Bear Environmental Impact Statement; Bitterroot National Forest, Ravalli County, MT

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Bear Environmental Impact Statement; Bitterroot National Forest,

Ravalli County, MT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare an environmental impact statement

(EIS).

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact

statement for the Bear assessment area located on the Darby Ranger

District of the Bitterroot National Forest in Montana. The proposals

listed in the Supplementary Information section are being considered

together because they represent either connected or cumulative actions

as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.25).

DATES: Public comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be

submitted by March 4, 1994. Comments that were received during

preparation of the Bear Environmental Assessment will be considered

during preparation of this EIS and will not need to be resubmitted. No

public scoping meetings are scheduled at this time. The Draft EIS is

expected to be available to the public in April, 1994 and the Final EIS

and Record of Decision is expected to be available to the public in

June, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to District Ranger, Darby Ranger

District, P.O. Box 388, Darby MT 59829.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions about the EIS should be directed to Rick Floch, Darby Ranger

District, Phone: (406) 821-3913.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EIS will include the following proposed

actions:

(1) Vegetation Management--There is a need to improve health and

productivity, and to reduce the risk of high intensity wildfire and its

associated potential impacts in ponderosa pine stands in the Bear area.

To do this, a combination of selection harvesting concentrating on

removal of Douglas-fir, underburning and thinning on approximately 580

acres is proposed. This will change species composition over time to

one more representative of what occurred naturally, reintroduce fire

back into the ecosystem, improve tree health and growth, and sustain

the ecosystem.

A combination of harvesting techniques is also proposed on about

400 acres of lodgepole pine stands. Fire suppression in these stands

has resulted in a variety of unfavorable conditions. In some stands,

overstory lodgepole pine trees have died, leaving understories of

subalpine fir and Douglas-fir that are heavily damaged by spruce

budworm and infected by root pathogens. Lodgepole pine in these

understories is also infected with dwarf mistletoe and many of the dead

overstory trees have fallen, creating high fuel loads that will result

in intense future wildfires. Harvesting in these stands would reduce

this fire risk, salvage dead and dying trees, and sustain these

ecosystems by perpetuating new stands of lodgepole pine. In other

stands, understory lodgepole is healthy and overstory trees need to be

removed to allow this next generation of trees to continue growing and

perpetuating the ecosystem.

(2) Watershed/Fisheries Rehabilitation--Major streams in the area

include Two Bear, Bear Gulch, Lower Sleeping Child, Hog Trough,

Railroad, Weasel and Skalkaho Creeks. A course filter analysis of

watersheds has identified a range of different watershed conditions in

the Bear area. A site-specific inventory of watershed improvement needs

for the Upper Skalkaho, Railroad Creek, and Two-Bear areas was done

during the 1992 field season. From this inventory, numerous

rehabilitation activities were identified and are proposed in this EIS.

They include culvert cleanout or removal, grass seeding, road

obliteration, riparian vegetation re-establishment, road closing, and

road reconstruction.

(3) Houselog Salvage--Infrequent fire in the Bear area has resulted

in some areas with an abundance of recently dead and dying lodgepole

pine trees. The proposal includes the salvage of these trees over 275

acres using over-the-snow type logging equipment.

(4) Underburning--To restore fire back into the ecosystem,

underburning over the next 3 years is proposed. To assess cumulative

effects, underburning over a 10 year period on approximately 2,380

acres will be analyzed. Many of these areas are on southern exposures

where underburning will begin to regenerate more fire-tolerant species,

reduce high natural fuel loadings and improve browse for wildlife.

(5) Precommercial Thinning--Past timber harvesting in some areas

has resulted in overstocked plantations that need thinning to improve

productivity. Approximately 475 acres of existing plantations are

proposed for precommercial thinning.

(6) Transportation Management Road densities for several 3rd order

drainages in the Bear area are not meeting Forest Plan standards for

elk habitat effectiveness. Approximately 33 miles of road are proposed

to be closed in order to meet or exceed Forest Plan standards for road

densities. Some of these road sections are included in the road

closures for watershed rehabilitation.

Alternatives to this proposed action will include No Action; an

alternative that does not propose timber harvesting in any roadless

area; two alternatives that treat the Bear area at differing landscape

level intensities; an alternative that models 1987 Forest Plan outputs;

and an alternative that includes only the watershed/fisheries

rehabilitation projects.

Preliminary issues that the EIS will address include:

(a) How will the proposal affect ecosystem health and productivity?

(b) Can houselogs be salvaged from the area and what would the

effect be?

(c) How will the proposal impact roadless areas?

(d) What will be the impacts of this proposal on wildlife?

(e) What effect will the proposal have on water and fishery

resources:

(f) What affect will the proposal have on old growth?

(h) What are the cumulative impacts of private land logging in the

area?

Management activities under consideration would occur in an area

encompassing approximately 43,000 acres and include all National Forest

land between Sleeping Bear/Two Bear Creeks, and all of the upper part

of the Skalkaho Creek drainage. A portion of the assessment area being

considered for harvest is within the Sleeping Child roadless area

(X1074). None of the activities proposed would build any new or

temporary road.

The scope of the proposed action is limited to the associated

activities and analysis area identified above.

The responsible official, who is Thomas G. Wagner, Darby District

Ranger, will consider the comments and responses received concerning

both the Bear Environmental Assesssment and this EIS, as well as all

applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making a decision

regarding the Bear proposal.

The responsible official will document the decision and reasons for

the decision in the Record of Decision. The decision will be subject to

review under applicable Forest Service Regulations.

The Draft EIS is expected to be available to the public in April,

1994 and the Final EIS and Record of Decision is expected to be

available to the public in June, 1994. The comment period on the draft

will be 45 days from the date the EPA's notice of availability appears

in the Federal Register.

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 but that are not raised

until after completion of the final environmental impact statement 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 them and respond to

them in the final environmental impact statement.

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 formulated and

discussed in the statement. (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.)

Dated: January 31, 1994.

Thomas G. Wagner,

District Ranger, Bitterroot National Forest.

[FR Doc. 94-3411 Filed 2-14-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M