Pipestone Forest Health Project, Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, MT

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Pipestone Forest Health Project, 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 vegetation

management through timber harvest and prescribed burning; road

maintenance, reconstruction and construction; and habitat improvement

projects such as instream fisheries habitat enhancement in that portion

of the Pipestone landscape assessment area which encompasses the Pipe

and Bobtail Creek drainages. The southern and northernmost extent of

the landscape assessment area are located approximately 1 and 20 air

miles, respectively, from 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 improve forest health, improve watershed and fisheries

habitat, and contribute to a sustained yield of timber.

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

Management Plan as amended by the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFS),

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), and Record of Decision

(ROD) of September, 1987, which provides overall guidance for forest

management of the area.

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

January 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The Responsible Official is Bob Castaneda, the Kootenai

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

Written comments and suggestions concerning this analysis may be sent

to Malcom Edwards, 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 portion of the landscape assessment area

being analyzed is approximately 81,300 acres; approximately 68,000

acres are under Forest Service ownership and approximately 13,200 acres

are under private ownership. All proposed activities would occur on

National Forest lands within the assessment area that includes all or

parts of T34N, R32W, Section 36; T34N, R31W, Sections 11, 14, 15, 21-

36; T34N, R30W, Section 1; T33N R32W, Sections 1, 12, 23-25, 36; T33N,

R31W, Sections 1-36; T33N, R30W, Sections 18-20, 29-33; T32N, R32W,

Sections 1, 12-13, 24, 25, 36; T32N, R31W, Sections 1-36; T32N, R30W,

Sections 5-10, 15-21, 29-32; T31N, R31W, Sections 1-22, 29, 30; T31N,

R30W, Sections 4-9, 17, 18; Principal Montana Meridian.

The assessment area includes the Gold Hill West Roadless Area.

Prescribed burning is proposed in this roadless area. All remaining

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 Kootenai National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

provides overall management objectives in individual delineated

management areas (MAs). Most of the proposed timber harvest activities

encompass five predominant MAs: 11, 12, 15, 16, 17. Briefly described,

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 enhance the summer range

habitat effectiveness for big game species and produce a programmed

yield of timber. MA 15 focuses upon timber production using various

silvicultural practices while providing for other resource values. MA

16 is managed to produce timber while providing for a pleasing view. MA

17 is managed to maintain or enhance a natural appearing landscape and

produce a programmed yield of timber. Minor amounts of timber harvest

and/or other proposed activities such as prescribed burning are found

in other MAs, including 6, 13, 14, 18, 19.

Purpose and Need

The primary purpose and need for the project is to: (1) Improve

forest health by reducing tree densities, changing species composition,

stimulating natural processes, reducing insect and disease, and

improving visual condition; (2) improve watershed health and fisheries

habitat by improving habitat conditions, stabilizing stream segments,

and reducing road effects; (3) contribute to a sustained yield of

timber through improvement of forest health.

Proposed Activities

The Forest Service proposes to harvest approximately 18,000 CCF

(hundred cubic feet), equivalent to 7.5 MMBF (million board feet) of

timber through the application of a variety of harvest methods on

approximately 1738 acres of forestland. Silvicultural systems include

378 acres of regeneration harvest, 1103 acres of commercial thinning

type applications, 206 acres of salvage, and 51 acres of removal of

small diameter material. Some treatments would feather or thin stands

adjacent to existing units with abrupt edges to improve the visual

setting for outdoor recreation.

The proposal also includes approximately 325 acres of prescribed

burning in association with commercial timber harvest and approximately

3695 acres of prescribed burning without commercial timber harvest.

Prescribed burning without timber harvest is proposed within management

area 13 (designated old growth) and the Gold Hill West Roadless Area.

The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and District Ranger will consider

firewood gathering opportunities for the public on roads to be opened

for logging activities and/or on roads to be decommissioned will be

considered by the IDT and District Ranger.

The proposal includes constructing an estimated 0.68 miles of

specified permanent road to access vegetation treatment areas. A

temporary increase in

[[Page 70211]]

open road densities (ORDs) associated with proposed management

activities may result in the need for a site-specific Forest Plan ORD

amendment in MA 12 (big game summer range).

The proposal includes expansion of the Upper Pipe Creek Gravel Pit

to provide for mineral material necessary to maintain, reconstruct,

construct and/or improve roads in the assessment area.

The proposal includes creation of cavity habitat through tree

inoculation (inoculation kills the tree) resulting in habitat for

cavity nesting species where cavity habitat is limited by past

management activities.

In addition to the above activities, the following watershed and

fisheries improvement activities are proposed which would include: (1)

Placement of large woody debris in Deception Creek; (2) instream

habitat enhancement work (placement of structures) in Pipe Creek; (3)

habitat and stream stability improvement projects in Bobtail Creek; (4)

approximately 30 miles of road reconstruction and maintenance; (5)

maintenance and improvement of the East Fork Pipe Creek Road; (6)

decommissioning approximately 56 miles of road.

Range of Alternatives

The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. A ``no

action'' alternative in which none of the proposed activities would be

implemented would be considered. Additional alternatives may be

considered to achieve the project's purpose and need and to respond to

specific resource issues and public concerns.

Preliminary Issues

Tentatively, several issues have been identified during the initial

and informal communication phase with the public and internal

communication with Forest Service personnel. These issues are briefly

described below:

Cumulative Effects. What are the effects to various resource value

of past and foreseeable activities on public and private lands within

the project area?

Road Access and Decommissioning. What effect would decommissioning

efforts have on public access?

Grizzly Bear. What effect would proposed activities have on the

threatened grizzly bear?

Water Quality and Fisheries Habitat. What effects would the

proposed actions have on water quality and bull trout habitat?

Noxious/invasive weeds. What effect will the proposed activities

have on the control or spread of noxious weeds?

Timber Supply and Economics. How will the proposed activities

affect timber supplies and produce economic benefits to local

communities?

Public Involvement and Scoping

Beginning in March of 1997, preliminary efforts were made to

involve the public in looking at opportunities for restoration and

management of the Pipestone landscape assessment area. Public

participation has consisted of a series of informational mailings,

notices in local and regional newspapers, field trips, local television

advertisements, a radio address, and an open house. Taking into account

the comments received and information gathered during the preliminary

analysis, it was decided to prepare an EIS for the Pipestone landscape

assessment area. Comments received prior to this notice will be

included in the documentation for the EIS.

This environmental analysis and decisionmaking process will enable

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, and

considering additional alternatives which will be derived from issues

identified 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 July, 2000. 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 of 2000. 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

The Responsible Official, Kootenai Forest Supervisor Bob Castaneda,

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

implemented. This decision will document reasons for the decision in

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

Appeal Regulations.

[[Page 70212]]

Dated: December 6, 1999.

Bob Castaneda,

Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest.

[FR Doc. 99-32606 Filed 12-15-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M