[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71442-71444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34191]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Upper Pipe Creek Timber Sale 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 proposed
timber harvest, road construction, prescribed burns, wastershed and
fisheries habitat restoration, road restriction changes, noxious weed
control, gravel pit expansion and recreational improvements in the
upper and eastern portion of the Pipe Creek drainage. The upper and
eastern portions of this drainage are located approximately 15 air
miles north of Libby, Montana.
The proposed activities 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: (1) Manage road access to balance wildlife and
fisheries habitat protection, limit the spread of noxious weeds and
provide for public access; (2) improve watershed health and fisheries
habitat to provide for stable stream channels, productive habitat for
aquatic species and water quality that meets or exceeds State of
Montana water quality goals; (3) use prescribed fire to stimulate
natural processes, prevent natural and activity fuel buildup, create
habitat diversity for wildlife, reduce suppression costs and maintain
ecosystems; (4) utilize timber harvest to increase the long-term
productivity of forest stands suitable for timber production which are
currently slowing in growth, over stocked and approaching an age where
they are becoming more suspectable to mountain pine beetle infestation;
(5) provide timber and other forest products to support local, regional
and national needs; and (6) restore western white pine and other
intolerant tree species to historic sites and/or conditions.
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.
DATES: Written comments and suggestions should be received on or before
October 27, 1999.
ADDRESSES: The Responsible Official is the Kootenai National Forest,
Forest Supervisor, 1101 U.S. Hwy 2 West, Libby, Montana 59923. Written
comments and suggestions concerning this analysis may be sent to
Lawrence A. Froberg, Libby District Ranger, 12557 U.S. Hwy 37, Libby,
Montana 59923.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirsten Kaiser, Project Coordinator,
Libby Ranger District. Phone: (406) 293-7773.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The decision area contains approximately
21,000 acres within the Kootenai National Forest in Lincoln County,
Montana. All of the proposed activities would occur on National Forest
lands in the East Fork Pipe Creek drainage near Libby, Montana. The
legal location of the decision area is as follows: T34N, R31W, Sections
14, 15, 21-28, 31-36; T33N, R31W, Sections 1-36; T33N, R30W, Sections
19 and 30; T33N R32W, Sections 24, 25, 36; T32N, R31W, Sections 3-36;
T32N, R32W, Sections 1, 12-13, 25, 36; T31N, R32W, Sections, 1-3, 10,
11, 15, 16, 19-28, 34; 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 harvest approximately 3.0 MMBF
(million board feet) or approximately 7,300 CCF (hundred cubic feet of
timber through application of a variety of harvest methods on
approximately 400 acres of forest land. All activities would occur on
suitable timberlands. An estimated 0.3 miles of temporary road and 2.2
miles of permanent road construction would be needed to access timber
harvest areas. An estimated 30 miles of road reconstruction/maintenance
would also be needed to improve existing road conditions. Approximately
20 miles of road would be restored by various methods which
[[Page 71443]]
include culvert removal, partial recontouring, ripping and seeding.
These activities would result in most roads being undrivable.
Restoration methods would be based on site specific conditions and
would be designed to improve watershed and fisheries habitat conditions
and reduce overall density to improve big game security. The proposal
also includes prescribed burning on approximately 250 acres to decrease
ground fuels, increase browse species, return fire to the landscape and
aid in site preparation for natural and artificial regeneration.
Prescribed burning would occur in association with timber harvest and
in areas without timber harvest. Proposed harvest treatments in this
proposal are as follows and may include Forest Plan amendments:
Clearcut with reserves. This prescription involves areas where
lodgepole pine would be the primary species removed. It would result in
a regeneration harvest with reserve trees (primarily western larch,
Douglas fir, subalpine fir) concentrated in patches/islands and
scattered where stand conditions exist. Treatment of these areas would
include thinning for a feathering effect. This prescription would thin
from within the reserve (patch/island) portion of the stand, into the
untreated portion of the stand. Size and shape of treatment areas would
be designed to maintain watershed and wildlife values. The proposal
includes treating large areas to mimic historic fire patterns,
resulting in two openings up to 150 acres in size. Approval by the
Regional Forester for exceeding the 40 acre limitation for regeneration
harvest would be required prior to the signing of the Record of
Decision. This treatment is proposed on approximately 310 acres.
Rust resistant white pine would be planted in units where site
conditions would support this species. It is desirable to return white
pine to the ecosystem as disease (white pine blister rust) has
significantly decreased the availability of this species in the Upper
Pipe Creek area and throughout it's range.
Roadside salvage and individual tree removal. These prescriptions
would result in the removal of individual dead and dying trees along
open roads and roads to be opened for management activities while
providing for an appropriate level of woody debris and cavity habitat.
After treatment the given area would resemble a stocked stand with
small openings where dead and downed trees were removed. This treatment
is proposed on approximately 30 acres.
Salvage. This prescription would result in the removal of dead and
down conifer species. Live tree species would be retained with the
exception of a minor amount that may be harvested to facilitate yarding
activity, access or due to safety concerns. Harvest would result in the
uneven distribution of green and some standing dead trees. This
treatment is proposed on approximately 10 acres.
Special product removal. This prescription would result in the
removal of trees less than 6 inches in diameter (trees normally
considered too small for commercial products). These trees would be
removed for utilization as post and poles or other specialized uses.
After treatment the given area may resemble a thinning or stands with
small openings. This treatment is proposed on approximately 30 acres.
Other resource projects proposed are as follows:
Pipe Creek road improvements. Winter maintenance of this road
(Forest Road 68) is a concern expressed by the public and IDT.
