# Murphy Timber Sales and Associated Activities; Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, MT > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-4 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Notice - **Published:** January 4, 1994 - **Citation:** 59 FR 292 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-4. Public record. Not legal advice.