[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 147 (Tuesday, August 2, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18701]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 2, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service

 

Two Joe Timber Sales; Superior Ranger District, Lolo National 
Forest; Mineral County, MT; Intent To Prepare Environmental Impact 
Statement

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 40,000-acre area near St. 
Regis, Montana.

DATES: Initial comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be 
received in writing no later than August 31, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Richard P. Kramer, Acting District 
Ranger, Superior Ranger District, Box 460, Superior, MT, 59872.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Terry Egenhoff, Environmental Coordinator, Superior Ranger District, as 
above, or phone: (406) 822-4233.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The responsible official who will make 
decisions based on this EIS is Richard P. Kramer, Acting District 
Ranger, Superior Ranger District, Box 460, Superior, MT, 59872. 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 about 24.3 million board 
feet of timber from about 2,600 acres (about 2,200 of those acres to be 
burned after harvest), prescribed-burn about 400 additional acres for 
ecosystem and big game habitat improvements, reconstruct about 19.4 
miles of road (primarily to mitigate existing water quality/fish 
impacts), and add new yearlong road closures to about 21.3 miles of 
currently open roads. New road construction would be limited to 0.4 
miles of temporary road plus 0.2 miles of permanent road for helicopter 
landings. The proposed action also includes some experimental treatment 
of areas containing small portions of larger populations of an orchid 
(Cypripedium fasciculatum) listed as a sensitive species by the USDA 
Forest Service Northern Region.
    Lands affected are within the Two Mile Creek and Little Joe Creek 
drainages, tributary to the St. Regis River, immediately southwest of 
the town of St. Regis, Montana. The project area is bounded by the 
Montana-Idaho state line to the south and west, and Interstate 90 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:

--maintain or enhance ecosystem health and productivity by manipulating 
vegetation (timber cutting and underburning) to increase age, 
structure, and composition diversity of biotic communities, by 
maintaining ecological disturbance processes in this fire-dominated 
ecosystem, and by removing some insect-infested, diseased, or high-risk 
trees from sites allocated by the forest plan to timber management;
--reduce existing sediment impacts to water and fish resources caused 
by existing roads;
--improve and maintain big game winter range and elk security 
conditions which are declining with current plant succession trends and 
existing open road access;
--contribute to short-term output goals and long-term forest plan 
expectations for timber production; and
--conduct some experimental treatments to learn about Cypripedium 
fasciculatum's habitat requirements and tolerance for environmental 
disturbance.

    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, and road closures in the Two mile and 
Little Joe 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 
under earlier proposals called Tujo-Recoyle and Sunset timber sales. 
This proposed action is a refinement of those proposals.
    While quite a number of issues have been identified for 
environmental effects analysis, the following issues are the ones which 
so far have been found significant enough to guide alternative 
development and provide focus for the EIS:

--Timber harvest methods, primarily opposition to clearcutting and 
other forms of even-age management and concern over the size and extent 
of harvest openings.
--Road-related effects, including sediment production, fish habitat 
impacts, wildlife disturbance, and recreation opportunities (some 
people feel the area has too many roads or that too many roads are open 
during hunting season, while others are opposed to additional road 
closures because they limit some forms of recreation and forest use).
--Water quality and fish habitat are affected by existing roads and the 
proposed actions may have both beneficial and adverse effects on these 
resources.
--Elk security and big game winter range quality are declining due to 
existing open roads, harvest openings and plant succession trends, and 
the proposed actions could have both beneficial and adverse effects on 
these issues.
--Cypripedium fasciculatum may be regionally rare but large numbers are 
found in this vicinity. Ecologists view this as an opportunity to begin 
learning more about this plant's habitat needs and response to 
disturbances as an aid in developing conservation guidelines for the 
plant while others believe that the plant should be protected from all 
management-caused disturbances.

    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:

--no action;
--no even-aged timber harvest and more road closures for increased elk 
security;
--the proposed action except no new road closures;
--watershed rehabilitation but no timber harvest in the Little Joe 
drainage and no experimental treatment of sensitive plants.

    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 prepared and 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 January, 1995. The 
final EIS is scheduled for completion in June, 1995.
    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 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 Heritages, 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.

    Dated: July 19, 1994.
Richard P. Kramer,
Acting District Ranger, Superior Ranger District.
[FR Doc. 94-18701 Filed 8-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M