[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2258-2260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-158]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Lolo National Forest--Butte Lookout Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare Environmental Impact Statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) for timber harvesting, prescribed burning, road access 
changes, and watershed rehabilitation in a 12,000-acre drainage area 
near Missoula, Montana.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing within 30 days following publication of this notice. 
Comments received during the initial scoping in December 2005, will be 
considered in the analysis and do not need to be resubmitted during 
this comment time period.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Maggie Pittman, District Ranger, 
Missoula Ranger District, Building 24 Fort Missoula, Missoula, MT 
59804.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Stadler, Interdisciplinary Team 
Leader, Missoula Ranger District, as above, or phone: (406) 329-3731.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The responsible official who will make 
decisions based on this EIS is Deborah L. R. Austin, Lolo National 
Forest, Building 24 Fort Missoula, Missoula, MT 59804. She will decide 
on this proposal after considering comments and responses, 
environmental consequences discussed in the Final EIS, and applicable 
laws, regulations, and policies. The decision and reasons for the 
decision will be documented in a Record of Decision.
    In 1996, Missoula District completed an ``ecosystem analysis at the 
watershed scale'' for the South Fork of Lolo Creek watershed. Ecosystem 
analysis takes a look at the big picture and integrate projects to 
achieve long-term Lolo National Forest management goals and desired 
future conditions. This ecosystem analysis provided the basis for this 
proposed action.
    The proposed management action is to harvest and/or burn about 70 
units totaling about 1,455 acres using one to five commercial timber 
sale(s), and to decommission around 27.9 miles of system and non-system 
roads. Of that 1,455 acre total, about 1,180 acres would be regneration 
harvested and/or burned and about 275 acres would be commercially 
thinned. Less than one

[[Page 2259]]

