[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3979-3982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1295]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Pink Stone Fire Recovery; Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln 
County, MT

AGENCY: Forest Service USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: In August, 2000, two lightning-caused wildfires burned about 
16,100 acres in the Pinkham and Sutton Creek drainages between 7 and 14 
miles southwest of Eureka, Montana. The fires threatened private 
property and resulted in significant tree mortality and increased 
future fuel levels. Increases in spring-time peak water flows in a few 
streams are expected to approach maximum levels allowed by the Kootenai 
Forest Plan as a result of vegetation loss. The USDA Forest Service 
will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Pink Stone 
Fire Recovery Decision Area, which encompasses the two fire areas. The 
EIS will disclose the effects of fire recovery opportunities designed 
to meet the Purpose and Need for taking action, which is to (1) reduce 
existing and future fuel accumulations, the corresponding risk of 
reburn, and the risk to private property; (2) recover the economic 
value of fire-killed timber; (3) restore vegetative species diversity 
appropriate to the sites; and (4) restore affected watersheds to 
properly functioning conditions.
    Fuel reduction and economic opportunities would be accomplished 
through salvage harvest of fire-killed timber and jackpot burning of 
harvest-created slash. Vegetation and watershed restoration 
opportunities would be accomplished through hand planting and natural 
regeneration in harvested, riparian and burned areas, and improving 
water drainage systems through road, ditch and culvert improvements. 
Additional fire recovery opportunities proposed include visual quality 
improvements using unit shapes and sizes designed to imitate patterns 
created by the fires, improvements to fire-affected trails, and 
provisions for adequate snag and coarse woody debris following recovery 
treatments.
    The Proposed Action would reduce existing and future fuels and 
recover the economic value of burned timber on about 4,003 acres of 
land burned during the fires, producing about 89,488 hundred cubic feet 
(CCF), or 36.7 million board feet (MMBF), of forest product. Treatment 
types include about 1,663 acres of regeneration harvest, 1,522 acres of 
shelterwood harvest, 464 acres of seed tree harvest, and 354 acres of 
commercial thinning using tractor, cable and forwarded harvest systems. 
Jackpot burning would be used to reduce residual fuels. Watershed 
recovery actions would include about 315 acres of riparian planting, 
about 2,791 acres of hand planting in addition to expected natural 
regeneration, and roadside drainage improvements on approximately 76 
miles of forest roads. Visual quality improvements involve unit size, 
shapes and treatments that imitate fire patterns and decrease the 
visual effect of previous unit edges and fire-killed trees. Fire-
created trail hazards on three trials would be removed.
    The Proposed Action would require Kootenai National Forest Plan 
project-specific exceptions to harvest in big game movement corridors 
and to temporarily exceed open road density standards in Management 
Area 12 (Big Game Summer Range with Timber Management). The Proposed 
Action would also create openings over 40 acres, which is allowable 
under catastrophic conditions such as large wildfires.
    The proposed activities are considered together because they 
represent either connected or cumulative actions as defined by the 
Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.23).
    The EIS will tier to the Kootenai National Forest Land and Resource 
Management Plan, as amended, and the 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 
February 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The Responsible Official is Bob Castaneda, the Kootenai 
National Forest Supervisor, 1101 U.S. Highway 2 West, Libby, MT 59923. 
Written comments and suggestions concerning the scope of the analysis 
should be sent to Glen M. McNitt, District Ranger, Rexford Ranger 
District, 1299 U.S. Highway 93 N, Eureka, MT 59917.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Komac, Acting NEPA Coordinator, 
Rexford Ranger District, Phone: (406) 296-2536.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Decision Area is located on the Rexford 
Ranger District of the Kootenai National Forest in northwest Montana. 
Two fire areas, the Stone Hill Fire (10,960 acres) and the Lydia Fire 
(5,434 acres) make up the almost 16,200-acre Decision Area. All but 
some high-elevation ridgetops have favorable climate and good site 
conditions for forest vegetation. Proposed activities within the 
Decision Area include all or portions of T34-35N; R27-29W.
    Average annual precipitation ranges from 14 to 100 inches. At 
higher elevations, most precipitation falls as snow. The Decision Area 
contains a combination of open-grown ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir in 
the lower elevations adjacent to Lake Koocanusa in the Store Hill fire 
area; upland areas in both fires that contain multistoried western 
larch/Douglas-fir intermixed with lodgepole pine; and mid to high to 
elevation areas in both fires that produce Englemann spruce, subalpine 
fir and lodgepole pine stands.
    Some of the Stone Hill portion of the Decision Area is highly 
visible from a designated Scenic Byway (State Highway 37 and Forest 
Development Road #228) and from the Webb Mountain rental lookout.
    The Kootenai National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 
provides overall management objectives in individual delineated 
management areas (MAs). Almost all of the proposed fire recovery 
activities occur in MA 12 and 15. Briefly described, 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