Opportunities to improve portions of the Pipe Creek road to increase
public safety are part of the proposal and include clearing/thinning
right-of-ways and road reconstruction. Activities would be in
compliance with INFISH.
Log structure placement. Large woody debris is lacking in portions
of Deception Creek (tributary to East Fork of Pipe Creek). Log
structures in designated portions of the stream (T34N, R32W, Sections
22, 26, 27, 36) would be added to help improve stream stabilization,
catch and store sediment and create habitat features (i.e. pools).
Recreation uses. Access for hunters with physical disabilities is
an important program on the district. This proposal includes
designating the Michael's Draw area which includes all of the 4756 road
system, as an area accessible to hunters with physical disabilities.
Michaels' Draw is located in lower Pipe Creek and is currently closed
year long to motorized vehicles and over the snow vehicles.
We also propose to allow the Kootenai Cross Ski Club to construct a
ski shelter on Flatiron Mountain. The shelter would be for skiers only
and use would be limited to the December 1st to April 1st period. All
materials and labor would be provided by the Kootenai Cross Country Ski
Club.
Wildlife enhancement. Proposed road restoration (approximately 20
miles) would improve habitat effectiveness and security as roads would
not be drivable following restoration activities. Cavity habitat would
be improved where it is limited by past management activities through
tree inoculation (inoculation kills the tree, resulting in habitat for
cavity nesting species).
Noxious weeds. Weed control work may include use of herbicides,
biological agents, mechanical pulling and road management. Infestations
including isolated weed populations would be mapped and recorded. The
intensity of control work would be based on likelihood of successful
eradication or containment, risk of spread to non-infested areas and
available funding. All work would be closely coordinated with Lincoln
County weed control personnel and implemented in accordance with the
MOU (memorandum of understanding) between the Kootenai National Forest
and Lincoln County.
Firewood gathering. Firewood gathering opportunities for the public
on restricted roads, roads to be opened for logging activities and/or
on roads to be restored would be considered.
Gravel pit expansion. We propose to expand two existing gravel pits
(the Upper Pipe Creek Pit and the South Fork of Big Creek Pit) located
in T32N, R31W, Section 34 and in T34N, R30W, Section 31. Expansion of
both pits would include the harvest/removal of timber on approximately
20 acres. Expansion would not occur in 1 year, rather it would occur
over a 10 year period. Active and reclaimed portions of the pits would
cover approximately 10 acres (20 acres for both pits); however, only 2
to 3 acres of the pits (4 to 6 acres for both pits) would be active at
any given time. Pit restoration would be concurrent with resource
extraction (i.e. after resource is removed, restoration would occur).
Restoration and mitigation would occur including seeding of disturbed
areas and noxious weed control. Materials extracted from these pits
would be used for road construction and reconstruction/maintenance in
the Pipestone area for the proposed project and for ongoing and future
road maintenance.
Range of Alternatives: The Forest Service will consider a range of
alternatives. One would be a ``no action'' alternative in which none of
the proposed activities would be implemented. Additional alternatives
may be considered to achieve the project's purpose and need and to
response to specific resource issues.
Preliminary Issues: Tentatively, several issues of concern have
been identified. These issues are briefly described below.
Road Access and Restoration: Specific roads would be restores to
improve watershed and fisheries habitat conditions. Restored roads
would not be
[[Page 71444]]
drivable following reactivities; however, snowmobile use may continue
to occur on these roads until they are reclaimed by development of
trees and shrubs. Some individuals are concerned that public access is
already overly restricted. Most of the roads proposed for restoration
are currently closed year long to motor vehicles except open to snow
vehicles from 12/1 to 4/30. What effect would restoration effects have
on public access to recreational areas?
Grizzly Bear: A portion of the project area is in grizzly bear
habitat. Specifically, road restoration and timber harvest is proposed
within the Cabinet/Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Area. What effect would
proposed activities have on the threatened grizzly bear?
Water Quality and Fisheries Habitat: Water quality and fisheries
habitat is expected to be improved with the implementation of proposed
activities (road restoration, log placement). Some individuals have
expressed concerns regarding project effects (potential short term
sediment reaching Pipe Creek) to water quality and bull trout recovery
as Pipe Creek is a bull trout priority watershed. What effects would
the proposed actions have on water quality and bull trout habitat?
Noxious Weeds: Knapweed and other noxious weed species are present
along many roads within the project area. Some individuals are
concerned about the spread of noxious weeds and the effects to native
vegetation.
Timber Supply and Economics: Some individuals are concerned that
the Forest Service is not placing enough emphasis on providing forest
products to the local communities. How will the proposed activities
affect timber supplies and produce economic benefits to local
communities?
Public Involvement and Scoping
In March of 1997, preliminary efforts were made to involve the
public in looking at opportunities for management and restoration of
the larger Pipestone area. Public involvement has included several
informational letters, public notices in local and regional newspapers
and two field trips.
Taking into account the comments received and information gathered
during preliminary analysis, it was decided to prepare an EIS for the
Upper Pipe Creek timber sale 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 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 Forest Service
will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from Federal,
State, Tribes, 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 assist in:
--Identifying potential issues.
--Identifying 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.
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 March, 1999. 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 of 1999. 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
objectives 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
The Kootenai National Forest, Forest Supervisor, 1101 U.S. Hwy 2
West, Kootenai National Forest, Libby, Montana 59923, is the
Responsible Official. The Responsible Official will decide which, if
any, of the proposed projects will be implemented. This decision will
be document reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision. That
decision will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations.
Dated: December 18, 1998.
Mark L. Romey,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest.
[FR Doc. 98-34191 Filed 12-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M