Pinkham Timber Sales and Associated Activities; Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, Montana

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Pinkham Timber Sales and Associated Activities; Kootenai National

Forest, Lincoln County, Montana

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of 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 timber

harvest, prescribed fire, road closures, road rehabilitation, and

construction of temporary and specified roads in the Pinkham Creek

drainage. The Pinkham Creek drainage is located approximately 5 air

miles southwest of Eureka, Montana.

The proposed actions to harvest and reforest timber stands,

construct, reconstruct and rehabilitate roads, prescribe burning, and

restrict roads are being considered together because they represent

either connected or cumulative actions as defined by the Council on

Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.25). The purposes of the project are

to restore ecological processes in order to achieve sustainable

conditions, reduce the risk of large-scale, severe wildlife in an

urban/wildland interface area, and provide for human needs and desires.

The EIS will tier to the Kootenai National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan and Final EIS of September, 1987, which provides

overall guidance for forest management of the area. All activities

associated with the proposal will be designed to maintain high quality

wildlife, fisheries, and watershed objectives.

DATES: Written comments and suggestions should be received by December

8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The Responsible Official is Robert Schrenk, Forest

Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest. Written comments and suggestions

concerning the scope of the analysis may be sent to: Robert Thompson,

District Ranger, Rexford Ranger District, 1299 Highway 93 North,

Eureka, Montana 59917.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Terry Chute, Planning Coordinator, Rexford Ranger District, Phone:

(406) 296-2536.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The decision area contains approximately

65,100 acres within the Kootenai National Forest in Lincoln County,

Montana. All of the proposed projects would occur on National Forest

lands in the Pinkham Creek drainage near Eureka, Montana. The legal

location of the decision area is as follows: all or portions of

Township 36 North, Range 28 West; Township 36 North, Range 27 West;

Township 35 North, Range 28 West; Township 35 North, Range 27 West;

Township 34 North, Range 28 West; Township 34 North, Range 27 West;

Township 33 North, Range 28 West; Township 33 North, Range 27 West;

Principal Montana Meridian.

All proposed activities are outside the boundaries of any

inventoried roadless area or any areas considered for inclusion to the

National Wilderness System as recommended by the Kootenai National

Forest Plan or by any past or present legislative wilderness proposals.

The Forest Service proposes to commercially thin and prescribed

burn about 5,050 acres; regeneration harvest and prescribe burn about

1,425 acres; salvage harvest about 290 acres; and slash and prescribe

burn (with no associated harvest) about 1,750 acres over the next 10

years. An estimated harvest volume of approximately 59,530 hundred

cubic feet of commercial timber products would be produced. An

estimated 1.1 mile of specified road construction would be needed to

access timber harvest areas. An estimated 38 miles of road

reconstruction would also be needed to improve drainage and safety on

roads needed to access timber harvest areas. An unspecified amount of

road no longer in use would be rehabilitated by various methods which

include recontouring, ripping and seeding, rehabilitated by various

methods which include recontouring, ripping and seeding, rehabilitation

of stream crossings, and installment of barriers resulting in

abandonment.

Three management strategies have been developed in response to the

following conditions:

1. Reduce the risk of catastrophic fire by treating areas of high

or accumulating fuel concentrations. The treatments proposed under this

strategy include commercial timber harvest, slashing and prescribed

burning. Timber harvest would include salvage, commercial thinning and

regeneration methods. Methods used would depend on the composition of

stands proposed for treatment and available options for achieving

desired conditions and trends.

2. Minimize the risk of epidemic bark beetle attack by developing

desirable tree species composition and reducing stand density. This

strategy is related to Strategy 1, as epidemic bark beetle activity

causes tree mortality that can greatly increase fuel accumulations. The

treatments proposed under this strategy include commercial thinning,

slashing and prescribed burning.

3. Minimize the effect of high levels of root rot by regenerating

areas of high root rot activity to less susceptible tree species. This

strategy is related to Strategies 1 and 2 as root rot weakens and

predisposes trees to bark beetle attack. The subsequent increase in

tree mortality can greatly increase fuel accumulations. The treatment

proposed with this strategy would use regeneration harvest methods to

reestablish stands of tree species less susceptible to root rot. In the

Decision Area, Douglas-fir is the tree species that is most susceptible

to root rot. Western larch and western white pine are less susceptible,

and are well suited to the portions of the Decision Area affected by

root rot.

The Kootenai National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

provides overall management objectives in individual delineated

management areas (MA's). The proposed projects encompass five

predominant MA's; 6, 10, 11, 12 and 15. Briefly described, MA 6 is

managed to provide for opportunities for developed recreation

activities. MA 10 is managed to maintain or enhance the winter range

habitat effectiveness for big game species. MA 11 is managed to

maintain or enhance the winter range habitat effectiveness for big game

species and produce a programmed yield of timber. MA 12 is managed to

maintain or

[[Page 52522]]

enhance non-winter big game habitat and produce a programmed yield of

timber. MA 15 focuses upon timber production using various

silvicultural practices while providing for other resource values such

as soils, air, water, wildlife, recreation, and forage for domestic

livestock. Timber harvest and prescribed burning is proposed in all

MA's. This proposal includes replicating historic disturbance patterns.

Fourteen forest openings greater than 40 acres in size would be

created, ranging in size from 44 to 373 acres. A 60 day public review

and approval of the Regional Forester for exceeding the 40 acre

limitation for regeneration harvest would be required prior to the

signing of the Record of Decision. The 60-day scoping period initiated

with this Notice of Intent will serve as the public review period for

openings over 40 acres.

