Meadow Timber Sales and Associated Activities; Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, MT

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Meadow Timber Sales and Associated Activities; Kootenai National

Forest, Lincoln County, MT

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 obliteration,

construction of temporary and specified roads in the western portions

of the Tobacco River drainage. The Tobacco River drainage is located

approximately 38 air miles northeast of Libby, Montana, near the

communities of Fortine and Eureka, Montana.

The proposed actions to harvest and reforest timber stands,

construct and reconstruct 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 CPR 1508.25). The purposes of the project are to provide

timber to support local communities, regulate disturbance patterns and

natural cycles to provide forest structure to maintain habitat for

viable populations, and manage access to protect important wildlife

habitat and provide recreational opportunities.

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 on or before

March 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The Responsible Official is Edward C. Monnig, District

Ranger, Fortine Ranger District, P.O. Box 116, Fortine, Montana, 59918.

Written comments and suggestions concerning the scope of the analysis

may be sent to him at that address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joleen Dunham, Project Coordinator, Fortine Ranger District. Phone:

(406) 882-4451.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The decision area contains approximately

21,500 acres within the Kootenai National Forest in Lincoln County,

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

lands in the western portion of the Tobacco River drainage near Eureka,

Montana. The legal location of the decision area is as follows:

Sections 8-10, 14-29, and 33-36 of Township 36 North, Range 27 West;

Sections 29-33 of Township 36 North, Range 26 West; Sections 4-9, 15-36

of Township 35 North, Range 26 West; Sections 1-3, 10-15, 23-26, and

35-36 of Township 35 North, Range 27 West; Sections 1-25 of Township 34

North, Range 26 West; Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 24 of Township

34 North, Range 27 West; and Sections 18, 19, and 30 of Township 34

North, Range 25 West, Principal Montana Meridian.

All proposed activities are outside the boundaries of any 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 to harvest approximately 14 million board feet

of timber through application of a variety of harvest methods on

approximately 3,026 acres of forest land. An estimated 0.8 miles of

temporary road and 3.8 miles of specified road construction would be

needed to access timber harvest areas. Approximately 2.4 miles of this

new specified road construction would be managed with yearlong

restriction to motorized use. An estimated 31 miles of road

reconstruction would also be needed to access timber harvest areas. All

temporary roads would be obliterated following completion of sale

activities. An additional 24 miles of road no longer in use would be

obliterated by various methods which include rehabilitation of stream

crossings, recontouring, ripping and seeding, and installment of

barriers resulting in abandonment. The type of method would be based on

site specific conditions. An estimated 33 miles of existing road would

be restricted year round to improve watershed conditions, minimize

future road maintenance

[[Page 6943]]

costs, and to regulate overall open road density to improve big game

security. The proposal also includes prescribed burning on

approximately 4,200 acres to reduce the potential for future wildfires,

prepare sites for regeneration, enhance wildlife habitat, and maintain

forest health.

Prescribed harvest treatments in this proposal are as follows:

Regeneration Harvest: Windfirm trees favoring western larch and

ponderosa pine would be selected and designated to remain on site as

reserve trees. Reserve trees would average about 10 trees per acre in a

varied distribution. Reserve trees would include 1-2 acre islands and

edge strips of approximately 40 trees per acre that would cover 5-15%

of the stand area. All other merchantable trees would be harvested.

Reserve trees would remain through the next rotation and form the upper

story of a multi-storied stand. Underburning would occur to prepare

site for regeneration of new seedlings. This treatment is proposed on

1,127 acres.

Improvement Cut: Stand densities would be reduced to 80-100 square

feet of basal area per acre by removing the lowest quality and least

vigorous trees greater than 7 inches diameter at breast height.

Existing snags and large down woody material would be left on site. The

remaining trees would provide a fully stocked stand of the best form

and vigor to increase future options for higher quality old growth

conditions. Underburning would occur to stimulate growth and vigor of

shrubs and forbs, and create habitat for flammulated owl and other

species that have adapted to open forest conditions. This treatment is

proposed on 1,037 acres.

Thin from Below: Stand densities would be reduced to 60-80 square

feet of basal area per acre by removing the lowest quality and least

vigorous trees less than 9 inches diameter at breast height. Existing

snags and large down woody material would be left on site. The

remaining trees would provide a fully stocked stand to favor past range

of species composition. Underburning would occur to help re-establish

habitat that was created through past fire regimes. This treatment is

proposed on 677 acres.

