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

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