mile of permanent new roads would be constructed. About 1.1 miles of 
short-term road would be built to Forest Service standards, used for 
harvest, and reclaimed to their original contour after use. A 
combination of Best Management Practices (BMPs) measures, such as check 
dams in ditches, sediment basins, additional ditch relief pipes, lined 
ditches, and other surface drainage devices, would be installed on 
about 41 miles of system roads that access the units. Treatment areas 
and distances may change slightly as the alternatives are developed and 
more accurately mapped.
    The Butte Lookout Project is needed at this time because:
    1. The transportation analysis indicates that, due in part to the 
evolution of logging systems; we have more miles of roads than are 
needed to manage forest resources in the West Fork Butte Creek (WFBC) 
drainage. In the absence of a regular program of forest management 
activities, road maintenance dollars are inadequate to maintain the 
entire road system, and therefore, some of the roads are producing 
sediment that reaches WFBC. WFBC has elevated instream sediment levels 
that are above referencedconditions (S. Fk. of Lolo Creek Watershed 
Analysis). The lowest reaches of WFBC were harvested with high density 
jammer roads in the 1950s and 1960s (primarily in Marshall Creek). The 
jammer roads have mostly grown closed but some may still contribute 
sediment to the creek. From the middle 1960s through the 1970s, the 
majority of the south-facing private lands in lower WFBC were roaded 
and harvested. In the 1970s and 1980s, an extensive road system was 
constructed on federal and private lands within the drainage for timber 
management. This road system now provides administrative motorized 
access throughout the watershed. Roads constructed prior to the 1980s 
generally were not surfaced and did not employ as many erosion devices 
or rolling grades to control surface drainage as we now use. As the 
Forest re-entered the drainage in the 1980s and 1990s, the roads used 
for that timber harvest generally had some drainage control added, 
although more is still needed to meet today's standards to reduce 
sediment delivery. There are about 85 miles of Forest Service road in 
the WFBC drainage. This includes about three miles of road that are 
open year-long, 46 miles of road closed to public travel year-long, and 
13 miles of road with seasonal restrictions. In addition there are 
about 11 miles of historic road and 12 miles of jammer road which are 
not drivable and not considered forest system roads. The high road 
densities which are characteristic of jammer road development are 
inappropriate for current yarding technology and land management 
philosophy. Many of the roads were abandoned without consideration for 
long-term erosion control and hydrological requirements within the 
drainage. The culverts which remain are at risk of failure over the 
long-term since they are not being maintained and generally have 
inadequate flow capacity if a significant runoff event occurs. The 
historic roads are those which are no longer functioning as roads but 
which have not been officially disposed of. These roads typically have 
only partially revegetated and have a road prism which is intact. Like 
the jammer roads, these roads may have inadequate road drainage control 
and undersized culverts. The system roads are primarily used for fire 
protection, administrative use, minimal road and culvert maintenance, 
motorized recreation, and walk in recreation. Some of the roads have 
been identified as no longer needed for management of the area. This 
road system not contributes sediment to the creek and its tributaries. 
Some of the roads have undersized culverts (some are fish barriers) or 
design features which need to be improved or replaced.
    2. Aquatic habitat in WFBC is in poor overall condition because of 
the 1910 fire and management activities since 1950. Raised sediment 
levels are affecting spawning success and reducing available rearing 
habitat for native fish species, including the federally listed bull 
trout. There is a low amount of good pool habitat and a lack of large 
woody debris in the stream, and as a result, over-winter areas are 
lacking in the WFBC. Native species must move into the extreme lower 
reaches of the stream or into the South Fork Lolo Creek to find high 
quality, complex pool habitat capable of sustaining them through the 
winter. Seven undersized or perched culverts are barriers to aquatic 
organism passage, making about 12 miles of streams unavailable as fish 
habitat. There are some valley bottom roads along stream banks and in 
riparian zones which negatively affect aquatic habitat, channelize 
streams, and reduce overall stream sinuosity. This has resulted in 
increased gradients and hydraulic forces in the channel, causing bank 
erosion and bedload movement. Direct sediment routing to stream 
channels also occurs via streambank and riparian roads. These roads are 
also reducing the amount of large woody debris that enters and stays in 
the stream. The overall result of valley bottom roads is a reduction on 
aquatic habitat amount and complexity.
    3. Landscape components (structure, composition, and function) have 
been adversely affected by dire suppression since 1910 by preventing 
the occurrence of moderate and low severity fires as well as any high 
severity stand replacing fires. There is a widespread infestation of 
bark beetles within the large area of high risk forests under drought 
stressed conditions. This equates to a high likelihood of significant 
continued tree mortality. The land within the project area is 
predominately allocated for timber management to provide sawlogs as a 
byproduct of achieving ecological objectives. The effect of fire 
suppression and the beetle epidemic is to change the composition of the 
forest away from the desired future conditions and objectives disclosed 
in forest plans, and in national, regional, and forest strategies.
    4. Fire suppression has also reduced ecological resiliency to 
disturbances and has created a homogenization of the landscape. Fuels 
are now much more continuous than was thought to exist under more 
natural fire regimes. The primary missing fire effects are those 
realized by localized occurrences of low and mixed severity wildfires 
or emulated by prescribed fires. Periodic low-to-moderate severity fire 
favors Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine by setting back invasion by the 
more tolerant subalpine fir and spruce which, in the absence of fire, 
form dense understories and eventually take over the site. Further, 
these periodic fires would reduce ladder fuels and crown density thus 
lowering the risk of stand replacement fires via sustained crown fire. 
Large-scale bark beetle mortality and fuel accumulation has created a 
scenario where fires that burn in this landscape can reach thousands of 
acres very quickly.
    5. Cumulative changes in vegetative structure, species composition, 
and distribution on the landscape from fire exclusion and past timber 
harvest on federal and private lands directly relate to wildlife 
habitat. Some wildlife species have benefited from these changes while 
others have been affected negatively. A goal of this proposal is 
restore forest stands and associated wildlife habitat to a condition 
that represents what occurred historically with emphasis on habitat 
factors that are limited or degraded at the project and landscape 
scales. Vegetative stands within the project area are primarily in Fire 
Group 6 (Fischer and Bradley 1987). These stands are typically 
comprised of ponderosa pine, larch, Douglas fir (and in some cases 
lodgepole