Patch Cut with Improvement Cut between patches: Harvest openings

the size of 5-20 acres would occur in areas of insect and disease

pockets and low vigor Douglas-fir thickets. The remainder of the stand

would have densities reduced to 80-100 square feet of basal area per

acre by removing the lowest quality and least vigorous trees greater

than 7 inches diameter at breast height. Three entries would take place

throughout a 30-year period using the patch cut treatment removing

approximately one-third of the stand area with each entry but retaining

a component of mature trees throughout the next rotation as the upper

canopy in a two-storied stand. Underburning would occur to stimulate

growth and vigor of shrubs and forbs, create habitat for flammulated

owl and other species that have adapted to open forest conditions, and

re-establish habitat that was created through past fire regimes. This

treatment is proposed on 185 acres.

Burning with Slashing: Underburning would be done outside harvest

units to reduce fuel loads, provide a stand mosaic and wildlife

betterment. The prescription would involve burning during the spring

and early summer conditions which provide good smoke dispersion and

safe burning conditions. The results would be a stand which includes

areas of unburned material with some trees up to 9 inches diameter at

breast height killed and up to 10% of the larger trees scorched with

approximates past natural fires. This treatment is proposed on 1160

acres.

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; 3, 11, 13, 15, and 16. Briefly described, MA 3 is

managed to provide for opportunities for dispersed recreation

activities in a natural-appearing environment using trails and

primitive roads for access. 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 13 is designated to provide special

habitat necessary for old growth dependent wildlife. 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. MA 16 is managed to

produce timber while providing for a pleasing view. Timber harvest is

proposed only in MA's 3, 11, 15, and 16. Prescribed burning for fuels

and wildlife habitat is the only activity proposed in MA 13. This

proposal includes openings greater than 40 acres in MA's 11, 15, and 16

to replicate historic disturbance patterns. If these large openings are

included in the final decision, a 60 day public review will be provided

during the comment period on the Draft EIS. 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. In

addition, site specific amendments to the Forest Plan regarding open

road density in MA 15 and visual quality objectives in MA 16 may 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.

Preliminary Issues: Tentatively, several issues of concern have

been identified. These issues are briefly described below:

--Road Closures: Specific roads will need to be closed to meet road

densities for wildlife security and improve watershed conditions. Some

individuals are concerned that too many roads are being restricted from

public use and existing roads should be left open. What effect will

these road closures have on the publics' access to recreational areas?

--Old Growth: Values associated with old growth forests include

maintaining old growth dependent species and the aesthetic, spiritual

and emotional values which people place on undisturbed stands of old

trees. While the Kootenai Forest Plan requires a minimum 10% of the

Forest to be retained as Old Growth habitat (MA 13), there is a concern

that additional areas of mature interior forest should be protected.

What effect will proposed activities have on the old growth habitat and

old growth dependent species?

--Timber Supply and Forest Health: Some individuals are concerned that

the Forest Service is not placing enough emphasis on providing goods

and services to the public. In addition, there is concern that the

health and vigor of forest stands could be improved through more

aggressive timber harvest and management. How will the proposed

activities improve timber growth and produce economic benefits to the

public?

--Re-Introduction of Prescribed Fire: A key component of the proposal

is the use of prescribed fire as a tool to restore the role that

wildfires played in the structure of a pre-1900 forest landscape. How

will the proposed activities affect the risk of wildfire to resources

and private property?

Public Involvement and Scoping: On August 15, 1996 an advertisement

was placed in the Tobacco Valley News, Eureka, Montana, requesting

public comment and information concerning

[[Page 6944]]

the Meadow Project Area. In addition, on August 16, 1996 a letter was

mailed to approximately 250 individuals comprising the mailing list for

the Meadow 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 Meadow

Timber Sales and Associated Activities. Comments received prior to this

notice will be included in the documentation for the EIS.

This environmental analysis and decision making process will enable

additional interested and affected people to participate an 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 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 potential issues.

--Identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth.

--Identifying alternatives to the proposed action.

--Considering 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).

Estimated Dates for Filing: While public participation in this

analysis is welcome at any time, comments received within 30 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 August, 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 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 October, 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.

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.

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 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: Edward C. Monnig, District Ranger, Fortine

Ranger District, Kootenai National Forest, P.O. Box 116, Fortine,

Montana, 59918, is the Responsible Official. As the Responsible

Official, I will decide which, if any, of the proposed projects will be

implemented. I will document the decision and reasons for the decision

in the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to Forest

Service Appeal Regulations.

Dated: February 4, 1997.

Edward C. Monnig,

District Ranger, Fortine Ranger District.

[FR Doc. 97-3800 Filed 2-13-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M