Dry Fork Vegetative Restoration Project, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Cascade and Judith Basin Counties, MT, 60274-60275 [05-20687]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 199 (Monday, October 17, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60274-60275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20687]


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

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 https://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