[[Page 2260]]

pine), in a multistoried arrangement. Existing canopy closures and stem 
densities are very high and these conditions do not favor the 
regeneration of shade intolerant species such as larch and ponderosa 
pine. Historically, wildfires at roughly 15-40 year intervals created 
conditions in which these low-to-moderate severity burned forests were 
generally more open but also more spatially diverse at the stand, 
watershed and landscape scales. In addition, these fires resulted in 
site preparation for larch and ponderosa pine regeneration, created 
fire killed patches of wildlife habitat, and also scarred large 
diameter trees, resulting in long standing snags. Species dependant on 
large diameter snags, old forests with open understory and a 
heterogeneous distribution of habitat conditions across the landscape 
benefit under these conditions. Such species include Flammulated owls, 
northern goshawks and pileated woodpeckers.
    The decision to be made is to what extent, if at all, the Forest 
Service should conduct timber harvest, prescribed burning, road 
construction or reconstruction, road reclamation, and road closures in 
the Lolo Creek drainage, given the above purpose and need. This is a 
site-specific project decision, not a general management plan nor a 
programmatic analysis.
    Public scoping has been conducted on most elements of this proposal 
both with this proposal and an earlier version of this proposal.
    While quite a number of issues have been identified for 
environmental effects analysis, the following issues have been found 
significant enough to guide alternative development and provide focus 
for the EIS:
    (1) Water quality and fisheries habitat effects resulting from 
timber harvest and road construction and rehabilitation activities;
    (2) Wildlife habitat effects resulting from timber harvest and road 
construction and rehabilitation activities;
    (3) Effects of treatments on site productivity, forest health, 
vegetative condition, and species composition, individually and 
cumulatively,
    (4) Effects of treatment on area scenic values, and
    (5) Economic effects on local communities resulting from different 
intensities of restoration treatments and resulting timber values.
    The Lolo Forest Plan provides the overall guidance for management 
activities in the project area through its Goals, Objectives, Standards 
and Guidelines, and Management Area direction.
    The proposed action could have both beneficial and adverse effects 
on forest resources. In addition to the proposed action, a range of 
alternatives will be developed in response to issues identified during 
scoping. One of these will be the ``no-action'' alternative, which 
would not allow vegetation manipulation through harvest or any road 
decommissioning under this analysis. Other alternatives may examine 
various combinations of treatment areas. The Forest Service will 
analyze and document the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental 
effects of the alternatives. In addition, the EIS will include site 
specific mitigation measures and discussions about their effectiveness.
    Public participation is important to the analysis. People may visit 
with Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior 
to the decision. No formal scoping meetings are planned. However, two 
periods are specifically designated for comments on the analysis:
    (1) During this scoping process and
    (2) During the draft EIS comment period.
    During the scoping process, the Forest Service is seeking 
information and comments from Federal, State, and local agencies and 
other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or 
affected by the proposed action. A scoping document will be mailed to 
parties known to be interested in the proposed action. The agency 
invites written comments and suggestions on this action, particularly 
in terms of issues and alternatives. Persons who provided comments in 
the past on this project do not have to resubmit them. Those previously 
stated concerns will be incorporated into this analysis.
    The Forest Service will continue to involve the public and will 
inform interested and affected parties as to how they may participate 
and contribute to the final decision. Another formal opportunity for 
public response will be provided following completion of a draft EIS.
    The draft EIS should be available for review in June 2007. The 
final EIS is scheduled for completion in September of 2007.
    The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date 
the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of 
availability in the Federal Register.
    The Forest Service believes it is important, at this early, 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 it is 
meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewer's position and 
contentions (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 
533 (1978)). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the 
draft environmental impact statement stage but 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 v. Harris, 490 F. 
Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980)). Because of these court rulings, it 
is very important those interested in this proposed action participate 
by the close of the 45-day comment period so 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. Reviews 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.
    I am the responsible official for this environmental impact 
statement. My address is Lolo National Forest, Building 24, Fort 
Missoula, MT 59804.

    Dated: January 11, 2007.
Deborah L. R. Austin,
Forest Supervisor, Lolo National Forest.
[FR Doc. 07-158 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M