Jump to main content.

Garver EIS; Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, Montana

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

 
[Federal Register: May 13, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 92)]
[Notices]
[Page 32006-32007]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13my02-34]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
 
Garver EIS; Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, Montana

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION:  Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) for a proposal to improve forest health and wildlife 
habitat, reduce urban interface fuels, and make access management 
changes to improve grizzly bear habitat. The project is located on the 
Three Rivers Ranger District, Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, 
Montana, approximately 30 air miles northeast of Troy, Montana.

Scoping Comment Dates: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis 
should be received by June 17, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and suggestions concerning the scope of the 
analysis should be sent to Michael L. Balboni, District Ranger, Three 
Rivers Ranger District, 1437 Hwy 2, Troy, MT 59935.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Mohar, Team Leader, Three Rivers 
Ranger District, 1436 Hwy 2, Troy, MT 59935. Phone: (406) 295-4693.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The project area is approximately 43,096 
acres and is located in portions of T36N, R32W; T36N; R31W; T37N; R32W; 
and T37N, R31W, PMM, Lincoln County, Montana. The project area 
encompasses the West Fork Yaak River, Pete Creek, Lap Creek, Waper 
Creek, and Mud Creek, as well as several small drainages that are 
tributary to the Yaak River. The West Fork Yaak Inventoried Roadless 
Area is located along the north and western border of this project 
area.
    The purpose and need for this project is to: (1) Improve and 
Maintain Forest Health; (2) Improve and Maintain Winter Range 
Conditions; (3) Improve and Maintain Old Growth Characteristics; (4) 
Reduce Fuels In The Wildlife Urban Interface; (5) Improve Growing 
Conditions and Long-Term Management Options for Overstocked Sapling 
Pole Stands; (6) Improve Quality and Quantity of Grizzly Bear Habitat; 
and (7) Contribute Forest Products to the Economy.
    To meet the purpose and need, this project proposes treatments to 
manage for vegetative conditions that are most suitable to a fire-
dependent ecosystem, and in the long term to encourage more resilient 
and sustainable forest conditions. Intermediate harvest treatments are 
proposed where forest conditions are generally healthy but some 
undesirable trends have been noted. Regeneration harvest methods would 
be implemented in areas with high levels of insect and disease, uniform 
mature lodgepole pine stands, and/or where restoration of species at 
risk are identified. This treatment may also be used in site-specific 
areas where small forage openings would be created for the benefit of 
big games species. Precommercial thinning is proposed for overstocked 
sapling/pole stands.
    Mechanical treatments and/or burning would be used in other areas 
to reduce fuels, including urban interface areas, and to improve big 
game habitat. Burning is proposed for the Dusty Peak area within the 
West Fork Yaak Inventoried Roadless Area and in designated old growth.
    Access management changes are proposed with this project to improve 
grizzly bear security and habitat conditions. Best Management 
Practices, including activities such as outsloping, waterbarring, and 
culvert replacement would be applied to haul roads being used for this 
project.

Range of Alternatives

    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 will be implemented. Additional alternatives will 
examine varying levels and location for the proposed activities to 
achieve the proposal's purposes, as well as to respond to the issues 
and other resource values.

Public Involvement and Scoping

    The public is encouraged to take part in the process and to visit 
with Forest Service officials at any time during the

[[Page 32007]]

analysis and prior to the decision. The Forest Service will be seeking 
information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local 
agencies, and other individuals or organizations that 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:
    1. Identifying potential issues.
    2. Identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth.
    3. Identifying alternatives to the proposed action.
    4. Exploring additional alternatives that will be derived from 
issues recognized during scoping activities.
    5. Identifying potential environmental effects of this project and 
alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and 
connected actions).

Estimated Dates for Filing:

    The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review in July 
2001. 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 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the Notice of 
Availability in the Federal Register. It is very important that those 
interested in the management of this area participate at that time.
    The final EIS is scheduled to be completed in September 2001. 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 to applicable 
laws, regulations, and policies considered in making a decision 
regarding the proposal.

Reviewer's Obligations

    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, 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 be must helpful, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific 
as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement or the merit 
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 District Ranger of the Three Rivers Ranger District, Michael L. 
Balboni, is the Responsible Official. As Responsible Official, he will 
decide if the proposed project will be implemented and will document 
the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision.

    Dated: May 6, 2002.
Cami Winslow,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest.
[FR Doc. 02-11829 Filed 5-10-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.