past, and that the emphasis for the area should be for maximum 
timber production.
     Water quality, riparian areas: The need for water quality 
protection was mentioned by several people. Some thought the area near 
Pinkham Creek should not be harvested, but should be maintained for 
fishing and camping. One person mentioned that the Forest Service 
needed to pay more attention to wet areas within harvest units. Concern 
about effects to water quality from cattle in streams was voiced.
     What people would like the Pinkham Area to be like in the 
future: Many people expressed a desire that the area continue to 
provide the quality of experiences and benefits to people that it has 
over the past 90+ years. Many people mentioned maintaining the lower 
valley floor as a quality residential area, while providing 
opportunities for recreation, grazing and timber harvest. A common 
sentiment seemed to be that the area remain ``unchanged''--as remote as 
possible, a good place to raise a family and make a living. Others 
believe that the area should be managed for reforestation, wildlife 
habitat improvement, sensitive and endangered species recovery, water 
quality and fishery improvement. Still others feel that recreation 
should be the primary human use.
     Public involvement and scoping: In October, 1993 a 
``Pinkham Project Area Planning Report'' was mailed to over 200 local 
landowners and residents, and people that had expressed interest in 
Forest Service activities in the area. Advertisements were also placed 
in the Daily Interlake, Kalispell, Montana and the Tobacco Valley News, 
Eureka, Montana, requesting public comment and information concerning 
the Pinkham Project Area. In addition, in June, 1997 a letter was 
mailed to approximately 230 individuals, groups and other agencies 
comprising the mailing list for the Pinkham 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 Pinkham Timber Sales and Associated Activities. 
Comments received prior to this notice will be included in developing 
issues and identifying alternatives for the EIS.
    This environmental analysis and decision making process will enable 
additional interested and affected people to participate and 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

[[Page 52523]]

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 preliminary issues.
--Identifying significant issues to be analyzed in depth.
--Identifying alternatives to the proposed action.
--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 60 days of 
the publication of this notice will be especially useful in the 
preparation of the Draft EIS. The 60-day comment period will fulfill 
the public review requirement for creating openings over 40 acres in 
size. The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by March, 
1998. 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 June, 1998. 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. 
versus 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 versus Hodel,  
803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. 
versus 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: Robert Schrenk, Forest Supervisor, Kootenai 
National Forest, is the Responsible Official. Authority for preparation 
of the EIS has been delegated to Robert Thompson, District Ranger, 
Rexford Ranger District, 1299 Highway 93 North, Eureka, Montana. The 
Responsible Official will decide which, if any, of the proposed 
projects will be implemented. The decision and reasons for the decision 
will be documented in the Record of Decision. That decision will be 
subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations.

    Dated: October 2, 1997.
Robert J. Thompson,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 97-26624 Filed 10-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M