The Proposed Action would include two amendments to the Kootenai

Forest Plan. A programmatic amendment to the Forest Plan for managing

open road density at a level above the MA 12 standard may be necessary.

A project-specific amendment for harvesting in big game movement

corridors in MA 12 may also be necessary.

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 would 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.

Concerns: Several areas of concern were identified by the public as

well as Forest Service personnel during preliminary assessment. These

concerns are briefly described below:

The Pinkham area is home to many people who care deeply

about, and have multi-generational ties to the area. Public land in the

valley is seen as an asset for recreation and people's quality of life.

Clear-cutting: Many people said there has been too much

clear-cutting in the area in the past, and they are ugly. Future

harvest should be done selectively, leaving the large trees. On the

other hand, some said that clear-cuts provide important habitat for

deer, elk and grouse, and that clear-cutting should continue.

Prescribed burning: People do not like the appearance.

Many believe that trees that are burned up or killed could have

provided firewood or wood products. A few said they understood the need

for burning in some cases, but had reservations. Smoke in the valley

from prescribed burning was also mentioned.

Roads and road access: Comments varied. Many thought there

were too many road closures, while others felt that more roads should

be closed. Many people felt that there were enough or too many roads in

the area, and that no new roads were needed. Several people identified

the need to increase control of knapweed, which occurs along some roads

in the area.

Public use and recreation: There is a common sentiment

that public recreational use has increased over the past several years.

Hunting and snowmobiling were specifically mentioned as uses that have

increased. Many people said that additional developed recreation sites

were not desired or needed. Some desire increased maintenance of

trails, especially historic pack trails. Others mentioned the

decreasing availability of firewood. Off-road vehicle use was said to

be increasing, which was not desired due to noise and ground

disturbance. A majority of people said that maintaining traditional

recreational opportunities was important.

Wildlife: A variety of opinions and observations about

wildlife were expressed. Some felt that populations of deer, elk and

moose were increasing, while others said they were declining. Some said

that management of the area should focus on recovery of threatened,

endangered and sensitive wildlife species, while others believe that

``multiple-use'' management should continue. One mentioned that

designated winter range is used almost totally in summer and fall

months.

Livestock grazing: Many comments were received expressing

displeasure and frustration with livestock grazing in the area. Open-

range cattle on private land, in streams, and in roadways were

mentioned numerous times. Other comments expressed the desire to

maintain or increase livestock grazing in the area.

Timber management: Many people said that timber harvest is

appropriate, and expressed a preference for selective harvests that

retain both large and small trees, are adequately cleaned up following

harvest, and provide opportunities for small operators. The appearance

of recently logged areas is important to many people. Several stated

that dead and dying trees should be harvested before they lose their

value for timber products. Some people expressed their belief that the

area has been over cut in the past and further timber harvest is

inappropriate. Others said that timber should be managed as it has been

in the past, and that the emphasis for the area should be for maximum

timber production.

Water quality, riparian areas: The need for water quality

protection was mentioned by several people. Some thought the area near

Pinkham Creek should not be harvested, but should be maintained for

fishing and camping. One person mentioned that the Forest Service

needed to pay more attention to wet areas within harvest units. Concern

about effects to water quality from cattle in streams was voiced.

What people would like the Pinkham Area to be like in the

future: Many people expressed a desire that the area continue to

provide the quality of experiences and benefits to people that it has

over the past 90+ years. Many people mentioned maintaining the lower

valley floor as a quality residential area, while providing

opportunities for recreation, grazing and timber harvest. A common

sentiment seemed to be that the area remain ``unchanged''--as remote as

possible, a good place to raise a family and make a living. Others

believe that the area should be managed for reforestation, wildlife

habitat improvement, sensitive and endangered species recovery, water

quality and fishery improvement. Still others feel that recreation

should be the primary human use.

Public involvement and scoping: In October, 1993 a

``Pinkham Project Area Planning Report'' was mailed to over 200 local

landowners and residents, and people that had expressed interest in

Forest Service activities in the area. Advertisements were also placed

in the Daily Interlake, Kalispell, Montana and the Tobacco Valley News,

Eureka, Montana, requesting public comment and information concerning

the Pinkham Project Area. In addition, in June, 1997 a letter was

mailed to approximately 230 individuals, groups and other agencies

comprising the mailing list for the Pinkham Project Area requesting

written comments. Taking into account the comments received and

information gathered during preliminary analysis, it was decided to

prepare an EIS for the Pinkham Timber Sales and Associated Activities.

Comments received prior to this notice will be included in developing

issues and identifying alternatives for the EIS.

This environmental analysis and decision making process will enable

additional interested and affected people to participate and contribute

to the final decision. 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

[[Page 52523]]

Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and assistance

from Federal, State, 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 preliminary issues.

--Identifying significant issues to be analyzed in depth.

--Identifying alternatives to the proposed action.

--Identifying 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 60-day comment period will fulfill

the public review requirement for creating openings over 40 acres in

size. The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental

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

1998. 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 a minimum of 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the Notice

of Availability in the Federal Register.

The Final EIS is scheduled to be completed by June, 1998. 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.

Reviewers 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.

versus 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 versus Hodel,

803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.

versus 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 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

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 Schrenk, Forest Supervisor, Kootenai

National Forest, is the Responsible Official. Authority for preparation

of the EIS has been delegated to Robert Thompson, District Ranger,

Rexford Ranger District, 1299 Highway 93 North, Eureka, Montana. The

Responsible Official will decide which, if any, of the proposed

projects will be implemented. The decision and reasons for the decision

will be documented in the Record of Decision. That decision will be

subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations.

Dated: October 2, 1997.

Robert J. Thompson,

Acting Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 97-26624 Filed 10-7-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M