[[Page 3980]]

focuses upon timber production using various silvicultural practices 
while providing for other resource values. Planting disease-resistant 
white-bark in suitable habitat and removing trail hazards along three 
trails are recovery activities proposed in MA 2 (non-motorized 
recreation, no timber harvest).

Purpose and Need

    The Purpose and Need for taking action in the Decision Area is to 
(1) reduce existing and future fuel accumulations, the corresponding 
risk of reburn, and the risk to private property by removing dead and 
dying trees and jackpot burning residual fuels; (2) recover the 
economic value of fire-killed timber by harvesting merchantable trees; 
(3) restore vegetative species diversity by hand planting a variety of 
species appropriate to the sites in addition to natural regeneration; 
and (4) restore affected watersheds to properly functioning conditions 
by providing short- and long-term large woody debris recruitment, 
improving road-related drainage problems, and reducing the risk of 
additional watershed impacts from future reburns.

Proposed Activities

    The Forest Service proposes to reduce existing and accumulating 
fuels and recover the economic value of burned timber on about 4,003 
acres of fire-affected forest lands. About 1,663 acres of regeneration 
harvest would occur, where all trees would be harvested except about 5 
moderately sized reserve trees. About 464 acres of seed tree harvest 
would occur, where 5-20 reserve trees would be retained to provide a 
seed source for natural regeneration. About 1,522 acres would be 
treated with a shelterwood harvest, where about 20-50 reserve trees per 
acre would be retained. Commercial thinning would occur on about 354 
acres, with 30-100 trees per acre remaining. These treatments would 
recover an expected 89,488 CCF (36.7 MMBF) of commercial forest product 
from the fire-effected areas. A tractor harvest system would be used on 
about 1,270 acres where access and slope were favorable. On about 98 
acres a cable system would be used, mostly due to steep slopes. A 
forwarded harvest system would be used on about 471 acres due to long 
skidding distances, steep slopes and soil concerns. Approximately 0.4 
miles of temporary road would be needed to access one unit to be 
harvested with ground-based systems. This temporary road would be 
removed from the landscape after harvest activities were accomplished. 
No underburning is proposed due to the effects of the fires, however, 
residual fuels after the fires and harvest-generated fuels would be 
piled and burned as necessary (referred to as jackpot burning). 
Restoring vegetation as soon as possible would be supported by about 
2,791 acres of hand planting western larch, western white pine and 
ponderosa pine in addition to expected natural regeneration. Selected 
sites over about 650 acres of high elevation land would be planted with 
disease-resistant white-barked pine. In addition to reforestation, 
watershed recovery actions would include providing species diversity 
and future large woody debris recruitment by planting aspen, black 
cottonwood, western redcedar, Englemann spruce and western hemlock up 
to 100 feet on both sides of about 13 mines of streams, or about 315 
acres of riparian habitat; improving inadequate road-related drainage 
by upgrading roads to current Best Management Practices, increasing the 
size of stream crossing culverts, and improving road drainage; and 
reducing fuels in order to reduce the risk of additional impacts to 
watersheds from a future reburn. Visual quality improvements involve 
unit size, shapes and treatments that imitate fire patterns and 
decrease the visual effect of previous unit edges and fire-killed 
trees. Fire-created hazards on portions of three trails totaling about 
7 miles would be removed.
    The proposed activities were focused in high fire severity areas 
where large openings were created or will eventually be created by the 
fires. The Proposed Action contains 32 units that would exceed 40 acres 
and create immediate openings, ranging from 45 to 246 acres. Many are 
adjacent to other pre-fire openings or other Proposed Action units, and 
cumulatively with fire-affected stands could eventually result in very 
large openings exceeding 1,000 acres or more.
    The proposal also includes 1.1 mile of permanent road construction, 
0.4 miles of temporary road construction, and approximately 67 miles of 
reconstruction to meet Best Management Practices requirements. The 
temporary road would be obliterated following management actions.
    Implementation of this proposal would require opening several miles 
of road currently restricted to public access. Depending on sale 
scheduling, some roads may be open to the public during activities. 
Restrictions for motorized access would be restored following the 
conclusion of the management activities.

