[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