Mill-Key-Wey Timber Sales; Superior Ranger District, Lolo National Forest; Mineral County, Montana

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Mill-Key-Wey Timber Sales; Superior Ranger District, Lolo

National Forest; Mineral County, Montana

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 25,000-acre area near

Superior, Montana. Lands affected are within the Mill, Fourmile, Slowey

Gulch, Keystone and Pardee Creek drainages, tributary to the Clark Fork

River, between Superior and St. Regis, Montana. The project area is

bounded by Interstate 90 to the south and west and the Ninemile divide

between Plains/Thompson Falls and Superior Ranger Districts to the

north.

DATES: Initial comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be

received in writing no later than August 23, 1999. Comments received

during the previous 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 Champman Enstrom, District

Ranger, Superior Ranger District, Box 460, Superior, MT 59872.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Martin, Mill-Key-Wey

Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Superior Ranger District, as above, or

phone: (406) 822-4233.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public involvement was initiated in

September 1996 on the Mill-Key-Wey proposal. Additional public

involvement was conducted in November of that year during alternative

development. An open house hosted by the Superior Ranger District was

held on January 1997, where additional comments were solicited. A

follow-up letter was sent in April 1997 to the open house attendees

notifying them of the project status and projected timelines.

The environmental analysis has indicated that significant effects

may occur. Accordingly, we are now in the process of developing a draft

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The DEIS proposes the following:

[[Page 39482]]

The Proposed Action would harvest about 25.2 million board feet of

timber from about 5812 acres (about 5180 of those acres to be burned

after harvest), to underburn an additional 1348 acres, to construct

10.6 miles of new road (5.1 miles of this total will be temporary or

short term access roads, reclaimed after use), to reconstruct or

recondition about 13.1 miles of road and rehabilitate about 7.7 miles

of existing road (primarily to mitigate existing water quality and fish

habitat impacts), and to change travel management on 10.5 miles of

existing roads, including 2.7 miles from open yearlong to closed

yearlong, 3.6 miles from seasonal to year long closure and 4.2 miles

open yearlong to a seasonal closure.

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) Maintain and restore ecosystem health through timber harvesting

and prescribe burning that would develop sustainable plant communities;

(2) Improve and maintain big game winter range and elk security

conditions which are declining due to current plant successional trends

and existing open road access;

(3) Reduce existing sediment impacts to water and fish resources

caused by existing roads;

(4) Provide a more favorable and safe access to an existing

electronic site;

(5) Improve the visual quality of several old harvest units and

create scenic vistas to improve viewing opportunities, and

(6) Provide a sustained yield of timber to help support the

economic structure of the local communities.

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 Mill, Fourmile, Slowey Gulch, Keystone and Pardee Creek drainages,

given the above purpose and need. This is a site-specific project

decision, not a general management plan nor a programmatic analysis.

While quite a number of issues have been identified for

environmental effects analysis during scoping, the following issues

have been found significant enough to guide alternative development and

provide focus for the EIS:

(1) Wildlife habitat effects (including hunting season bull elk

security) resulting from timber harvest and road construction and

rehabilitation activities; and

(2) Visual quality effects due to proposed harvesting and road

building;

(3) Road management changes that affect accessibility to national

forest lands;

(4) Water quality and fish habitat which are affected by existing

roads;

(5) Forest Health effects in fire dependent ecosystems.

The proposed action could have both beneficial and adverse effects

on these resources. In addition to the proposed action, a range of

alternatives has been developed in response to issues identified during

scoping that meet or partially fulfill the purpose and need. Other

alternatives that have been given detailed study are:

(1) No action;

(2) Harvest only from existing roads (no new roads or temporary

roads), reconstruct 13.1 miles of existing road, rehabilitate 5.9 miles

of road, add year-round road closures to one mile of existing road and

change access from seasonal restrictions to open yearlong on 3.6 miles;

and

(3) Use prescribed burning only (no timber harvest), rehabilitate

5.9 miles of existing road and change access on 2.7 miles of road from

open yearlong to closed yearlong and 3.6 miles from seasonal closure to

open yearlong; and,

(4) Harvest timber similar to the proposed action, construct 10

miles of new road (6.1 miles of this total would be temporary or short

term roads, reclaimed after use), reconstruct 13.1 miles of existing

road with no new road restrictions.

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 additional formal scoping meetings are planned.

Another formal opportunity for response will be provided following

completion of a draft EIS.

The draft EIS should be available for review in August, 1999. The

final EIS is scheduled for completion in December, 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 responsible official who will make decisions based on this EIS

is, Forest Supervisor, Lolo National Forest, Building 24, Fort

Missoula, Missoula, MT 59804. She 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 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, 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.

Authority: 40 CFR 1508.22.

Dated: July 12, 1999.

Deborah L.R. Austin,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 99-18759 Filed 7-21-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M