[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36207-36208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17665]
[[Page 36207]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Knox-Brooks Timber Sales and Road Rehabilitation; Superior Ranger
District, Lolo National Forest; Mineral County, Montana
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTHORITY: 40 CFR 1508.22.
SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) for timber harvesting, prescribed burning, road access
changes, and watershed rehabilitation in a 38,000-acre area near St.
Regis, Montana.
DATES: Initial 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 will be considered
in the analysis and do not need to be resubmitted during this comment
time period.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Cindy Chapman Enstrom, District
Ranger, Superior Ranger District, Box 460, Superior, MT 59872.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bruce Erickson, Knox-Brooks Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Superior
Ranger District, as above, or phone: (406) 822-4233.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The responsible official who will make
decisions based on this EIS is Charles C. Wildes, Forest Supervisor,
Lolo National Forest, Building 24 Fort Missoula, Missoula, MT 59804. He
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 proposes to harvest approximately 51,000 hundred
cubic feet of timber from about 3180 acres, (about 1050 of those acres
to be burned after harvest), to reconstruct or recondition about 50
miles of road and stabilize and/or obliterate about 37 miles of
existing road (primarily to mitigate existing water quality and fish
habitat impacts), and to add new yearlong road closures to about 4
miles of currently open roads. New road construction would be limited
to about 2 miles of permanent road and about 5 miles of temporary road.
Lands affected are within the Twelvemile Creek and Twin Creek
drainages, tributary to the St. Regis River, between DeBorgia and St.
Regis, Montana. The project area is bounded by Interstate 90 to the
south and the divide between Plains/Thompson Falls and Superior Ranger
Districts to the north.
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) Treat pine stands considering the mountain pine beetle epidemic
moving through the area by altering timber stands to reduce mountain
pine beetle hazard and by providing a mix of age classes so the
continuity of susceptible stands is reduced for future outbreaks;
(2) Rehabilitate water quality and fisheries habitat through
improving channel stability, reducing sources of sediment, reducing
erosion and improving drainage on existing roads that are needed for
long-term management, and reclaiming roads that are not needed; and
(3) Contribute to the short-term output goals and long-term forest
plan expectations for timber production.
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 Twelvemile Creek and Twin Creek drainages, 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 (including hunting season bull elk
security) resulting from timber harvest and road construction and
rehabilitation activities; and
(3) Economic effect on local communities resulting from different
access methods and resulting timber values.
The proposed action could have both beneficial and adverse effects
on these resources. In addition to the proposed action, a range of
alternatives will be developed in response to issues identified during
scoping. Other alternatives planned for detailed study are:
(1) No action;
(2) Harvest only from existing roads (no new roads or temporary
roads) with no harvesting in bull elk security areas; and add year-
round road closures to three existing roads; and
(3) Harvest from existing roads and from short-term and temporary
roads on gentle ridgetops and upper sideslopes, harvest with no
regeneration cuts in bull elk security areas, and add year-round road
closures to three existing roads.
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 who 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.
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
response will be provided following completion of a draft EIS.
The draft EIS should be available for review in November, 1998. The
final EIS is scheduled for completion in February, 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 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,
[[Page 36208]]
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.
Dated: June 18, 1998.
Charles C. Wildes,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 98-17665 Filed 7-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
