[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-7136]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 25, 1994]
VOL. 59, NO. 58
Friday, March 25, 1994
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Cedar Gulch Timber Sale; Kootenai National Forest, Sanders
County, MT
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, will prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental effects of timber
harvest, reforestation, improvement of harlequin duck, mule deer and
grizzly bear habitat, road reconstruction, road construction, and road
closure in the vicinity of Big Cedar Gulch, Orr Creek and Rock Creek
drainages. The area is located near the southwest corner of the Cabinet
Mountains Wilderness, Kootenai National Forest, Cabinet Ranger
District, Sanders County, Montana. Part of the proposed project's
activities are within the McKay Creek Roadless Area (#676).
There are a variety of purposes for management activities in the
Cedar Gulch area; the primary purposes are: (1) Repair the unsafe and
sediment producing Orr Creek road (#2285) by installing and improving
drainage structures and turnouts and improving the road surface, (2)
Improve limited mule deer habitat by increasing the quantity and
quality of browse, (3) Improve harlequin duck habitat in Rock Creek by
reducing the height of the debris jams and constructing additional
debris jams, (4) Salvage dead and dying trees, (5) Provide timber to
the local economy, (6) Improve white bark pine habitat for grizzly
bears. To meet Kootenai Forest Plan standards for open road densities
in the project area and surrounding area, 6.9 miles of roads presently
open at least part of the year would be closed year-round to reduce
open road density to maintain or improve grizzly bear habitat security.
This project-level EIS will tier to the Kootenai National Forest
Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and Final EIS
(September, 1987), which provides overall guidance of all land
management activities on the Kootenai National Forest, including
wildlife, timber and road management.
DATES: Oral comments and suggestions should be received and written
comments and suggestions should be post marked within 30 days following
publication of this notice.
ADDRESSES: I am the responsible official, please submit written
comments and suggestions on the proposed management activities or a
request to be placed on the project mailing list to James I. Mershon,
District Ranger, Cabinet Ranger District, Kootenai National Forest,
2693 Highway 200, Trout Creek, Montana, 59874, (406) 827-3533 or 847-
2462.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Giesey, EIS Team Leader, Cabinet Ranger District.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The project area consists of approximately
2700 acres of National Forest land located in T26N; R32W; Sections 10-
15, 22-24; and T26N; R31W, Sections 7, 18; P.M.
Timber harvest is proposed on approximately 184 acres of forested
land which has been designated as suitable for timber management by the
Kootenai Forest Plan. The timber harvest operations and general
administration of National Forest lands would require reconstruction of
approximately 6.6 miles of existing system roads and 1.0 mile of
temporary road, and construction of approximately 0.5 mile of temporary
road. About 0.6 mile of temporary road would be obliterated after use.
Also, road closures involve closing 6.9 miles of existing system roads
to motorized vehicles year-round in and adjacent to the Cedar Gulch
project area. Even-aged management would be used in the majority of the
areas proposed for harvest. Seed tree, shelterwood and clearcut
regeneration harvests (all with permanent reserve trees) are general
prescriptions that are to be applied. Patch clearcuts in the higher
elevations are recommended for mule deer habitat improvement and to
enhance white bark pine habitat for grizzly bears. Where timber harvest
is used for wildlife habitat enhancement, prescribed burning would also
occur. Logging systems include skyline and helicopter. Of the 184 acres
proposed for harvest: 25 acres are mule deer and grizzly bear habitat
improvement; 95 acres are to salvage trees affected by root rot or
mountain pine beetle and improve big game browse; 32 acres are to
improve big game browse while maintaining the ponderosa pine type; and
32 acres are to improve the spring-time forage for grizzly bear and
improve forage for big game.
The decision to be made is what, if anything, should be done in the
Cedar Gulch Project Area to: (a) Improve the condition of Orr Creek
road to reduce erosion and provide a safe travel way, (b) dispose of
slash and reforest harvested lands, (c) improve mule deer, harlequin
duck and grizzly bear habitat, (d) provide timber to the local economy,
and (e) develop and manage the road system to facilitate removal of
timber, reforest stands, and maintain access to the Engle Peak
trailhead (located at the end of Orr Creek Road) while maintaining
grizzly bear security.
The Kootenai Forest Plan provides guidance for management
activities within the potentially affected area through its goals,
objectives, standards and guidelines, and management area direction.
The areas of proposed timber harvest, reforestation and road
construction would occur within Management Area 14 which is areas
suitable for timber production and important grizzly bear habitat.
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 would be implemented. Another alternative will be
one which proposes no activities in the McKay Creek Roadless area.
Additional alternatives will be developed to address comments and
suggestions raised by the public. The 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.
The EIS will analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative
environmental effects of the alternatives. Past, present, and projected
activities on both private and National Forest lands will be
considered. The EIS will disclose the analysis of site-specific
mitigation measures and their effectiveness.
Public participation is an important part of the analysis,
commencing with the initial scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7), which will
occur March 1994 to April 1994. In addition, the public is encouraged
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 and other individuals or organizations who may be interested
in or affected by the proposed action. No public meetings are scheduled
at this time.
Comments from the public and other agencies will be used in
preparation of the Draft EIS. The scoping process will be used to:
1. Identify potential issues.
2. Identify major issues to be analyzed in depth.
3. Eliminate minor issues or those which have been covered by a
relevant previous environmental analysis, such as the Kootenai Forest
Plan EIS.
4. Identify alternatives to the proposed action.
5. Identify potential environmental effects of the proposed action
and alternatives (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative effects).
6. Determine potential cooperating agencies and task assignments.
Some public comments have already been received in conjunction with
Cabinet District Open House meetings in January 1994. The following
preliminary issues have been identified so far:
a. What are the effects of sediment from logging activities on the
fisheries within Rock Creek?
b. What effect would the proposal have on wildlife habitat and
security?
c. What effect would the proposal have on the roadless character of
McKay Creek Roadless Area #676 and the Cabinet Wilderness?
d. What would be the effects on the visual quality of the area as
viewed from Highway 200 and the Clark Fork River?
e. Are there any sensitive, threatened, or endangered plant or
animal species in the area? How would this project affect them if they
are present?
f. How will this project, in conjunction with the proposed Asarco
Rock Creek mine, affect grizzly bear security?
Other issues commonly associated with timber harvesting and road
construction include: Effects on cultural resources, soils, and old
growth. This list may be verified, expanded, or modified based on
public and internal scoping for this proposal.
The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in September of
1994. At that time, the 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's notice of availability
appears in the Federal Register. It is very important that those
interested in management of the Cedar Gulch area participate at that
time. To be most helpful, comments on the Draft EIS should be as site-
specific as possible. The Final EIS is scheduled to be completed by
January 1, 1995.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, 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 but that are not raised
until after completion of the final environmental impact statement 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 30-day scoping 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 developing issues and alternatives.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
on the proposed action, comments should be as specific as possible.
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.
Dated: March 17, 1994.
James I. Mershon,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 94-7136 Filed 3-24-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
