Jump to main content.

Poorman Project; Including Timber Harvest, Prescribed Fire, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Improvement, and Road and Trail Construction, Helena National Forest, Lewis & Clark County, MT

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 

Poorman Project; Including Timber Harvest, Prescribed Fire, 



[Federal Register: March 15, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 52)]
[Notices]               

[Page 10722-10723]

>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]







DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

 


Poorman Project; Including Timber Harvest, Prescribed Fire, Fish 
and Wildlife Habitat Improvement, and Road and Trail Construction, 
Helena National Forest, Lewis & Clark County, MT



AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.



ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare Environmental Impact Statement.






SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service is gathering information and 
preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Poorman 
Project located approximately 26 air miles northwest of Helena, 
Montana.

    The Forest Service proposes to treat approximately 1450 acres with 
regeneration harvest treatments, 750 acres with stand replacement fire, 
650 acres with commercial thinning, 4950 acres with grass/shrub/
underburning, close three miles of existing road, relocate \1/4\ miles 
of existing road, construct one mile of new trail, hydromulch erosive 
sites along existing roads, and install other erosion control 
structures within the project area. Approximately 16 miles of new 
system road construction, and two miles of temporary road construction 
is needed to access treatment areas. All temporary roads will be 
obliterated after harvest. All new system road will be closed.
    The proposal is designed to help achieve the goals and objectives 
of the 1986 Helena National Forest Plan and move selected areas towards 
the desired conditions identified from the Forest Plan. These needs are 
supported by the findings of the Blackfoot Landscape Analysis. The 
purpose is to maintain healthy, sustainable ecosystems that (1) reduce 
fire risk, (2) provide wildlife habitat similar to the habitat that 
existed when fire was a natural component of the ecosystem, (3) protect 
soil and water, (4) provide recreation opportunities, and (5) provide 
wood for people's use.

    A Forest Plan amendment is proposed to change management direction 
for the M-1 management area. Further analysis of the proposed action 
and alternatives to that proposal may result in a decision(s) that 
include amendments to the Forest Plan.



DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing on or before April 8, 1996.



ADDRESSES: The responsible official is Thomas J. Clifford, Forest 
Supervisor, Helena National Forest, Supervisor's Office, 2880 Skyway 
Drive, Helena, MT 59601. Phone: (406) 449-5201.



FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gilbert Zepeda, District Ranger, Lincoln Ranger District, P.O. Box 219, 
Lincoln, MT 59639. Phone: (406) 362-4265; or Tom Andersen, 
Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Helena National Forest, 2880 Skyway 
Drive, Helena, MT 59601. Phone: (406) 449-5201.



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The prescribed burning, and timber sale(s) 
with associated road construction, would occur on National Forest lands 
in portions of the Poorman Creek, South Fork of Humbug Creek, and Bear 
Creek of the Lincoln Ranger District. Included in the area being 
analyzed is all or portions of T.14N., R.8W., Section 26 and 32; 
T.14N., R.7W., Sections 30-32; T.13N., R.9W., Sections 12-14, 23 and 
24; T.13N., R.8W., Sections 1-36; T.13N., R.7W., Sections 4-9, 16-23, 
26-34, Montana Principle Meridian.

    Portions of the prescribed fire treatment units, road construction 
and tree harvest are within the Crater Mountain roadless area (1604) 
and Nevada Mountain roadless area (1606). Approximately 3050 acres of 
prescribed burning, 1150 acres of tree harvest and 13 miles of 
specified road construction and one mile of temporary road construction 
are proposed in the roadless areas.

    The areas of proposed tree harvest are within the following 
management areas:

    T-1  Management areas are available and suitable for timber 
harvest.

    T-2  Should be maintained or enhanced for big game winter range for 
which programmed timber harvest and prescribed fire may be used.
    T-3  Should be managed in such a way to maintain and/or enhance 
habitat characteristics favoring elk and other big game species 
allowing the use of programmed timber harvest and prescribed fire.
    T-5  Timber management ground that increased forage production is 
favored in which timber harvest and prescribed fire can be used.
    W-1  Wildlife (summer and winter range) and old growth potential is 
optimized in the long run. Timber harvest and prescribed fire can be 
used only if they can be used as tools to maintain or enhance wildlife 
habitat values. These areas are generally classified as unsuitable for 
timber management.

