[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70210-70212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32606]
========================================================================
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. 64, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 1999 /
Notices
[[Page 70210]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Pipestone Forest Health Project, 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 vegetation
management through timber harvest and prescribed burning; road
maintenance, reconstruction and construction; and habitat improvement
projects such as instream fisheries habitat enhancement in that portion
of the Pipestone landscape assessment area which encompasses the Pipe
and Bobtail Creek drainages. The southern and northernmost extent of
the landscape assessment area are located approximately 1 and 20 air
miles, respectively, from 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 improve forest health, improve watershed and fisheries
habitat, and contribute to a sustained yield of timber.
The EIS will tier to the Kootenai National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan as amended by the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFS),
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), and Record of Decision
(ROD) of September, 1987, which provides overall guidance for forest
management of the area.
DATES: Written comments and suggestions should be received on or before
January 18, 2000.
ADDRESSES: The Responsible Official is Bob Castaneda, the Kootenai
National Forest Supervisor, 1101 U.S. Hwy 2 West, Libby, Montana 59923.
Written comments and suggestions concerning this analysis may be sent
to Malcom Edwards, 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 portion of the landscape assessment area
being analyzed is approximately 81,300 acres; approximately 68,000
acres are under Forest Service ownership and approximately 13,200 acres
are under private ownership. All proposed activities would occur on
National Forest lands within the assessment area that includes all or
parts of T34N, R32W, Section 36; T34N, R31W, Sections 11, 14, 15, 21-
36; T34N, R30W, Section 1; T33N R32W, Sections 1, 12, 23-25, 36; T33N,
R31W, Sections 1-36; T33N, R30W, Sections 18-20, 29-33; T32N, R32W,
Sections 1, 12-13, 24, 25, 36; T32N, R31W, Sections 1-36; T32N, R30W,
Sections 5-10, 15-21, 29-32; T31N, R31W, Sections 1-22, 29, 30; T31N,
R30W, Sections 4-9, 17, 18; Principal Montana Meridian.
The assessment area includes the Gold Hill West Roadless Area.
Prescribed burning is proposed in this roadless area. All remaining
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 Kootenai National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
provides overall management objectives in individual delineated
management areas (MAs). Most of the proposed timber harvest activities
encompass five predominant MAs: 11, 12, 15, 16, 17. Briefly described,
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 enhance the summer range
habitat effectiveness for big game species and produce a programmed
yield of timber. MA 15 focuses upon timber production using various
silvicultural practices while providing for other resource values. MA
16 is managed to produce timber while providing for a pleasing view. MA
17 is managed to maintain or enhance a natural appearing landscape and
produce a programmed yield of timber. Minor amounts of timber harvest
and/or other proposed activities such as prescribed burning are found
in other MAs, including 6, 13, 14, 18, 19.
Purpose and Need
The primary purpose and need for the project is to: (1) Improve
forest health by reducing tree densities, changing species composition,
stimulating natural processes, reducing insect and disease, and
improving visual condition; (2) improve watershed health and fisheries
habitat by improving habitat conditions, stabilizing stream segments,
and reducing road effects; (3) contribute to a sustained yield of
timber through improvement of forest health.
Proposed Activities
The Forest Service proposes to harvest approximately 18,000 CCF
(hundred cubic feet), equivalent to 7.5 MMBF (million board feet) of
timber through the application of a variety of harvest methods on
approximately 1738 acres of forestland. Silvicultural systems include
378 acres of regeneration harvest, 1103 acres of commercial thinning
type applications, 206 acres of salvage, and 51 acres of removal of
small diameter material. Some treatments would feather or thin stands
adjacent to existing units with abrupt edges to improve the visual
setting for outdoor recreation.
The proposal also includes approximately 325 acres of prescribed
burning in association with commercial timber harvest and approximately
3695 acres of prescribed burning without commercial timber harvest.
Prescribed burning without timber harvest is proposed within management
area 13 (designated old growth) and the Gold Hill West Roadless Area.
The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and District Ranger will consider
firewood gathering opportunities for the public on roads to be opened
for logging activities and/or on roads to be decommissioned will be
considered by the IDT and District Ranger.
The proposal includes constructing an estimated 0.68 miles of
specified permanent road to access vegetation treatment areas. A
temporary increase in
[[Page 70211]]
open road densities (ORDs) associated with proposed management
activities may result in the need for a site-specific Forest Plan ORD
amendment in MA 12 (big game summer range).
The proposal includes expansion of the Upper Pipe Creek Gravel Pit
to provide for mineral material necessary to maintain, reconstruct,
construct and/or improve roads in the assessment area.
The proposal includes creation of cavity habitat through tree
inoculation (inoculation kills the tree) resulting in habitat for
cavity nesting species where cavity habitat is limited by past
management activities.
In addition to the above activities, the following watershed and
fisheries improvement activities are proposed which would include: (1)
Placement of large woody debris in Deception Creek; (2) instream
habitat enhancement work (placement of structures) in Pipe Creek; (3)
habitat and stream stability improvement projects in Bobtail Creek; (4)
approximately 30 miles of road reconstruction and maintenance; (5)
maintenance and improvement of the East Fork Pipe Creek Road; (6)
decommissioning approximately 56 miles of road.
Range of Alternatives
The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. A ``no
action'' alternative in which none of the proposed activities would be
implemented would be considered. Additional alternatives may be
considered to achieve the project's purpose and need and to respond to
specific resource issues and public concerns.
Preliminary Issues
Tentatively, several issues have been identified during the initial
and informal communication phase with the public and internal
communication with Forest Service personnel. These issues are briefly
described below:
Cumulative Effects. What are the effects to various resource value
of past and foreseeable activities on public and private lands within
the project area?
Road Access and Decommissioning. What effect would decommissioning
efforts have on public access?
Grizzly Bear. What effect would proposed activities have on the
threatened grizzly bear?
Water Quality and Fisheries Habitat. What effects would the
proposed actions have on water quality and bull trout habitat?
Noxious/invasive weeds. What effect will the proposed activities
have on the control or spread of noxious weeds?
Timber Supply and Economics. How will the proposed activities
affect timber supplies and produce economic benefits to local
communities?
Public Involvement and Scoping
Beginning in March of 1997, preliminary efforts were made to
involve the public in looking at opportunities for restoration and
management of the Pipestone landscape assessment area. Public
participation has consisted of a series of informational mailings,
notices in local and regional newspapers, field trips, local television
advertisements, a radio address, and an open house. Taking into account
the comments received and information gathered during the preliminary
analysis, it was decided to prepare an EIS for the Pipestone landscape
assessment area. Comments received prior to this notice will be
included in the documentation for the EIS.
This environmental analysis and decisionmaking process will enable
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, and
considering additional alternatives which will be derived from issues
identified 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 July, 2000. 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 of 2000. 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
The Responsible Official, Kootenai Forest Supervisor Bob Castaneda,
will decide which, if any, of the proposed projects will be
implemented. This decision will document reasons for the decision in
the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to Forest Service
Appeal Regulations.
[[Page 70212]]
Dated: December 6, 1999.
Bob Castaneda,
Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest.
[FR Doc. 99-32606 Filed 12-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M