![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Northeast Yaak 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: October 29, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 209)]
[Notices]
[Page 63136-63138]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29oc04-41]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Northeast Yaak 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) to disclose the environmental effects of urban
interface fuels treatments, vegetation management, watershed
rehabilitation activities, wildlife habitat improvement, and access
management changes, including road decommissioning. The project is
located in the Northeast Yaak planning subunit on the Three Rivers
Ranger District, Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, Montana, and
northeast of Troy, Montana.
DATES: Scoping Comment Date: Comments concerning the scope of the
analysis should be received by November 30, 2004.
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: Eric Dickinson, Team Leader, Three
Rivers Ranger District, 1437 Hwy 2, Troy, MT 59935. Phone: (406) 295-4693.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The project area is approximately 26 air
miles northeast of Troy, Montana, within all or portions of T37N, R29W-
R32W, and T36N, R30N-R31W, Lincoln
[[Page 63137]]
County, Montana. The area encompasses the following drainages:
Blacktail, Caribou, East Fork Yaak River, Porcupine, Basin, Solo Joe,
Windy, Bunker Hill, and Vinal drainages and several small drainages
tributary to the East Fork of the Yaak River.
The purpose and need for this project is to: (1) Reduce fuels and
the potential for crown fires in the urban interface and other forested
areas; (2) manage for more diverse and sustainable vegetative
conditions; (3) improve conditions in old growth habitat; (4) improve
growing conditions and long-term management of overstocked sapling/pole
stands; (5) improve and maintain winter range conditions; (6) improve
the quality of grizzly bear habitat; (7) provide for motorized access
to national forest resources for recreation and to meet management
objectives, while maintaining wildlife security; (8) continue to
decrease cumulative sediment introduction to streams from roads; and
(9) contribute forest products to the economy.
To meet this purpose and need this project proposes:
(1) Intermediate tree harvest on approximately 2,010 acres and
regeneration harvest on 340 acres to reduce fuels and manage for a more
diverse and sustainable vegetative conditions. Included in the
intermediate tree harvest is an estimated 140 acres in stands
designated as old growth (MA-13) Old growth characteristics would be
maintained and enhanced with this treatment. This proposal includes a
project-specific forest plan amendment to allow for this harvest in MA-
13. Mechanical fuels reduction is proposed on 110 acres, and hand
piling fuels reduction is proposed on 100 acres, all in the wildland
urban interface. Maintenance underburning is proposed on approximately
120 acres in the wildland urban interface, including 80 acres within
old growth or replacement old growth. This harvest would contribute
approximately 12 to 16 million board feet (MMBF) or 29,300 to 39,000
hundred cubic feet (CCF) of timber products to the economy.
Approximately 0.6 miles of new specified road construction and 0.7
miles of road realignment would be needed for this project and to
provide for long-term management needs. The road would be placed in
storage after treatment. It is estimated that five temporary roads
ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 miles would be constructed to accomplish this
harvest and would be obliterated following activities. Best Management
Practice work and road maintenance work would be implemented on haul
roads. Pre-commercial thinning is proposed on approximately 270 acres
to improve growing conditions and maintain structural diversity in
managed sapling stands.
(2) Decommissioning all or portions of 13 roads (approximately 17
miles) which were determined through an interdisciplinary process to be
unneeded and are at risk of contributing sediment to streams. the
decommissioning work would include outsloping portions of the road
prism, installing ditch-intercept waterbars, and reestablishing stream
crossings. Several roads in the upper Caribou and Bloom Creek area used
in the 1950s are inaccessible and would be abandoned. To improve
motorized public access, Road 746 would be opened for public travel.
(3) To enlarge and consolidate grizzly bear core habitat while
maintaining the 55 percent standard in Bear Management Unit 16, Road
5816 (at the junction of Road 6810H), Road 6004, and Road 6005, would
be bermed and stabilized. These roads are currently gated, so public
access would not change. A smaller core area in the Solo Joe/Hudson Cr.
area would be eliminated.
(4) Design features and mitigations to maintain and protect
resource values.
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 locations 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 analysis and prior
to the decision. The Forest Service will be seeking information,
comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies,
Tribal governments, 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 proposal
(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
February 2005. 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 June 2005. 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 most 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
[[Page 63138]]
Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Responsible Official
As the Forest Supervisor of the Kootenai National Forest, 1101 U.S.
Highway 2 West, Libby, MT 59923, I am the Responsible Official. As the
Responsible Official, I will decide if the proposed project will be
implemented. I will document the decision and reasons for the decision
in the Record of Decision. I have delegated the responsibility for
preparing the DEIS and FEIS to Michael L. Balboni, District Ranger,
Three Rivers Ranger District.
Dated: October 25, 2004.
Bob Castaneda,
Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest.
[FR Doc. 04-24211 Filed 10-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M