Forest Plan Amendments

    The proposed action includes several project-specific forest plan 
amendments and a programmatic amendment to meet the goals of the 
Kootenai National Forest Plan:
    A project-specific amendment to MA 12 Wildlife and Fish Standard #7 
and Timber Standard #2 would be needed to allow harvest adjacent to 
existing openings in big game movement corridors in MA 12. The 
wildfires burned around some pre-fire openings, removing cover in 
corridors and creating larger openings. The Proposed Action would 
remove much of the burned material that previously provided corridor 
cover. Surviving live trees and some snags and down woody material 
would be left to provide wildlife habitat and maintain soil 
productivity. In the larger openings, patches and corridors would be 
left to provide some level of security for big game movement through 
the fire areas.
    A project-specific amendment to allow MA 12 open road densities 
would be needed to temporarily exceed the MA 12 Facilities Standard #3 
of 1.15 miles/square mile (as previously amended by the Pinkham Timber 
Sale and Associated Activities Record of Decision, 1999). In order to 
recover forest products in a timely manner, several roads may be opened 
at the same time which would increase open road densities above the 
current standard. Open road densities would return to existing MA 
standards following activities.

Range of Alternatives

    The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives to the 
Proposed Action. One of these will be a ``no action'' alternative, in 
which none of the proposed activities would be implemented. Additional 
alternatives will be considered to achieve the project's purpose and 
need for action and to respond to specific resource issues and public 
concerns.

Preliminary Issues

    Several issues of concern have been identified. These are briefly 
described below:
    Future fire risk: The Lydia and Stone Hill fires killed many trees 
over large areas. Over the next 20 years most of these dead trees will 
fall over, creating high fuel levels. Reburns are anticipated with this 
kind of fuel load in intensities higher than what would normally be 
expected. In the aftermath of threats to private property this summer, 
public comments expressed concern over fuel loads and the potential for 
fires to again

[[Page 3981]]

threaten private land ownership. There are also internal concerns that 
such a reburn would cause more severe effects to soils, watershed 
resources, vegetation and specialized habitat such as old-growth, snags 
and coarse woody debris.
    Timber supply: Many preliminary public comments expressed concern 
that the value of burned timber will be lost if nothing is done to 
recover the area. Additional comments have voiced concern over the time 
frame proposed for addressing fire recovery, and expressed the urgency 
to recover the economic value of affected trees in a timely manner.
    Water quality: Streams in or downstream of the fire areas have been 
impacted by past management and large wildfires. Several streams are 
nearing maximum allowable peak flow levels. Although the Proposed 
Action is expected to have long-term benefits, there are concerns that 
cumulative effects of past harvest, the fires and the Proposed Action 
may have short-term negative impacts to some watersheds.
    Lynx habitat: Both fire areas impacted suitable habitat for Canada 
lynx. Coarse woody debris is an important component of denning habitat, 
and if a reburn does not occur, the fire areas are expected to produce 
denning and foraging habitat in about 15 years. Some comments expressed 
concern that post-fire recovery of timber products would reduce or 
remove important denning habitat.
    Visual recovery: The Stone Hill fire is highly visible from a 
designated Scenic Byway and several scenic viewpoints. Preliminary 
comments have expressed concern over the visual appearance of burned 
landscapes, including blackened bark, red needles and large areas of 
dead and dying trees. Other comments expressed concern about the 
potential for management activities to create sharp lines or unnatural 
patterns and decrease visual quality.
    Permanent road construction: The Lydia fire burned through a large 
area which currently has no suitable road access. About 1.1 mile of 
permanent road construction is proposed to provide reasonable access to 
the proposed treatment areas. There is a public concern that the Forest 
Service does not have enough funding to justify building a permanent 
road and maintaining it through time.

