[Federal Register: October 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 199)]
[Notices]
[Page 60274-60275]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17oc05-19]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Dry Fork Vegetative Restoration Project, Lewis and Clark National
Forest, 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 Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement to further address issues associated
with old growth associated with the Dry Fork Vegetative Restoration
project on the Belt Creek Ranger District of the Lewis and Clark
National Forest. This project proposes treatments including timber
harvest and prescribed fire to move vegetative conditions such as age
class and stand structure towards those that would most likely occur in
the absence of fire suppression.
DATES: The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is
expected January 2006 and the Supplemental Final EIS and Record of
Decision are expected April 2006.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Lesley W. Thompson, Forest
Supervisor, Lewis and Clark National Forest, P.O. Box 869, Great Falls,
Montana 59403. Copies of the SEIS will be available at the Supervisor's
Office, 1101 15th Street North, Great Falls, Montana 59403. Electronic
copies will also be available on the Internet at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/lewisclark
in the Projects and Plans area.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about the proposed action
should 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 Belt
Mountains south and east of Great Falls. It showed that trends in some
types of vegetation, the age distribution, stand structure and
vegetative mosaic deviated notably from what might have occurred under
natural conditions. The purpose and need for the Dry Fork Vegetative
Restoration project is to move vegetation in a portion of the
assessment area toward desired conditions using prescribed fire and
timber harvest. An emphasis would be given to areas where there would
be improved diversity in vegetative structure, species and age class.
In addition, there is a need to reduce wildfire hazards to public and
to fire fighters and better protect private lands within and adjacent
to the forest.
Proposed Action
Approximately 3,416 acres would be treated using commercial timber
harvest and prescribed fire treatment. Road reconstruction would take
place on 4.9 miles of existing road and 1.7 miles of new system road
would be constructed. No timber harvest would be conducted within
inventoried roadless areas. Approximately 20.6 miles of road closures
would be implemented through gating, signing, reclamation and change of
use.
Alternatives
Alternatives that were considered in detailed study include the No
Action Alternative and five additional alternatives that considered a
variety 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.
[[Page 60275]]
Nature of the Decision To Be Made
The scope of the actions in the decision are limited to vegetative
treatment measures within the analysis area that would result in a
change in age class and structure of the current vegetative conditions,
including timber harvest and use of prescribed burning, as well as road
management determinations, including road construction and
reconstruction.
Scoping Process
The proposal was developed with input from state congressional
offices, county commissioners, and local community members, who formed
an association as a forum for ensuring community viewpoints were
communicated. Two public field trips and two public meetings were held
at which approximately 100 people attended. A formal scoping letter was
sent to interested parties in April 1998 and a Decision Notice and
Finding of No Significant Impact was released in June 2000. Three
appeals were received and the vegetative portion of the decision was
reversed to better address effects of the project to soil resources.
The USDA Forest Service published a notice of intent to conduct an
EIS for the Dry Fork Vegetative Restoration project in the Federal
Register 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 was
administratively appealed and the Forest Supervisor decision was upheld
through administrative review. On June 19, 2003, The Ecology Center and
Native Ecosystem Council filed a complaint in the district court for
the District of Montana seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. In
February 2004, the District Court ruled in favor of the Forest Service.
Plaintiffs in that case appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. On August 10, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the District
Court and remanded the case to the Forest Service. The Court of Appeals
made the following determinations:
1. The Forest Service failed to demonstrate that the project was
consistent with the forest plan's old growth forest standard, and thus
failed to comply with the Forest Act.
2. The Forest Service failed to demonstrate that the project was
consistent with the forest plans' goshawk monitoring requirements. The
Supplemental EIS will address issues associated with the forest plan
old growth standard as it relates to the proposed action. A forest plan
monitoring report will address issues associated with forest plan
goshawk monitoring requirements.
Preliminary Issues
Key issues that were identified include the possible negative
environmental effects to soil and water quality and fisheries
resources, effects of treatments for addressing forest health issues,
effects of actions on wildlife species and their habitat, and effects
to recreational activities and opportunities.
Comments Requested
The Draft Supplemental EIS is expected to be filed with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review
in January 2006. At that time the EPA will publish a Notice of
Availability (NOA) of the Draft Supplemental EIS in the Federal
Register. The comment period for the Draft Supplemental EIS will be 45
days from the publication date of the NOA. A Supplemental Final EIS and
new Record of Decision will then be prepared.
Early Notice of the Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review
The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers
notice at this early stage 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. 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 them and
respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft
environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is
also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the
draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft
environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives
formulated and discussed in the statement. (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: October 11, 2005.
Lesley W. Thompson,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05-20687 Filed 10-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M