![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Miller West Fisher Project, Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, MT
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: January 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 2015-2016]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12ja06-31]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Miller West Fisher Project, Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, MT
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 vegetation
management through commercial timber harvest, precommercial thinning
and prescribed fire; access management changes; trail construction and
improvement; treatment of fuels in campgrounds; and watershed
rehabilitation activities. The project is located in the Silverfish
planning subunit on the Libby Ranger District, Kootenai National
Forest, Lincoln County, Montana, and south of Libby, Montana.
Scoping Comment Date: The scoping period will close and comments
will be due 30 days following publication of this notice.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and suggestions concerning the scope of the
analysis should be sent to Malcolm R. Edwards, District Ranger, Libby
Ranger District, 12557 Hwy 37, Libby, MT 59923.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Leslie Ferguson, Team Leader,
Libby Ranger District, 12557 Hwy 37, Libby, MT 59923. Phone: (406) 293-
7773.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The project area is approximately 20 air
miles south of Libby, Montana, within all or portions of T27N, R29W-
R31W, T26N, R29W-R31W, and T25N, R29W-R31W, PMM, Lincoln County,
Montana. The area contains the Miller, West Fisher and Silver Butte
Creek watersheds.
The purpose and need for this project is to (1) Maintain ecosystem
function and vegetative health; (2) Reduce hazardous fuels and restore
natural fire regimes; (3) Provide commodities; (4) Provide appropriate
levels and types of access while minimizing impacts to resources; (5)
Maintain or improve watershed condition; (6) Maintain or improve
wildlife habitat; and (7) Improve recreational opportunities through
several segments of trial reconstruction, and fuels treatment in Lake
Creek campground.
To meet this purpose and need this project proposes:
(1) Vegetation treatments, including commercial timber harvest and
associated fuel treatments, precommercial thinning, and prescribed
burning without associated timber harvest. Vegetation treatments total
5,800 acres of treated area.
(2) Road and access management, including access changes new road
construction, and road storage and decommissioning. Access changes
would occur over approximately 8.72 miles. Approximately 1.2 miles of
new road construction if proposed. Approximately 12.1 miles of road
storage and 0.87 of road decommissioning are also proposed.
(3) Improvement, construction and reconstruction of trail tread for
a total of 5.5 miles in the project area.
(4) Fuels and hazardous tree removal in Lake Creek Campground.
(5) Watershed condition improvement in the form of best management
practices (BMP) implementation, including installation of ditch relief
culverts, culvert replacement, surface water deflectors and cleaning
ditches is proposed for all haul routes. Additional BMP work on roads
not used for timber haul is proposed and will be performed as funding
becomes available. Stream stabilization projects are also proposed.
(6) 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 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 April of 2006. 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 July 2006. 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
[[Page 2016]]
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: As the Forest Supervisor of the Kootenai
National Forest, 1101 U.S. Highway 2 West, Libby, MT 59923, Bob
Castaneda is the Responsible Official. As the Responsible Official, Bob
will decide if the proposed project will be implemented. Bob will
document the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of
Decision. Bob has delegated the responsibility for preparing the DEIS
and FEIS to Malcolm R. Edwards, District Ranger, Libby Ranger District.
Dated: January 4, 2006.
Cami Winslow,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest.
[FR Doc. 06-248 Filed 1-11-06; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M