[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7516-7518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3046]



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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service


North Fork Fire Salvage and Associated Activities, Kootenai 
National Forest, Lincoln County, MT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The North Fork, 336, and Maxine Wildfire burned over 8000 
acres of Kootenai National Forest system lands in the late summer of 
1994. The Forest intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) to assess and disclose the environment effects of opportunities 
designed to recover economic value of burned timber, reduce future 
fuels accumulations and the corresponding risk of severe reburn, 
rehabilitate existing sediment sources, improve hydrologic conditions 
in affected watersheds, and protect long-term soil productivity. These 
objectives would be accomplished through salvage harvest of fire-killed 
timber; reforestation of harvested and several burned areas; fuels 
reduction in harvested areas; restoration of non-essential roads, 
revegetation of road cuts and fill slopes, and drainage improvement on 
existing roads; providing for immediate and long-term recruitment of 
instream large woodly material within the North Fork decision area. The 
North Fork decision area is located approximately 20 air miles 
southwest of Eureka, Montana.
    All proposals within the North Fork decision area would protect 
visual quality on stream segments eligible for classification under the 
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, provide for wildlife habitat, and conserve 
fisheries habitat.
    The proposal's actions to salvage fire-killed trees and reforest 
burned area, construct, reconstruct, and restore roads, reduce fuels 
and future fire hazard, and implement watershed recovery projects are 
being considered together because they represent either connected or 
cumulative actions as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality 
(40 CFR 1508.25). The EIS will trier to the Kootenai National Forest 
Land and Resource Management Plan and Final EIS of September 1987, 
which provides overall guidance for achieving the desired forest 
condition of the area.

DATES: Written comments and suggestions should be relieved by March 10, 
1995.

ADDRESSES: The Responsible Official is Robert L. Schrenk, Forest 
Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest. Written comments and suggestions 
concerning the scope of the analysis should be sent to Robert J. 
Thompson, District Ranger, Rexford Ranger District, 1299 Hwy 93 N, 
Eureka, Montana, 59917.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Chute, Planner, Rexford Ranger 
District. Phone (406) 296-2536.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the night of August 14-15, 1994, a 
lightning stormed started 207 fires on the Kootenai National Forest in 
northwest Montana. Several fires ranging in size from less than one 
acre to over 7000 acres occurred on the Rexford Ranger District. The 
North Fork Fire Recovery EIS is being prepared in response to 
conditions resulting from the largest of these fires, the 8000+ acre 
North Fork Fire Complex. An interdisciplinary landscape analysis team 
is using an ecosystem based approach to assess the fires affects and 
identify management opportunities that could be implemented to move the 
postfire landscape toward a desired ecological condition.
    Burn intensities in the North Fork wildfires varied considerably. 
Within the fire perimeters approximately 5350 acres burned at high 
intensity (average 90% tree mortality), 1400 burned at moderate 
intensity (average 70% mortality), and 1300 acres burned at low 
intensity (average 30% mortality). The fires burned into or adjacent to 
the Wild and Scenic study corridors in Big Creek and South Fork Big 
Creek (eligible for Recreation classification), and North Fork Big 
Creek and Copeland Creek (eligible for Wild classification), all of 
which are pending Wild and Scenic River study. The fires also burned 
within the Big Creek Roadless area #701.
    The North Fork decision area contains approximately 36,000 acres 
within the Kootenai National Forest in Lincoln County, Montana. All of 
the proposed projects are located in the Big Creek drainage with sub-
drainages of North Fork Big, South Fork Big, Good, Mesler, Roberts, 
Copeland, and Drop Creeks, included. The legal location of the decision 
area is as follows: Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 29, and 30 of Township 34 North, 
Range 30 West; Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 24 of Township 34 
North, Range 30 West; Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 
34, 35, and 36 of Township 35 North, Range 30 West; Sections 1, 12, 13, 
14, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, and 36 of Township 35 North, Range 31 West; and 
Sections 21 and 32 of Township 36 North, Range 30 West; Principle 
Montana Meridian. The land in and adjacent to the decision area is 
entirely federal ownership under the jurisdiction of the Forest 
Service.

