[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 140 (Thursday, July 22, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39481-39482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-18759]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Mill-Key-Wey Timber Sales; Superior Ranger District, Lolo
National Forest; Mineral County, Montana
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice; 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 25,000-acre area near
Superior, Montana. Lands affected are within the Mill, Fourmile, Slowey
Gulch, Keystone and Pardee Creek drainages, tributary to the Clark Fork
River, between Superior and St. Regis, Montana. The project area is
bounded by Interstate 90 to the south and west and the Ninemile divide
between Plains/Thompson Falls and Superior Ranger Districts to the
north.
DATES: Initial comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be
received in writing no later than August 23, 1999. Comments received
during the previous scoping will be considered in the analysis and do
not need to be resubmitted during this comment time period.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Cindy Champman Enstrom, District
Ranger, Superior Ranger District, Box 460, Superior, MT 59872.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Martin, Mill-Key-Wey
Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Superior Ranger District, as above, or
phone: (406) 822-4233.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public involvement was initiated in
September 1996 on the Mill-Key-Wey proposal. Additional public
involvement was conducted in November of that year during alternative
development. An open house hosted by the Superior Ranger District was
held on January 1997, where additional comments were solicited. A
follow-up letter was sent in April 1997 to the open house attendees
notifying them of the project status and projected timelines.
The environmental analysis has indicated that significant effects
may occur. Accordingly, we are now in the process of developing a draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The DEIS proposes the following:
[[Page 39482]]
The Proposed Action would harvest about 25.2 million board feet of
timber from about 5812 acres (about 5180 of those acres to be burned
after harvest), to underburn an additional 1348 acres, to construct
10.6 miles of new road (5.1 miles of this total will be temporary or
short term access roads, reclaimed after use), to reconstruct or
recondition about 13.1 miles of road and rehabilitate about 7.7 miles
of existing road (primarily to mitigate existing water quality and fish
habitat impacts), and to change travel management on 10.5 miles of
existing roads, including 2.7 miles from open yearlong to closed
yearlong, 3.6 miles from seasonal to year long closure and 4.2 miles
open yearlong to a seasonal closure.
The purpose of this proposal is to carry out the goals and
direction given in the Lolo National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan with ecosystem management principles. Key elements of
the purpose and need are:
(1) Maintain and restore ecosystem health through timber harvesting
and prescribe burning that would develop sustainable plant communities;
(2) Improve and maintain big game winter range and elk security
conditions which are declining due to current plant successional trends
and existing open road access;
(3) Reduce existing sediment impacts to water and fish resources
caused by existing roads;
(4) Provide a more favorable and safe access to an existing
electronic site;
(5) Improve the visual quality of several old harvest units and
create scenic vistas to improve viewing opportunities, and
(6) Provide a sustained yield of timber to help support the
economic structure of the local communities.
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 Mill, Fourmile, Slowey Gulch, Keystone and Pardee Creek drainages,
given the above purpose and need. This is a site-specific project
decision, not a general management plan nor a programmatic analysis.
While quite a number of issues have been identified for
environmental effects analysis during scoping, the following issues
have been found significant enough to guide alternative development and
provide focus for the EIS:
(1) Wildlife habitat effects (including hunting season bull elk
security) resulting from timber harvest and road construction and
rehabilitation activities; and
(2) Visual quality effects due to proposed harvesting and road
building;
(3) Road management changes that affect accessibility to national
forest lands;
(4) Water quality and fish habitat which are affected by existing
roads;
(5) Forest Health effects in fire dependent ecosystems.
The proposed action could have both beneficial and adverse effects
on these resources. In addition to the proposed action, a range of
alternatives has been developed in response to issues identified during
scoping that meet or partially fulfill the purpose and need. Other
alternatives that have been given detailed study are:
(1) No action;
(2) Harvest only from existing roads (no new roads or temporary
roads), reconstruct 13.1 miles of existing road, rehabilitate 5.9 miles
of road, add year-round road closures to one mile of existing road and
change access from seasonal restrictions to open yearlong on 3.6 miles;
and
(3) Use prescribed burning only (no timber harvest), rehabilitate
5.9 miles of existing road and change access on 2.7 miles of road from
open yearlong to closed yearlong and 3.6 miles from seasonal closure to
open yearlong; and,
(4) Harvest timber similar to the proposed action, construct 10
miles of new road (6.1 miles of this total would be temporary or short
term roads, reclaimed after use), reconstruct 13.1 miles of existing
road with no new road restrictions.
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 additional formal scoping meetings are planned.
Another formal opportunity for response will be provided following
completion of a draft EIS.
The draft EIS should be available for review in August, 1999. The
final EIS is scheduled for completion in December, 1999.
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 responsible official who will make decisions based on this EIS
is, Forest Supervisor, 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.
The Forest Service believes it is important, at this early stage,
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,
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 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. 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.
I am the responsible official for this environmental impact
statement. My address is Lolo National Forest, Building 24, Fort
Missoula, Missoula MT 59804.
Authority: 40 CFR 1508.22.
Dated: July 12, 1999.
Deborah L.R. Austin,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 99-18759 Filed 7-21-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M