# Poorman Project; Including Timber Harvest, Prescribed Fire, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Improvement, and Road and Trail Construction, Helena National Forest, Lewis & Clark County, MT > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-6165 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Notice - **Published:** March 15, 1996 - **Citation:** 61 FR 10722 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Poorman Project; Including Timber Harvest, Prescribed Fire, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Improvement, and Road and Trail Construction, Helena National Forest, Lewis & Clark County, MT AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare Environmental Impact Statement. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service is gathering information and preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Poorman Project located approximately 26 air miles northwest of Helena, Montana. The Forest Service proposes to treat approximately 1450 acres with regeneration harvest treatments, 750 acres with stand replacement fire, 650 acres with commercial thinning, 4950 acres with grass/shrub/ underburning, close three miles of existing road, relocate \1/4\ miles of existing road, construct one mile of new trail, hydromulch erosive sites along existing roads, and install other erosion control structures within the project area. Approximately 16 miles of new system road construction, and two miles of temporary road construction is needed to access treatment areas. All temporary roads will be obliterated after harvest. All new system road will be closed. The proposal is designed to help achieve the goals and objectives of the 1986 Helena National Forest Plan and move selected areas towards the desired conditions identified from the Forest Plan. These needs are supported by the findings of the Blackfoot Landscape Analysis. The purpose is to maintain healthy, sustainable ecosystems that (1) reduce fire risk, (2) provide wildlife habitat similar to the habitat that existed when fire was a natural component of the ecosystem, (3) protect soil and water, (4) provide recreation opportunities, and (5) provide wood for people's use. A Forest Plan amendment is proposed to change management direction for the M-1 management area. Further analysis of the proposed action and alternatives to that proposal may result in a decision(s) that include amendments to the Forest Plan. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received in writing on or before April 8, 1996. ADDRESSES: The responsible official is Thomas J. Clifford, Forest Supervisor, Helena National Forest, Supervisor's Office, 2880 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 59601. Phone: (406) 449-5201. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilbert Zepeda, District Ranger, Lincoln Ranger District, P.O. Box 219, Lincoln, MT 59639. Phone: (406) 362-4265; or Tom Andersen, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Helena National Forest, 2880 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 59601. Phone: (406) 449-5201. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The prescribed burning, and timber sale(s) with associated road construction, would occur on National Forest lands in portions of the Poorman Creek, South Fork of Humbug Creek, and Bear Creek of the Lincoln Ranger District. Included in the area being analyzed is all or portions of T.14N., R.8W., Section 26 and 32; T.14N., R.7W., Sections 30-32; T.13N., R.9W., Sections 12-14, 23 and 24; T.13N., R.8W., Sections 1-36; T.13N., R.7W., Sections 4-9, 16-23, 26-34, Montana Principle Meridian. Portions of the prescribed fire treatment units, road construction and tree harvest are within the Crater Mountain roadless area (1604) and Nevada Mountain roadless area (1606). Approximately 3050 acres of prescribed burning, 1150 acres of tree harvest and 13 miles of specified road construction and one mile of temporary road construction are proposed in the roadless areas. The areas of proposed tree harvest are within the following management areas: T-1 Management areas are available and suitable for timber harvest. T-2 Should be maintained or enhanced for big game winter range for which programmed timber harvest and prescribed fire may be used. T-3 Should be managed in such a way to maintain and/or enhance habitat characteristics favoring elk and other big game species allowing the use of programmed timber harvest and prescribed fire. T-5 Timber management ground that increased forage production is favored in which timber harvest and prescribed fire can be used. W-1 Wildlife (summer and winter range) and old growth potential is optimized in the long run. Timber harvest and prescribed fire can be used only if they can be used as tools to maintain or enhance wildlife habitat values. These areas are generally classified as unsuitable for timber management. W-2 Important spring, summer and fall habitat for big game, such as elk and deer. Forage for both big game and livestock must be provided. Timber harvest and prescribed fire can be used only to maintain or enhance habitat values. M-1 Timber management and range or wildlife habitat improvements are currently uneconomical or environmentally infeasible. The decisions to be made, based on this environmental analysis, are: 1. Whether or not to treat the vegetation at this time, and if so, how would the treatments be accomplished. 2. What type of transportation system will be necessary to accomplish the vegetation management objectives, while considering other resource transportation needs and objectives. If it is decided to treat the vegetation at this time, activities may begin as early as 1997 and take up to 10 years to implement. This EIS will tier to the Helena Forest Plan Final EIS of April 1986, that [[Page 10723]] provides program goals, objectives and standards and guidelines for conducting management activities in this area. All activities associated with the proposal will be designed to maintain or enhance the resource objectives identified in the Forest Plan and further refined in the Blackfoot Landscape Analysis. The Forest Service is seeking information and comments from Federal, State, local agencies and other organizations or individuals who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. The Forest Service invites written comments and suggestions on the issues for the proposal and the area being analyzed. Information received will be used in preparation of the Draft EIS. Preparation of the EIS will include the following steps: 1. Identification of potential issues. 2. Identification of issues to be analyzed in depth. 3. Elimination of insignificant issues or those that have been covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis. 4. Identification of additional reasonable alternatives. 5. Identification of potential environmental effects of the alternatives. Prescribed harvest treatments in this proposal include evenaged management techniques of clearcutting, with reserves, seed tree with reserves and shelterwood with reserves. Intermediate treatments such as commercial thinning will also be considered. Prescribed burning will be used to treat nonforested and forested vegetation. Alternatives to this proposal will include the ``no action'' alternative, in which none of the proposed treatments would be implemented. Other alternatives will examine variations in the location, amount and method of vegetative management. The preliminary issues identified are: 1. The effects on forest health and sustaining ecosystems. 2. The effects on recreation and visual resources. 3. The effects on wildlife. 4. The effects on the roadless and wilderness character of the Crater Mountain and Nevada Mountain Roadless Areas. 5. The effects on fish, water quality, and riparian areas. 6. The effects on project area economics. The Forest Service will analyze and disclose in the DEIS and FEIS the environmental effects of the proposed action and a reasonable range of alternatives. The DEIS and FEIS will disclose the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental effects of each alternative and its associated site specific mitigation measures. Public participation is especially important at several points of the analysis. Interested parties may visit with the Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis. However, two periods of time are specifically identified for the receipt of comments. The first comment period is during the scoping process when the public is invited to give written comments to the Forest Service. The Forest Service will also conduct public open houses in Helena on March 27, 1996 at the Helena National Forest Supervisors Office, 2880 Skyway Drive, and in Lincoln on March 28, 1996 at the Lincoln Community Center. Open houses will be between 6 and 8 p.m. The scoping period ends on April 8, 1996. The second review period is during the 45 day review of the DEIS when the public is invited to comment on the DEIS. The DEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in September 1996. At that time, the EPA will publish a notice of availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register. The comment period on the DEIS will be 45 days from the date the notice of availability is published in the Federal Register. At this early stage in the scoping process, 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, reviews of DEIS 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). Secondly, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage, but that are not raised until after completion of the FEIS 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. 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 FEIS. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the DEIS 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 DEIS 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.) After the comment period ends on the DEIS, the comments will be analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in preparing the FEIS. The FEIS is expected to be filed in February 1997. Dated: March 6, 1996. Thomas J. Clifford, Forest Supervisor, Helena National Forest. [FR Doc. 96-6165 Filed 3-14-96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-6165. Public record. Not legal advice.