Proposed Action

    The primary purpose of the project is to recover valuable timber 
products from trees burned by wildfires that occurred in 1994, with the 
secondary benefit of reducing the potential for future uncontrollable 
wildfires. Actions are also proposed to enhance watershed recovery and 
improve grizzly bear habitat security. The Forest Service proposes to 
harvest approximately 24-27 million board feet of timber by salvaging 
fire-killed timber and imminently dead trees on approximately 2119 
acres of forest land outside riparian protection areas (draft PACFISH 
criteria) and wild and scenic eligible corridors. Only trees that were 
killed, or are expected to die as a result of the fires, would be 
harvested. The proposal includes prescribed burning of about 2006 
acres, and excavator piling [[Page 7517]] on about 113 acres to reduce 
fuel loads in harvested areas, which would reduce the risk of future 
large, uncontrollable wildfires. An estimated 2000 acres of proposed 
salvage units would be planted with conifer seedlings to help meet 
desired conditions for species diversity. The Forest Service proposal 
also includes approximately 0.5 miles of temporary road construction, 
1.8 miles of permanent road construction, and 2.5 miles of road 
reconstruction to access the specific harvest units. All temporary 
roads constructed for this project, as well as an estimated 39 miles of 
existing non-essential road are proposed for restoration to reduce 
sediment and water yields, and improve grizzly bear habitat security. 
Non-essential roads are those that are no longer considered a necessary 
part of the permanent transportation system. Drainage improvement 
activities (such as surface ripping, drainage structure improvement, 
seeding) would be implemented on an additional 4 miles of existing 
system roads, with the intent of restoring natural drainage and 
reducing sediment. These roads will be needed for future management 
access, and would remain a part of the permanent transportation system. 
Additional road access restrictions may be needed to provide adequate 
security areas for grizzly bears, however identification of specific 
road closure proposals is pending further analysis. In addition, 
projects to improve watershed recovery, reforestation of 475-550 acres 
of severely burned areas not proposed for salvage, revegetation of road 
cut and fill slopes, and repair of damaged hiking trails would be 
accomplished if adequate funds are available.
    The decision area includes all or a portion of three roadless 
areas: the entire Big Creek Roadless Area #701, and portions of the 
Zulu Roadless Area #166 and Mt. Henry Roadless Area #666. Some timber 
salvage, fuels reduction activities, and reforestation would occur 
within the Big Creek Roadless Area; no activities are proposed within 
the Zulu or Mt. Henry Roadless Areas. No road construction is proposed 
within any roadless area. No proposed activities are located in areas 
considered for inclusion to the National Wilderness System as 
recommended by the Kootenai National Forest Plan or by any past or 
present legislative wilderness proposals.
    Due to the high level of tree mortality in proposed harvest units, 
most harvested areas would resemble clearcut, seed-tree, or shelterwood 
silvicultural methods. Only those live trees which must be cut to 
facilitate logging fire-killed trees would be harvested. In addition to 
most live trees, 10-15 snags per acre would be retained in all 
harvested areas if available. Timber harvest would be done by skyline, 
forwarder or winter tractor, and helicopter, and designated to result 
in minimal ground disturbance, risk of erosion, and compaction.
    The Kootenai National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 
provides overall management objectives in individual delineated 
management areas (MA's). The decision area contains nine MA's: 2, 3, 
10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, and 24. Briefly described, MA 2 is managed to 
protect and enhance roadless recreation use and provide wildlife 
values. MA 3 is managed to provide opportunities for dispersed 
recreation in naturally appearing environments using trails and 
primitive roads for access. MA 10 is managed to maintain or enhance 
habitat effectiveness for winter use by big-game animals and protect 
scenic quality in areas visible from major travel routes. MA 12 is 
managed to maintain or enhance the summer-range habitat effectiveness 
for big-game species and produce a programmed yield of timber. MA 13 is 
managed to provide the special habitat necessary for old growth 
dependent wildlife. MA 14 focuses on maintaining or enhancing grizzly 
bear habitat, reducing grizzly/human conflicts, assisting in the 
recovery of the grizzly bear, realizing a programmed yield of timber 
production, and providing for the maintenance or enhancement of other 
wildlife species, especially big game. MA 15 is managed primarily for 
timber production while providing for other resource values. MA 19 is 
managed to protect soil stability and water quality by maintaining the 
vegetation in a healthy condition and minimizing surface disturbance. 
MA 24 is managed to protect mid to high elevation sites with rocky, 
thin soils. This MA is also managed for any wildlife resources that may 
occur. Timber salvage and fuels reduction is proposed in MA 12, MA 14, 
and MA 24.

