# Bear Environmental Impact Statement; Bitterroot National Forest, Ravalli County, MT > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-3411 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Uncategorized Document - **Published:** February 15, 1994 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-3411. Public record. Not legal advice.