[Federal Register: December 9, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 72902-72903]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09de02-24]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Georgetown Vegetation Management, Philipsburg Ranger District,
Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest, Granite and Deer Lodge Counties,
MT
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Revised notice; intent to prepare environmental impact
statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact
settlement (EIS) to document the analysis and disclose the
environmental impacts of proposed actions to manage forest and
rangelands to reduce fuel levels, improve forest health, and improve
vegetative structure in the Flint Creek, North Flint Creek, and upper
Warm Springs drainages. The proposed project includes the Georgetown
and Echo Lake recreation areas which are located approximately 10 miles
south of Philipsburg, Montana. A portion of the project proposes to
treat forested lands comprised of vegetation condition classes 2 and 3
within and adjacent to areas defined as wildland urban interface and
intermix communities. Areas with these conditions have been identified
as priorities for fuel treatment under the National Fire Plan and
Cohesive Strategy because of the potential for severe and damaging
wildfire.
The Forest Service proposes fuel reduction and forest health
treatments by thinning and shelterwood harvest on 1,000 to 1,200 acres.
As estimated 1.0 to 1.3 million board feet (2,000 to 2,600 hundred
cubic feet, CCF) of sawtimber and approximately 1.0 to 1.5 million
board feet equivalent (2,000 to 3,000 CCF) of posts and poles would be
harvested. Also, 1,100 to 1,200 acres would be treated with prescribed
fire and mechanical methods to control conifer encroachment and reduce
grassland fuels.
This project originally appeared in the Federal Register on August
3, 1998, page 41223, as the Double Sec Timber Sale and Vegetative
Management, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Granite and Deer
Lodge Counties, MT. A draft environmental impact statement was
completed and a notice of availability was published in the Federal
Register on October 8, 1999, page 54882, as EIS No. 990357, Draft EIS,
AFS, MT, Double Sec Timber Sale and Vegetation Management Project.
DATES: Initial comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be
received in writing no later than 30 days after the publication of this
NOI in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: The responsible official is Forest Supervisor Thomas K.
Reilly, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Dillon, MT. Please send
written comments to Bob Gilman, District Ranger, Philipsburg Ranger
District, 88 10A Business Loop, Philipsburg, MT 59858. Comments may be
electronically submitted to rl_b-d_comments@fs.fed.us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Giacoletto, Fire Management
Officer, Philipsburg Ranger District, 88 10A Business Loop,
Philipsburg, MT, 59858, or phone: (406) 859-3211.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The project area is located in T4 &5N, R13
&14W. The scope of this proposal is to initiate vegetative practices
throughout the Georgetown Lake area that would help maintain the
recreational setting over time. Treatments would reduce stand densities
and fuel levels, especially in areas near private property,
developments, and homes.
The original environmental analysis for this area was initiated in
the spring of 1997. The original proposed action would have harvested
approximately 11.5 million board feet, from 1,250 acres, and
constructed 4.5 miles of system roads and 4.5 miles of temporary roads.
Alternatives to the proposed action reduced harvest levels, reduced or
eliminated road construction, and changed travel management by closing
up to 14.5 miles of roads and motorized trails.
The revised project would implement the goals and objectives
outlined in the National Fire Plan, Cohesive Strategy and Goal 2 of the
10 Year Comprehensive Strategy.
Public participation will be re-initiated due to the substantial
changes in project design. Part of the goal of public involvement is to
identify issues to the revised project. During initial scoping, over
900 letters were sent to interested people, adjacent landowners,
organizations, business, as well as Federal, State, County, and Tribal
organizations. Thirty-two individual responses were received. A field
trip was held during the summer of 1997; two people attended. A public
meeting was held in Anaconda, MT on December 15, 1999. Articles
describing the project were published in local newspapers.
The analysis will consider all reasonably foreseeable activities.
The interdisciplinary team has not yet developed alternatives to the
proposed action. Alternatives will be developed
[[Page 72903]]
based on the key issues identified through scoping.
People may visit with Forest Service officials at any time during
the analysis and prior to the decision. Two periods are specifically
designated for comments on the analysis: (1) During the scoping process
and (2) during the draft EIS comment period.
During the scoping process, the Forest Service is seeking
additional information and comments from Federal, State, and local
agencies and other individuals or organizations who may be interested
in or affected by the proposed action. The United States Fish and
Wildlife Service will be consulted concerning effects to threatened and
endangered species. The agency invites written comments and suggestions
on this action, particularly in terms of identification of issues and
alternative development.
The draft EIS should be available for review in July 2003. The
final EIS is scheduled for completion in August 2003.
The Environmental Protection Agency will publish the notice of
availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal
Register. The Forest Service will also publish a legal notice of its
availability in the Montana Standard Newspaper, Butte, Montana. A 45-
day comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will
begin the day following the legal notice.
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 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 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 Heritage, Inc. 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. 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.
The responsible official will make the decision on this proposal
after considering comments and responses, environmental consequences
discussed in the final EIS, applicable laws, regulations, and policies.
The decision and reasons for the decision will be documented in a
Record of Decision.
Dated: December 2, 2002.
Thomas K. Reilly,
Forest Supervisor, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.
[FR Doc. 02-30979 Filed 12-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M