Decisions To Be Made

    The Kootenai Forest Supervisor will decide the following:
     Whether or not to reduce existing and expected fuels 
create by the fires in order to reduce the risk of a reburn, and if so, 
identify the selection and site-specific location of such actions, and 
the fuel treatments necessary to reduce those fuels.
     Whether or not to recover the economic value of burned 
trees in a timely manner, and if so, identify the selection, site-
specific location and timing of such actions, and appropriate timber 
management practices (silvicultural prescription, logging system, fuels 
treatment, and reforestation), road construction/reconstruction 
necessary to provide access, and appropriate mitigation measures.
     Whether or not hand planting should be used to supplement 
natural regeneration and increase diversity in burned, harvested and 
riparian areas, and if so, identify the selection and site-specific 
locations of such actions, and the appropriate species and 
reforestation methods needed.
     Whether or not short-term impacts to watersheds should be 
allowed in order to improve long-term watershed conditions.
     Whether or not watershed recovery activities (large woody 
debris recruitment provisions, improved road drainages, reduced risk of 
reburn) to improve long-term conditions should be implemented, and if 
so, identify the selection and site-specific locations of such actions.
     Whether or not project-specific Forest Plan exceptions are 
necessary to meet the specific purpose and need of this project, and 
whether those exceptions are significant under NFMA.
     What, if any, specific-project monitoring requirements 
would be needed to assure mitigation measures are implemented and 
effective.

Public Involvement and Scoping

    In November, 2000 preliminary efforts were made to involve the 
public in considering management opportunities within the Pink Stone 
Fire Recovery Decision Area. Comments received prior to this notice 
will be included in the documentation for the EIS. 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, and local agencies, Indian tribes, 
individuals, and organizations who may be interested in, or affected 
by, the Proposed Action. The input will be used in preparation of the 
draft and final EIS.
    The scoping process will assist in identifying potential issues, 
identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth, identifying 
alternatives to the proposed action, and 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 April, 2001. 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 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 September, 2001. 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.

Reviewer's Obligations

    The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers 
notice at this early stage 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 30-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 be most helpful in assisting the Forest Service to identify and 
consider issues and concerns on the Proposed Action, comments on the 
draft EIS

[[Page 3982]]

should be as specific as possible and may address the adequacy of the 
statement or the merit of the alternatives discussed. Reference to 
specific pages or chapters of the draft EIS would also be helpful. 
Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality 
regulations (40 CFR 1503.3) for implementing the procedural provisions 
of the National Environmental Policy Act.

Responsible Official

    As the Forest Supervisor of the Kootenai National Forest, 1101 U.S. 
Highway 2 West, Libby, MT 59923, I am the Responsible Official. As the 
Responsible Official I will decide if the proposed project will be 
implemented. I will document the decision and reasons for the decision 
in the Record of Decision. I have delegated the responsibility for 
preparing the EIS to Glen M. McNitt, District Ranger, Rexford Ranger 
District.

    Dated: January 10, 2001.
Greg Kujawa,
Planning, Public Affairs, Recreation and Heritage Staff Officer, 
Kootenai National Forest.
[FR Doc. 01-1295 Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M