Beaver Creek Ecosystem Management Project; Kootenai National Forest, Sanders County, Montana

SUMMARY: The USDA-Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) for the Beaver Creek Ecosystem Management Project to

disclose the effects of timber harvest, prescribed fire, road

management and construction, noxious weed control, trailhead

restoration, and lookout facility renovation in the Big Beaver and

Little Beaver Creek drainages located approximately 8 air miles from

Trout Creek, Montana. The purpose and need for this project was

documented in the Beaver Creek Physiographic Area Landscape Assessment.

The purposes are to provide for long-term sustainability of forest

resources (i.e. vegetation resource, protection and enhancement of

habitat for wildlife and fish species, recreation resources etc.),

while contributing to natural recovery processes (which reduce impacts

to resources) and enhancing recreational facilities for public use. The

DEIS is expected to be filed with the EPA and available for public

review by March 31, 1997.

DATES: Written comments and suggestions should be received on or before

March 25, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and suggestions concerning the scope of the

analysis should be sent to James I. Mershon, District Ranger, Cabinet

Ranger District, 2693 Hwy 200, Trout Creek, Montana, 59874.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Head, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Cabinet Ranger District.

Phone: (406) 882-4451.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The decision area contains approximately

55,000 acres within the Kootenai National Forest in Sanders County,

Montana. All of the proposed projects are located in the Big Beaver and

Little Beaver Creek drainages,which are tributary to the Clark Fork

River, near Trout Creek, Montana. The legal location of the decision

area is as follows: Sections 6-7, 17-19, and N \1/2\ Section 20,

T22N,R30W; Sections 1-30 T22N,R31W; Sections 1-5, 8-12, 13-17, 20-24,

25-29, 34-35, T22N, R32W;; Section 31, T23N,R30W; Sections 25-30, 31-

36, T23N, R31W; Sections 25-26, 32-36, T23N,R31W, Principal Montana

Meridian.

The Forest Service proposes to harvest approximately 19 million

board feet of timber through application of a variety of harvest

methods on approximately 5400 acres of forest land. An estimated 12

miles of temporary road and 120 miles of road reconstruction would be

needed to access timber harvest areas. All temporary roads would be

obliterated following completion of sale activities. The proposal also

includes prescribed burning on approximately 3000 acres to enhance

wildlife habitat. An estimated 38 miles of road would be treated by

rehabilitation of stream crossings, recontouring, ripping and seeding

etc. The type of treatment would be based on site specific conditions.

To help provide habitat and food for wildlife associated with the

alpine and subalpine ecosystem, white bark pine seedlings would be

planted in high elevation communities on approximately 20 acres. The

Forest Service also proposes to conduct channel rehabilitation on

approximately one mile of stream. The methods used to restore the

channel sections would include placement of channel stabilizing

structures such as revetments, rock weirs, and sediment traps as

needed. In addition, to help improve fish habitat large woody debris

will be recruited on approximately 5 miles of stream. Some of the

recruitment may include limited timber felling within the riparian

areas. A lookout structure that is rented out to the public on a

nightly basis is scheduled for renovation. Renovations may include

painting, structural support and reroofing. Three trailheads, and

numerous dispersed camping sites are propose for rehabilitation. This

rehabilitation would be based on site specific conditions and include

such things as creating barriers (eg rock) for vehicle restriction

where necessary. Trailhead work would include providing suitable

parking and signing In addition, the proposed action includes a noxious

weed control program designed to slow the spread of knapweed (Centauria

maculosa) and stop any new infestations of other noxious plant species.

The Kootenai Forest Plan provides guidance for management

activities within the potentially affected area through its goals,

objectives, standards and guidelines, and management area direction.

The proposed projects encompass several management areas (MAs):

2,5,10,11,12,13,15,16,18 and 19. This proposal includes openings

greater than 40 acres, to emulate historic disturbance patterns, and

project specific Forest Plan amendments for: (1) Open road density in

MA 12 (big game summer range); (2) removal of snag habitat in MA 10

(big game winter range); and (3) timber harvest in MA 13 (old growth).

Project specific amendments are allowed when it is determined during

project design that the best way to meet the goals of the Forest Plan

conflicts with a Forest plan standard (Forest Plan Volume (II-20).

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.

The EIS will analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative

environmental effects of the alternatives. Past, present, and projected

activities on both private and National Forest lands will be

considered. The EIS will disclose the analysis of site-specific

mitigation measures and their effectiveness.

Preliminary Issues

Tentatively, several preliminary issues of concern have been

identified. There issues are briefly described below:

Water and Fisheries Resources--Rivers and streams are

complex and dynamic natural systems. The physical, chemical and

biological conditions in

[[Page 3657]]

them are a result of all the natural and human-caused events within the

watershed. There are three main concerns related to the water and

fisheries resources and the effects of the proposed action. (1) Amount

of large woody debris; (2) streamflow regime; and (3) sediment sources.

Big Game wildlife--open road densities are currently over

the recommended amount for big game habitat effectiveness and security.

There is concern regarding the effect of the proposed action on big

game security and habitat.

Other issues commonly associated with such activities include: effects

on soils, air quality, sensitive plants, and old growth. This list may

be verified, expanded, or modified based on public scoping for this

proposal.

Decisions To Be Made

The Kootenai Forest Supervisor will decide the following:

Whether or not to harvest timber and, if so, identify the

selection of, and site-specific location of, appropriate timber

management practices (silvicultural prescription, logging system, fuels

treatment, riparian habitat conservation areas and reforestation), road

construction/reconstruction necessary to provide access and to achieve

other resource objectives, and appropriate mitigation measures.

Whether water and fish rehabilitation projects (including

road obliteration) and other project area improvements (including work

on trailheads, dispersed campsites, noxious weeds etc) should be

implemented and, if so, to what extent.

Whether or not wildlife enhancement projects (including

white bark pine planting and prescribed burning) should be implemented

and, if so, to what extent.

Whether road access restrictions or other actions are

necessary to meet big game wildlife needs.

Whether project specific Forest Plan amendments are

necessary to meet goals and objectives of the Forest Plan.

What, if any, specific project monitoring requirements

would be needed to assure mitigation measures are implemented and

effective.

Public Involvement and Scoping

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 is encouraged 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.

Identify alternatives to the proposed action.

Explore additional alternatives which will be derived from

issues recognized during scoping activities.

Identify potential environmental effects of this project

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

connected actions).

Estimated Dates for Filing

While public participation in this analysis is welcome at any time,

comments received within 60 days of the publication of this notice will

be especially useful in the preparation of the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS

is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

and to be available for public review by March 31, 1997. 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 by June 15, 1997. 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 applicable

laws, regulations, and policies considered in making a decision

regarding the proposal.

Reviewer's Obligations

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 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 Act at 40

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Responsible Official

Robert L. Schrenk, Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest, 506

US Highway 2 West, Libby, MT 59923 is 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 to

prepare the EIS to James I. Mershon, District Ranger, Cabinet Ranger

District.

Dated: January 16, 1977.

Lawrence R. Cron,

Acting Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest.

[FR Doc. 97-1728 Filed 1-23-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M