Upper Pipe Creek Timber Sale and Associated Activities, Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, Montana

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Upper Pipe Creek Timber Sale 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 proposed

timber harvest, road construction, prescribed burns, wastershed and

fisheries habitat restoration, road restriction changes, noxious weed

control, gravel pit expansion and recreational improvements in the

upper and eastern portion of the Pipe Creek drainage. The upper and

eastern portions of this drainage are located approximately 15 air

miles north of Libby, Montana.

The proposed activities 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: (1) Manage road access to balance wildlife and

fisheries habitat protection, limit the spread of noxious weeds and

provide for public access; (2) improve watershed health and fisheries

habitat to provide for stable stream channels, productive habitat for

aquatic species and water quality that meets or exceeds State of

Montana water quality goals; (3) use prescribed fire to stimulate

natural processes, prevent natural and activity fuel buildup, create

habitat diversity for wildlife, reduce suppression costs and maintain

ecosystems; (4) utilize timber harvest to increase the long-term

productivity of forest stands suitable for timber production which are

currently slowing in growth, over stocked and approaching an age where

they are becoming more suspectable to mountain pine beetle infestation;

(5) provide timber and other forest products to support local, regional

and national needs; and (6) restore western white pine and other

intolerant tree species to historic sites and/or conditions.

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.

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

October 27, 1999.

ADDRESSES: The Responsible Official is the Kootenai National Forest,

Forest Supervisor, 1101 U.S. Hwy 2 West, Libby, Montana 59923. Written

comments and suggestions concerning this analysis may be sent to

Lawrence A. Froberg, Libby District Ranger, 12557 U.S. Hwy 37, Libby,

Montana 59923.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirsten Kaiser, Project Coordinator,

Libby Ranger District. Phone: (406) 293-7773.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The decision area contains approximately

21,000 acres within the Kootenai National Forest in Lincoln County,

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

lands in the East Fork Pipe Creek drainage near Libby, Montana. The

legal location of the decision area is as follows: T34N, R31W, Sections

14, 15, 21-28, 31-36; T33N, R31W, Sections 1-36; T33N, R30W, Sections

19 and 30; T33N R32W, Sections 24, 25, 36; T32N, R31W, Sections 3-36;

T32N, R32W, Sections 1, 12-13, 25, 36; T31N, R32W, Sections, 1-3, 10,

11, 15, 16, 19-28, 34; 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 harvest approximately 3.0 MMBF

(million board feet) or approximately 7,300 CCF (hundred cubic feet of

timber through application of a variety of harvest methods on

approximately 400 acres of forest land. All activities would occur on

suitable timberlands. An estimated 0.3 miles of temporary road and 2.2

miles of permanent road construction would be needed to access timber

harvest areas. An estimated 30 miles of road reconstruction/maintenance

would also be needed to improve existing road conditions. Approximately

20 miles of road would be restored by various methods which

[[Page 71443]]

include culvert removal, partial recontouring, ripping and seeding.

These activities would result in most roads being undrivable.

Restoration methods would be based on site specific conditions and

would be designed to improve watershed and fisheries habitat conditions

and reduce overall density to improve big game security. The proposal

also includes prescribed burning on approximately 250 acres to decrease

ground fuels, increase browse species, return fire to the landscape and

aid in site preparation for natural and artificial regeneration.

Prescribed burning would occur in association with timber harvest and

in areas without timber harvest. Proposed harvest treatments in this

proposal are as follows and may include Forest Plan amendments:

Clearcut with reserves. This prescription involves areas where

lodgepole pine would be the primary species removed. It would result in

a regeneration harvest with reserve trees (primarily western larch,

Douglas fir, subalpine fir) concentrated in patches/islands and

scattered where stand conditions exist. Treatment of these areas would

include thinning for a feathering effect. This prescription would thin

from within the reserve (patch/island) portion of the stand, into the

untreated portion of the stand. Size and shape of treatment areas would

be designed to maintain watershed and wildlife values. The proposal

includes treating large areas to mimic historic fire patterns,

resulting in two openings up to 150 acres in size. Approval by the

Regional Forester for exceeding the 40 acre limitation for regeneration

harvest would be required prior to the signing of the Record of

Decision. This treatment is proposed on approximately 310 acres.

Rust resistant white pine would be planted in units where site

conditions would support this species. It is desirable to return white

pine to the ecosystem as disease (white pine blister rust) has

significantly decreased the availability of this species in the Upper

Pipe Creek area and throughout it's range.

Roadside salvage and individual tree removal. These prescriptions

would result in the removal of individual dead and dying trees along

open roads and roads to be opened for management activities while

providing for an appropriate level of woody debris and cavity habitat.

After treatment the given area would resemble a stocked stand with

small openings where dead and downed trees were removed. This treatment

is proposed on approximately 30 acres.

Salvage. This prescription would result in the removal of dead and

down conifer species. Live tree species would be retained with the

exception of a minor amount that may be harvested to facilitate yarding

activity, access or due to safety concerns. Harvest would result in the

uneven distribution of green and some standing dead trees. This

treatment is proposed on approximately 10 acres.

Special product removal. This prescription would result in the

removal of trees less than 6 inches in diameter (trees normally

considered too small for commercial products). These trees would be

removed for utilization as post and poles or other specialized uses.

After treatment the given area may resemble a thinning or stands with

small openings. This treatment is proposed on approximately 30 acres.

Other resource projects proposed are as follows:

Pipe Creek road improvements. Winter maintenance of this road

(Forest Road 68) is a concern expressed by the public and IDT.

