Kalispell; Idaho Panhandle National Forests; Bonner County, Idaho and Pend Oreille County, WA

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Kalispell; Idaho Panhandle National Forests; Bonner County, Idaho

and Pend Oreille County, WA

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, will prepare an environmental impact

statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental effects of salvage

thinning, reforestation, site preparation and use of prescribed fire in

an ecosystem management project in the Kalispell Creek drainage. The

area is located west of Priest Lake in the northern Selkirk Mountains,

Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Priest Lake Ranger District, Bonner

County, Idaho and Pend Oreille County, Washington. Part of the proposed

activities are within the Hungry Mountain Roadless Area (01-156). The

project area is within the Kalispell-Granite Grizzly Bear Management

Unit.

The purposes of this project are to improve the health and vigor of

stands, to salvage dead and dying timber, to rehabilitate 50- to 70-

year-old plantations of off-site ponderosa pine and white pine which is

not blister-rust resistant, to reintroduce the role of fire into dry-

site ecosystems, and to contribute to meeting society's demand for wood

products. The proposal's actions to harvest and reforest stands and

utilize prescribed fire are being considered together because they

represent either connected or cumulative actions as defined by the

Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.25).

This project-level EIS tiers to the Idaho Panhandle National

Forests Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and Final EIS

(September, 1987), which provides overall guidance of all land

management activities on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests,

including timber and access management.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before July 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Kent Dunstan, District Ranger,

Priest Lake Ranger District, HCR 5, Box 207, Priest River, ID 83856; or

e-mail comments to cjcary/[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Contact Bob Stutz, EIS Team Leader; telephone (208) 443-2512.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Ecosystem management activities are proposed

on a total of approximately 5,050 acres within the Kalispell Creek

drainage. Existing roads, 15.6 miles of temporary winter roads

constructed from snow, and 11 helicopter landing sites would provide

access for vegetative treatments. No new road construction would occur.

The proposal includes 4,094 acres of salvage in plantations which are

50 to 70 years old, followed by planting on 3,803 acres within those

plantations; prescribed burning on 206 acres of dry-site ecosystems;

prescribed burning on 1,049 acres for fuel breaks and/or site

preparation; thinning on 245 acres of immature, overly-dense stands;

and reforestation on 505 acres which would not be harvested before

planting.

The Kalispell drainage has experienced a series of significant

natural and human-caused disturbances within the last 70 years. The

major disturbances include a wildfire in 1926 and a subsequent reburn

in 1939. Logging occurred from 1927 to 1932, including salvaging in a

portion of the area burned by the 1926 fire. Following these events,

approximately 9,000 acres of ponderosa pine and white pine were

planted, as well as a scattering of Douglas-fir and spruce. The

ponderosa pine seedlings were from a seed source not suited to this

area, and the white pine seedlings were not rust-resistant stock,

resulting in uncharacteristically high levels of insects and diseases.

Current mortality is high, and ongoing mortality in the non rust-

resistant white pine is estimated to be three percent per year.

The goal of this project is to restore the vegetation in the

analysis area towards historic stocking levels and species

compositions. This would create conditions that more closely resemble

the historical stands that were adapted to the site, climate, and fire

regimes in this ecosystem and that are sustainable over time.

The purpose and need for ecosystem management in this area is four-

fold, as follows: (1) To salvage and rehabilitate high mortality stands

that were planted with ``off-site'' ponderosa pine and non blister-

rust-resistant white pine; (2) to reintroduce the role of fire in the

ecosystem, where it has been disrupted through fire suppression, in a

way that will emulate effects of mixed severity fire under a natural

fire regime; (3) to provide tree species and stocking levels that

existed historically; (4) to contribute to the short-term supply of

[[Page 30839]]

timber to help meet the national demand for wood products and to

support the local economy.

The analysis area consists of approximately 24,400 acres of

National Forest lands included in T35N., T36N. and T37N. in R.45E.,

T35N. and T36N., R.46E., Willamette Meridian, Washington; and T.60N.,

and T61.N. in R.4W., and T.60N and T.61N., R.5W., Boise Meridian,

Idaho.

The decision to be made is how much, if any, timber harvest should

occur; how many acres, if any, of reforestation and site preparation

should be accomplished; how many acres, if any, prescribed burning

should be performed; and the timing of such activities. The decision

would also include the type and level of access, if any.

The Forest Plan provides guidance for management activities within

the analysis area through goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and

management area directions. The proposed activities would take place in

designated Management Areas (MAs) 1, 4, 9 and 16. Goals for each of

these MAs include protecting soil productivity, meeting or exceeding

state water quality standards, providing opportunities for dispersed

recreation, and meeting visual quality objectives. Below is a brief

description of other management direction for these areas.

Management Area 1: Manage for long-term growth and production of

commercially valuable wood products and to provide wildlife habitat.

Management Area 4: Manage big game winter range to provide forage

for wildlife needs through timber harvest and permanent forage areas.

Management Area 9: Manage lands to maintain and protect existing

improvements and resource productive potential.

Management Area 16: Riparian area dependent resources will be

featured, while producing other resource outputs at levels compatible

with objectives for riparian resources.

The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives, including

the ``no action'' alternative in which none of the proposed activities

would be implemented. Additional alternatives will examine varying

levels and locations for the proposed activities as well as responding

to issues and other resource values.

The EIS will analyze the direct, indirect and cumulative

environmental effects of the alternatives. Past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable activities in the analysis area will be

considered. Analysis of site-specific mitigation measures and their

effectiveness will be disclosed.

Public participation is an important part of the analysis process,

commencing with the initial scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7) which will

begin with the publication of this notice. 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 and other individuals or

organizations who 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:

Identifying potential issues.

Identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth.

Identifying alternatives to the proposed action.

Exploring additional alternatives which will be derived

from issues recognized during scoping activities.

Identifying potential environmental effects of this

project and alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect and cumulative effects

and connected actions).

The following issues have been identified: Grizzly bear security

habitat, water and sediment yield and fisheries habitat, roadless area

character, soils, and big game winter range. This list may be changed

based on continuing public participation.

The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by

September, 1997. At that time EPA will publish a notice of availability

in the Federal Register. The comment period on the Draft EIS will close

45 days from the date the notice of availability appears in the Federal

Register. It is very important that those interested in the management

of this area participate at that time. While public participation in

this analysis is welcome at any time, comments received within 45 days

of the publication of this notice will be especially useful in the

preparation of the Draft EIS. The Final EIS is scheduled to be

completed by December, 1997.

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, 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 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 scoping 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. Comments received in response to this solicitation,

including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered

part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available

for public inspection.

To be most helpful, comments should be as specific as possible.

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 1503.0 in addressing these points.

I am the responsible official for this environmental impact

statement.

Dated: May 28, 1997.

Kent Dunstan,

District Ranger.

[FR Doc. 97-14635 Filed 6-4-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M