70 FR 199 pgs. 60274-60275 - Dry Fork Vegetative Restoration Project, Lewis and Clark NationalForest, Cascade and Judith Basin Counties, MT
Type: NOTICEVolume: 70Number: 199Pages: 60274 - 60275
FR document: [FR Doc. 05-20687 Filed 10-14-05; 8:45 am]
Agency: Agriculture Department
Sub Agency: Forest Service
Official PDF Version: PDF Version
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Dry Fork Vegetative Restoration Project, Lewis and Clark NationalForest, Cascade and Judith Basin Counties, MT
AGENCY:
Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION:
Notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
SUMMARY:
The USDA Forest Service is preparing a SupplementalEnvironmental Impact Statement to further address issues associated withold growth associated with the Dry Fork Vegetative Restoration projecton the Belt Creek Ranger District of the Lewis and Clark NationalForest. This project proposes treatments including timber harvest andprescribed fire to move vegetative conditions such as age class andstand structure towards those that would most likely occur in theabsence of fire suppression.
DATES:
The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) isexpected January 2006 and the Supplemental Final EIS and Record ofDecision are expected April 2006.
ADDRESSES:
Send written comments to Lesley W. Thompson, ForestSupervisor, Lewis and Clark National Forest, P.O. Box 869, Great Falls,Montana 59403.Copies of the SEIS will be available at the Supervisor'sOffice, 1101 15th Street North, Great Falls, Montana 59403.Electroniccopies will also be available on the Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/lewisclark in the Projects and Plans area.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions about the proposed actionshould be directed to Jennifer Woods, Environmental Coordinator,(406)791-7765; or Al Koss, Belt Creek District Ranger, phone (406) 236-5511.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose and Need for Action
A landscape assessment conducted by the Forest identified risks and opportunities for the Belt Creek assessment area in the Little BeltMountains south and east of Great Falls.It showed that trends in sometypes of vegetation, the age distribution, stand structure andvegetative mosaic deviated notably from what might have occurred undernatural conditions.The purpose and need for the Dry Fork VegetativeRestoration project is to move vegetation in a portion of the assessmentarea toward desired conditions using prescribed fire and timber harvest.An emphasis would be given to areas where there would be improveddiversity in vegetative structure, species and age class. In addition,there is a need to reduce wildfire hazards to public and to firefighters and better protect private lands within and adjacent to theforest.
Proposed Action
Approximately 3,416 acres would be treated using commercial timberharvest and prescribed fire treatment. Road reconstruction would takeplace on 4.9 miles of existing road and 1.7 miles of new system roadwould be constructed. No timber harvest would be conducted withininventoried roadless areas.Approximately 20.6 miles of road closureswould be implemented through gating, signing, reclamation and change ofuse.
Alternatives
Alternatives that were considered in detailed study include the NoAction Alternative and five additional alternatives that considered avariety of types and amounts of vegetation treatments.In addition, seven other alternatives were considered, but did not merit further evaluation due to lack of feasibility, economics, or because they did not meet the purpose and need.
Responsible Official
The Responsible Official is Lesley W. Thompson, Forest Supervisor,Lewis and Clark National Forest, P.O. Box 869, Great Falls, MT 59403.
Nature of the Decision To Be Made
The scope of the actions in the decision are limited to vegetativetreatment measures within the analysis area that would result in achange in age class and structure of the current vegetative conditions,including timber harvest and use of prescribed burning, as well as roadmanagement determinations, including road construction andreconstruction.
Scoping Process
The proposal was developed with input from state congressionaloffices, county commissioners, and local community members, who formedan association as a forum for ensuring community viewpoints werecommunicated.Two public field trips and two public meetings were heldat which approximately 100 people attended. A formal scoping letter wassent to interested parties in April 1998 and a Decision Notice andFinding of No Significant Impact was released in June 2000.Threeappeals were received and the vegetative portion of the decision wasreversed to better address effects of the project to soil resources.
The USDA Forest Service published a notice of intent to conduct anEIS for the Dry Fork Vegetative Restoration project in the FederalRegister on November 17, 2000 (Vol. 65, No. 233, page 69496).
The Forest Service released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) in April 2001. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)and Record of Decision were released in November 2001.The project wasadministratively appealed and the Forest Supervisor decision was upheldthrough administrative review. On June 19, 2003, The Ecology Center andNative Ecosystem Council filed a complaint in the district court for theDistrict of Montana seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. InFebruary 2004, the District Court ruled in favor of the Forest Service.Plaintiffs in that case appealed to the Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit. On August 10, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the DistrictCourt and remanded the case to the Forest Service. The Court of Appealsmade the following determinations:
1. The Forest Service failed to demonstrate that the project wasconsistent with the forest plan's old growth forest standard, and thusfailed to comply with the Forest Act.
2. The Forest Service failed to demonstrate that the project wasconsistent with the forest plans' goshawk monitoring requirements.The Supplemental EIS will address issues associated with the forest planold growth standard as it relates to the proposed action.A forest planmonitoring report will address issues associated with forest plangoshawk monitoring requirements.
Preliminary Issues
Key issues that were identifiedinclude the possible negativeenvironmental effects to soil and water quality and fisheries resources,effects of treatments for addressing forest health issues, effects ofactions on wildlife species and their habitat, and effects torecreational activities and opportunities.
Comments Requested
The Draft Supplemental EIS is expected to be filed with theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review inJanuary 2006.At that time the EPA will publish a Notice ofAvailability (NOA) of the Draft Supplemental EIS in the FederalRegister. The comment period for the Draft Supplemental EIS will be 45days from the publication date of the NOA.A Supplemental Final EIS andnew Record of Decision will then be prepared.
Early Notice of the Importance of Public Participation in SubsequentEnvironmental Review
The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewersnotice at this early stage of several court rulings related to publicparticipation in the environmental review process.First, reviewers ofdraft environmental impact statements must structure their participationin the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful andalerts 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 environmentalimpact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion ofthe final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed bythe courts. Wisconsin Heritages, Inc . v. Harris , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338(E.D. Wis. 1980).Because of these court rulings, it is very importantthat those interested in this proposed action participate by the closeof the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objectionsare made available to the Forest Service at a time when it canmeaningfully consider them and respond to them in the finalenvironmental impact statement.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issuesand concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmentalimpact statement should be as specific as possible.It is also helpfulif comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement.Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impactstatement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed inthe statement. (Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council onEnvironmental Quality Regulations for implementing the proceduralprovisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 inaddressing these points).
Dated: October 11, 2005.
Lesley W. Thompson,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05-20687 Filed 10-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M