Opportunities to improve portions of the Pipe Creek road to increase

public safety are part of the proposal and include clearing/thinning

right-of-ways and road reconstruction. Activities would be in

compliance with INFISH.

Log structure placement. Large woody debris is lacking in portions

of Deception Creek (tributary to East Fork of Pipe Creek). Log

structures in designated portions of the stream (T34N, R32W, Sections

22, 26, 27, 36) would be added to help improve stream stabilization,

catch and store sediment and create habitat features (i.e. pools).

Recreation uses. Access for hunters with physical disabilities is

an important program on the district. This proposal includes

designating the Michael's Draw area which includes all of the 4756 road

system, as an area accessible to hunters with physical disabilities.

Michaels' Draw is located in lower Pipe Creek and is currently closed

year long to motorized vehicles and over the snow vehicles.

We also propose to allow the Kootenai Cross Ski Club to construct a

ski shelter on Flatiron Mountain. The shelter would be for skiers only

and use would be limited to the December 1st to April 1st period. All

materials and labor would be provided by the Kootenai Cross Country Ski

Club.

Wildlife enhancement. Proposed road restoration (approximately 20

miles) would improve habitat effectiveness and security as roads would

not be drivable following restoration activities. Cavity habitat would

be improved where it is limited by past management activities through

tree inoculation (inoculation kills the tree, resulting in habitat for

cavity nesting species).

Noxious weeds. Weed control work may include use of herbicides,

biological agents, mechanical pulling and road management. Infestations

including isolated weed populations would be mapped and recorded. The

intensity of control work would be based on likelihood of successful

eradication or containment, risk of spread to non-infested areas and

available funding. All work would be closely coordinated with Lincoln

County weed control personnel and implemented in accordance with the

MOU (memorandum of understanding) between the Kootenai National Forest

and Lincoln County.

Firewood gathering. Firewood gathering opportunities for the public

on restricted roads, roads to be opened for logging activities and/or

on roads to be restored would be considered.

Gravel pit expansion. We propose to expand two existing gravel pits

(the Upper Pipe Creek Pit and the South Fork of Big Creek Pit) located

in T32N, R31W, Section 34 and in T34N, R30W, Section 31. Expansion of

both pits would include the harvest/removal of timber on approximately

20 acres. Expansion would not occur in 1 year, rather it would occur

over a 10 year period. Active and reclaimed portions of the pits would

cover approximately 10 acres (20 acres for both pits); however, only 2

to 3 acres of the pits (4 to 6 acres for both pits) would be active at

any given time. Pit restoration would be concurrent with resource

extraction (i.e. after resource is removed, restoration would occur).

Restoration and mitigation would occur including seeding of disturbed

areas and noxious weed control. Materials extracted from these pits

would be used for road construction and reconstruction/maintenance in

the Pipestone area for the proposed project and for ongoing and future

road maintenance.

Range of Alternatives: The Forest Service will consider a range of

alternatives. One would be a ``no action'' alternative in which none of

the proposed activities would be implemented. Additional alternatives

may be considered to achieve the project's purpose and need and to

response to specific resource issues.

Preliminary Issues: Tentatively, several issues of concern have

been identified. These issues are briefly described below.

Road Access and Restoration: Specific roads would be restores to

improve watershed and fisheries habitat conditions. Restored roads

would not be

[[Page 71444]]

drivable following reactivities; however, snowmobile use may continue

to occur on these roads until they are reclaimed by development of

trees and shrubs. Some individuals are concerned that public access is

already overly restricted. Most of the roads proposed for restoration

are currently closed year long to motor vehicles except open to snow

vehicles from 12/1 to 4/30. What effect would restoration effects have

on public access to recreational areas?

Grizzly Bear: A portion of the project area is in grizzly bear

habitat. Specifically, road restoration and timber harvest is proposed

within the Cabinet/Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Area. What effect would

proposed activities have on the threatened grizzly bear?

Water Quality and Fisheries Habitat: Water quality and fisheries

habitat is expected to be improved with the implementation of proposed

activities (road restoration, log placement). Some individuals have

expressed concerns regarding project effects (potential short term

sediment reaching Pipe Creek) to water quality and bull trout recovery

as Pipe Creek is a bull trout priority watershed. What effects would

the proposed actions have on water quality and bull trout habitat?

Noxious Weeds: Knapweed and other noxious weed species are present

along many roads within the project area. Some individuals are

concerned about the spread of noxious weeds and the effects to native

vegetation.

Timber Supply and Economics: Some individuals are concerned that

the Forest Service is not placing enough emphasis on providing forest

products to the local communities. How will the proposed activities

affect timber supplies and produce economic benefits to local

communities?

Public Involvement and Scoping

In March of 1997, preliminary efforts were made to involve the

public in looking at opportunities for management and restoration of

the larger Pipestone area. Public involvement has included several

informational letters, public notices in local and regional newspapers

and two field trips.

Taking into account the comments received and information gathered

during preliminary analysis, it was decided to prepare an EIS for the

Upper Pipe Creek timber sale 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 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 Forest Service

will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from Federal,

State, Tribes, 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 assist in:

--Identifying potential issues.

--Identifying 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.

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 March, 1999. 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 of 1999. 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

objectives 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

The Kootenai National Forest, Forest Supervisor, 1101 U.S. Hwy 2

West, Kootenai National Forest, Libby, Montana 59923, is the

Responsible Official. The Responsible Official will decide which, if

any, of the proposed projects will be implemented. This decision will

be document reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision. That

decision will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations.

Dated: December 18, 1998.

Mark L. Romey,

Acting Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest.

[FR Doc. 98-34191 Filed 12-24-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M