[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 292-294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-4]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]


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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 

Murphy Timber Sales 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 USDA, Forest Service, will prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental effects of timber 
harvest, reforestation, wildlife habitat enhancement (prescribed 
burning), construction of low standard haul roads, and restriction of 
existing roads within the lower portion of the Fortine Creek drainage. 
The Fortine Creek drainage is located approximately 40 air miles 
northeast of Libby, Montana near the town of Fortine, Montana.
    The proposal's actions to harvest and reforest timber stands, 
construct and reconstruct roads, prescribed burning, and restricting 
roads 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 purposes of the project are 
to maintain and enhance winter thermal habitat requirements for 
whitetailed and mule deer, improve grizzly bear habitat by providing 
security, cover, and forage, and maintain a healthy forest while 
providing timber to the local economy.
    The EIS will tier 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. All 
activities associated with the proposal will be designed to maintain 
high quality wildlife, fisheries, and watershed objectives.

DATES: Written comments and suggestions should be received within 45 
days following publication of this notice.

ADDRESSES: The Responsible Official is Jane P. Kollmeyer, District 
Ranger, Fortine Ranger District, P.O. Box 116, Fortine, Montana 59918. 
Written comments and suggestions concerning the scope of the analysis 
may be sent to her at that address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joleen Dunham, ID Team Leader, Fortine Ranger District. Phone: (406) 
882-4451.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The decision area contains approximately 
15,000 acres within the Kootenai National Forest in Lincoln County, 
Montana. All of the proposed projects are located in the Fortine Creek 
drainage with sub-drainages of Deep, Brimstone, and Murphy Creeks 
included. The legal location of the decision area is as follows: 
Sections 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 
33, and 34 of Township 35 North, Range 25 West; Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 
8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 
27, 28, and 29 of Township 34 North, Range 25 West; Sections 25 and 36 
of Township 35 North, Range 26 West; and Sections 1 and 12 of Township 
34 North, Range 26 West; Principal Montana Meridian.
    Some timber management and prescribed wildlife burning activities 
under consideration would occur within the Marston Face Roadless Area 
X172 and the Thompson-Seton Roadless Area 483. 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. Both even-
aged and uneven-aged management would be used in implementing the 
proposed actions. Logging systems consist of tractor harvest only.
    The Forest Service proposes to harvest approximately 3.3 million 
board feet of timber through application of a variety of harvest 
methods on approximately 1063 acres of forest land. The proposal also 
includes prescribed burning of 117 acres to enhance wildlife habitat. 
The Forest Service proposal also includes approximately 2.1 miles of 
new road construction (0.9 miles of temporary road and 1.2 miles of low 
standard specified road) and approximately 1.0 mile of road re-
construction to access the specific harvest units. Approximately 15-18 
miles of existing road is also proposed for additional road use 
restrictions to improve wildlife habitat security.
    The Kootenai National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 
provides overall management objectives in individual delineated 
management areas (MA's). The proposed projects encompass three 
predominant MA's; 11, 13, and 14. Briefly described, MA 11 is managed 
to maintain or enhance the winter-range habitat effectiveness for big-
game species and produce a programmed yield of timber. 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 13 is designated to provide the special habitat necessary for 
old growth dependent wildlife. Timber harvest is proposed only in MA 
11. Prescribed burning for wildlife is the only activity proposed in MA 
14. No activity is proposed in MA 13.

Issues

    Tentatively, several issues of concern have been identified through 
the scoping process. These issues are briefly described below:
     Whitetailed and Mule Deer Winter Thermal Cover--How would 
the proposed action maintain and enhance winter thermal cover?
     Visuals--What effects would the proposed action have on 
naturally appearing views seen from trails, private land, Dickey Lake 
and Highway 93?
     Timber Supply--How would the proposed action help satisfy 
local and national needs?
     Activity in Roadless Area--What effect would the proposal 
have on the roadless character of Marston Face and Thompson-Seton 
Roadless Areas.
     Grizzly Bear--How would the proposal maintain and enhance 
grizzly bear habitat?
     Old Growth--What effect would the proposed action have on 
old growth habitat?
     Forest Health--Some stands are not growing at their full 
potential and some have sustained heavy mortality due to the mountain 
pine beetle. What effect would the proposed action have to reduce 
susceptibility to bark beetles and improve stand conditions?
     Water Quality--What effects would the proposed action have 
on riparian areas, lakes, and private water developments?

Public Involvement and Scoping

    Public participation to this point has been extensive. On August 
15, 1991 an initial scoping meeting was held with the local community 
and interested individuals for the development of a timber sale 
proposal. On May 28, 1992 we held another open house to present a 
revised proposal. In addition, a field trip to the Murphy Decision Area 
was conducted on June 26, 1992 with seven individuals attending. 
Comments were requested in writing during all of these public 
involvement efforts. Consultation with appropriate State and Federal 
agencies has been initiated. Preliminary effects analysis indicated 
that the proposed action may significantly affect quality of the human 
environment and may substantially alter the undeveloped character of 
the Marston Face Roadless Area. These potential effects prompted the 
decision to prepare an EIS for the Murphy Timber Sales.
    This environmental analysis and decision making process will unable 
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:
     Identifying potential issues.
     Identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth.
     Exploring additional alternatives which will be derived 
from issues recognized during scoping activities.
     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 Murphy EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by 
September, 1994. 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 December, 1994. 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. versus NRDC, 435 U.S. 
519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at 
the draft environmental impact statement stage may be waived or 
dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon versus Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 
1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. versus 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

    Jane P. Kollmeyer, District Ranger, Fortine Ranger District, 
Kootenai National Forest, P.O. Box 116, Fortine, Montana, 59918, is the 
Responsible Official. As the Responsible Official I will decide which, 
if any, of the proposed projects will be implemented. I will document 
the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision. 
That decision will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations.

    Dated: December 16, 1993.
Jane P. Kollmeyer,
District Ranger, Fortine Ranger District.
[FR Doc. 94-4 Filed 1-3-94 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M