    W-2  Important spring, summer and fall habitat for big game, such 
as elk and deer. Forage for both big game and livestock must be 
provided. Timber harvest and prescribed fire can be used only to 
maintain or enhance habitat values.

    M-1  Timber management and range or wildlife habitat improvements 
are currently uneconomical or environmentally infeasible.
    The decisions to be made, based on this environmental analysis, 
are:


    

  1.  Whether or not to treat the vegetation at this time, and if so, 
how would the treatments be accomplished.

  2.  What type of transportation system will be necessary to 
accomplish the vegetation management objectives, while considering 
other resource transportation needs and objectives.
    If it is decided to treat the vegetation at this time, activities 
may begin as early as 1997 and take up to 10 years to implement.
    This EIS will tier to the Helena Forest Plan Final EIS of April 
1986, that


[[Page 10723]]
    
provides program goals, objectives and standards and guidelines for 
conducting management activities in this area. All activities 
associated with the proposal will be designed to maintain or enhance 
the resource objectives identified in the Forest Plan and further 
refined in the Blackfoot Landscape Analysis.
    The Forest Service is seeking information and comments from 
Federal, State, local agencies and other organizations or individuals 
who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. The Forest 
Service invites written comments and suggestions on the issues for the 
proposal and the area being analyzed. Information received will be used 
in preparation of the Draft EIS. Preparation of the EIS will include 
the following steps:
    

      

    1.  Identification of potential issues.

    2.  Identification of issues to be analyzed in depth.

    3.  Elimination of insignificant issues or those that have been 
covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis.

    4.  Identification of additional reasonable alternatives.

    5.  Identification of potential environmental effects of the 
alternatives.
      
    Prescribed harvest treatments in this proposal include evenaged 
management techniques of clearcutting, with reserves, seed tree with 
reserves and shelterwood with reserves. Intermediate treatments such as 
commercial thinning will also be considered. Prescribed burning will be 
used to treat nonforested and forested vegetation. Alternatives to this 
proposal will include the ``no action'' alternative, in which none of 
the proposed treatments would be implemented. Other alternatives will 
examine variations in the location, amount and method of vegetative 
management.
      
    The preliminary issues identified are:

    6.  The effects on forest health and sustaining ecosystems.

    7.  The effects on recreation and visual resources.

    8.  The effects on wildlife.
      

    9.  The effects on the roadless and wilderness character of the 
Crater Mountain and Nevada Mountain Roadless Areas.

    10.  The effects on fish, water quality, and riparian areas.

    11.  The effects on project area economics.
    The Forest Service will analyze and disclose in the DEIS and FEIS 
the environmental effects of the proposed action and a reasonable range 
of alternatives. The DEIS and FEIS will disclose the direct, indirect 
and cumulative environmental effects of each alternative and its 
associated site specific mitigation measures.
    Public participation is especially important at several points of 
the analysis. Interested parties may visit with the Forest Service 
officials at any time during the analysis. However, two periods of time 
are specifically identified for the receipt of comments. The first 
comment period is during the scoping process when the public is invited 
to give written comments to the Forest Service. The Forest Service will 
also conduct public open houses in Helena on March 27, 1996 at the 
Helena National Forest Supervisors Office, 2880 Skyway Drive, and in 
Lincoln on March 28, 1996 at the Lincoln Community Center. Open houses 
will be between 6 and 8 p.m. The scoping period ends on April 8, 1996. 
The second review period is during the 45 day review of the DEIS when 
the public is invited to comment on the DEIS.
    The DEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and available for public review in September 1996. At that 
time, the EPA will publish a notice of availability of the DEIS in the 
Federal Register.
      
    The comment period on the DEIS will be 45 days from the date the 
notice of availability is published in the Federal Register.
    At this early stage in the scoping process, the Forest Service 
believes it is important to give reviewers notice of several court 
rulings related to public participation in the environmental review 
process. First, reviews of DEIS 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). Secondly, 
environmental objections that could be raised at the draft 
environmental impact statement stage, but that are not raised until 
after completion of the FEIS 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. 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 them and respond to them in the FEIS.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the DEIS 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 DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and 
discussed in the statement. (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.)
      
    After the comment period ends on the DEIS, the comments will be 
analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in preparing the FEIS. 
The FEIS is expected to be filed in February 1997.


    Dated: March 6, 1996.
      
Thomas J. Clifford,
      
Forest Supervisor, Helena National Forest.
[FR Doc. 96-6165 Filed 3-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.