Preliminary Issues

    Several preliminary issues of concern have been identified by the 
Forest Service. These issues are briefly described below:
    <bullet> Water Quality--Streams in the decision area have been 
impacted by past management and large wildfires. How would the proposed 
action affect water yield, sediment production, stream stability, and 
recovery from past impacts?
    <bullet> Timber Supply--An estimated 92 million board feet of 
timber was killed in the North Fork Fire complex. Much of this fire-
killed timber will quickly lose its commercial value due to rapid 
deterioration. To what extent does the proposed action recover the 
commercial value of fire-killed timber to help meet local and national 
needs?
    <bullet> Activity in Roadless Areas--What effect would the proposal 
have on the roadless character of the Big Creek Roadless Area and other 
roadless areas?
    <bullet> Grizzly Bear--The decision area lies within the recovery 
area for the Cabinet/Yaak grizzly bear ecosystem. How would the 
proposal maintain and enhance grizzly bear habitat, and contribute to 
recovery efforts?
    <bullet> Old Growth--An estimated 1500 acres of designated old 
growth was destroyed by intense, stand replacing wildfire. What options 
are available to manage for suitable levels of old growth habitat in 
the decision area?
    <bullet> Fisheries--Some streams contain fisheries habitat and 
resident fish populations, including torrent sculpin (a Region 1 
sensitive species), possibly bull trout (currently being considered for 
listing as a threatened or endangered species), and westslope cutthroat 
trout (likely hybridized). How would the proposed action affect 
fisheries habitat and populations?
    <bullet> Future Fire Risk--The wildfires of 1994 killed more trees 
over a larger area than would be expected in this ecosystem. Over the 
next 20 years most of these fire killed trees will fall, creating high 
fuel loadings over an area that is unprecedented in scale. Recurrence 
of wildfires are anticipated within the next 50 years, and could 
produce more severe effects to soils, water resources, and vegetation 
than the 1994 fires. How would the proposed action reduce future fuel 
loads and the corresponding risk of severe, uncontrollable wildfire?

Forest Plan Amendment

    The Kootenai National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan has 
specific management direction for the North Fork decision area. The 
North Fork proposed action is designed to maintain or improve resource 
conditions and move towards achieving desired ecological conditions, 
and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan. 
Prior to making a NEPA decision, a thorough examination of all 
standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan would be completed and, if 
necessary, plan exceptions or amendments would be addressed in the EIS.

Decision To Be Made

    The Kootenai National Forest Supervisor will decide the following:
    [[Page 7518]]
    
    Should dead and imminently dead trees within fire areas be 
harvested and if so how and where,
    What amount, type, and distribution of watershed restoration 
projects, including road restoration, would be implemented,
    What burned areas need to be replanted,
    What road access restrictions would be implemented to provide 
security for grizzly bears, and
    If Forest Plan exception or amendments are necessary to proceed 
with the Proposal Action within the decisions area.

Public Involvement and Scoping

    Some public participation efforts have already been initiated. On 
October 1, 1994 a public field trip to the North Fork Decision Area was 
held to provide interested people with an opportunity to view the fire 
areas and ask questions of fire managers and resource specialists. On 
January 10, 1995, an open house and slide presentation was held with 25 
individuals attending. Comments were requested during both of these 
public involvement efforts. An open house will be held from 10:00 a.m. 
to 7:00 p.m. on February 21, 1995 at the Rexford Ranger District 
office, 1299 Hwy 93 N, Eureka, MT 59917, to provide an opportunity for 
the public to review of the proposed action. Consultation with 
appropriate State and Federal agencies has been initiated. Preliminary 
effects analysis indicated that the wildfires may significantly affect 
the quality of the human environment, and fire recovery activities have 
the potential to both intensify and reduce effects. These potential 
effects prompted the decision to prepare an EIS for the North Fork Fire 
Salvage.
    This environmental analysis and decision making process will enable 
additional interested and affected people to participate and contribute 
to the final decision. Public participation will be requested at 
several points during the analysis. The Forest Service will be seeking 
information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, local 
agencies, and other individuals or organizations who may be interested 
in or affected by the proposed projects. This input will be used in 
preparation of the draft and final EIS. The scoping process will 
include:
    <bullet> Identifying potential issues.
    <bullet> Identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth.
    <bullet> Exploring addition alternatives which will be derived from 
issues recognized during scoping activities.
    <bullet> Identifying potential environmental effects of this 
project and alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 
and connected actions).
    The analysis will consider a range of alternatives, including the 
proposed action, no action, and other reasonable action alternatives.

Estimated Dates for Filing

    The draft North Fork Fire Recovery EIS is expected to be filed with 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for 
public review by April, 1995. 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.
    The final EIS is scheduled to be completed by August, 1995. 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 applicable 
laws, regulations, and policies considered in making a decision 
regarding the proposal.

Reviewer's Obligations

    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 environment 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 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

    Robert L. Schrenk, Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest, 506 
US Highway 2 West, Libby, MT 59923 is the responsible Official. I have 
delegated the responsibility to prepare the North Fork Fire Salvage 
Environmental Impact Statement to Robert J. Thompson, District Ranger, 
Rexford Ranger District. As the Responsible Office I will decide which, 
if any, of the proposed projects will be implemented. I will document 
the decision and reasons for the decisions in the Record of Decision. 
That decision will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations.

    Dated: January 30, 1995.
Robert L. Schrenk,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 95-3046 Filed 2-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M