[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 209 (Friday, October 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63136-63138]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24211]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Northeast Yaak EIS; Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, 
Montana

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental effects of urban 
interface fuels treatments, vegetation management, watershed 
rehabilitation activities, wildlife habitat improvement, and access 
management changes, including road decommissioning. The project is 
located in the Northeast Yaak planning subunit on the Three Rivers 
Ranger District, Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, Montana, and 
northeast of Troy, Montana.

DATES: Scoping Comment Date: Comments concerning the scope of the 
analysis should be received by November 30, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and suggestions concerning the scope of the 
analysis should be sent to Michael L. Balboni, District Ranger, Three 
Rivers Ranger District, 1437 Hwy 2, Troy, MT 59935.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Dickinson, Team Leader, Three 
Rivers Ranger District, 1437 Hwy 2, Troy, MT 59935. Phone: (406) 295-
4693.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The project area is approximately 26 air 
miles northeast of Troy, Montana, within all or portions of T37N, R29W-
R32W, and T36N, R30N-R31W, Lincoln

[[Page 63137]]

County, Montana. The area encompasses the following drainages: 
Blacktail, Caribou, East Fork Yaak River, Porcupine, Basin, Solo Joe, 
Windy, Bunker Hill, and Vinal drainages and several small drainages 
tributary to the East Fork of the Yaak River.
    The purpose and need for this project is to: (1) Reduce fuels and 
the potential for crown fires in the urban interface and other forested 
areas; (2) manage for more diverse and sustainable vegetative 
conditions; (3) improve conditions in old growth habitat; (4) improve 
growing conditions and long-term management of overstocked sapling/pole 
stands; (5) improve and maintain winter range conditions; (6) improve 
the quality of grizzly bear habitat; (7) provide for motorized access 
to national forest resources for recreation and to meet management 
objectives, while maintaining wildlife security; (8) continue to 
decrease cumulative sediment introduction to streams from roads; and 
(9) contribute forest products to the economy.
    To meet this purpose and need this project proposes:
    (1) Intermediate tree harvest on approximately 2,010 acres and 
regeneration harvest on 340 acres to reduce fuels and manage for a more 
diverse and sustainable vegetative conditions. Included in the 
intermediate tree harvest is an estimated 140 acres in stands 
designated as old growth (MA-13) Old growth characteristics would be 
maintained and enhanced with this treatment. This proposal includes a 
project-specific forest plan amendment to allow for this harvest in MA-
13. Mechanical fuels reduction is proposed on 110 acres, and hand 
piling fuels reduction is proposed on 100 acres, all in the wildland 
urban interface. Maintenance underburning is proposed on approximately 
120 acres in the wildland urban interface, including 80 acres within 
old growth or replacement old growth. This harvest would contribute 
approximately 12 to 16 million board feet (MMBF) or 29,300 to 39,000 
hundred cubic feet (CCF) of timber products to the economy. 
Approximately 0.6 miles of new specified road construction and 0.7 
miles of road realignment would be needed for this project and to 
provide for long-term management needs. The road would be placed in 
storage after treatment. It is estimated that five temporary roads 
ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 miles would be constructed to accomplish this 
harvest and would be obliterated following activities. Best Management 
Practice work and road maintenance work would be implemented on haul 
roads. Pre-commercial thinning is proposed on approximately 270 acres 
to improve growing conditions and maintain structural diversity in 
managed sapling stands.
    (2) Decommissioning all or portions of 13 roads (approximately 17 
miles) which were determined through an interdisciplinary process to be 
unneeded and are at risk of contributing sediment to streams. the 
decommissioning work would include outsloping portions of the road 
prism, installing ditch-intercept waterbars, and reestablishing stream 
crossings. Several roads in the upper Caribou and Bloom Creek area used 
in the 1950s are inaccessible and would be abandoned. To improve 
motorized public access, Road 746 would be opened for public travel.
    (3) To enlarge and consolidate grizzly bear core habitat while 
maintaining the 55 percent standard in Bear Management Unit 16, Road 
5816 (at the junction of Road 6810H), Road 6004, and Road 6005, would 
be bermed and stabilized. These roads are currently gated, so public 
access would not change. A smaller core area in the Solo Joe/Hudson Cr. 
area would be eliminated.
    (4) Design features and mitigations to maintain and protect 
resource values.

Range of Alternatives

    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 will 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.

Public Involvement and Scoping

    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, 
Tribal governments, and other individuals or organizations that 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:
    1. Identifying potential issues.
    2. Identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth.
    3. Identifying alternatives to the proposed action.
    4. Exploring additional alternatives that will be derived from 
issues recognized during scoping activities.
    5. Identifying potential environmental effects of this proposal 
(i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and connected actions).

Estimated Dates for Filing

    The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review in 
February 2005. 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. It is very important that those 
interested in the management of this area participate at that time.
    The final EIS is scheduled to be completed in June 2005. 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 to 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 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 be most helpful, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific 
as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement or the merit 
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

[[Page 63138]]

Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

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 DEIS and FEIS to Michael L. Balboni, District Ranger, 
Three Rivers Ranger District.

    Dated: October 25, 2004.
Bob Castaneda,
Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest.
[FR Doc. 04-24211 Filed 10-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M