been mitigated to levels within acceptable thresholds. The same is true for those species 

 that have been identified as "sensitive" by the DNRC. Alternative B presents a low risk of 

 cumulative effects due to implementation of additional road closures in the Fish Creek 

 drainage. 



3. PRECEDENT SETTING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS- 



The project area is located on State-owned lands, which are "principally valuable for the 

 timber that is on them or for growing timber or for watershed" (MCA 77-1-402). The proposed 

 action is similar to past projects that have occurred in the area. Since the EA does not identify 

 future actions that are new or unusual, the proposed timber harvest is not setting precedence for a 

 future action with significant impacts. 



Taken individually and cumulatively, the identified impacts of the proposed timber sale are 

 within established threshold limits. Proposed timber sale activities are common practices and 

 none of the project activities are being conducted on fragile or unique sites. 



The proposed timber sale conforms to the management philosophy adopted by DNRC and is in 

 compliance with existing laws, poUcies, guidelines, and standards applicable to this type of action. 



4. SHOULD DNRC PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)? 



Based on the following, I find that an EIS does not need to be prepared: 



a) The EA adequately addressed the issues identified during project development, and 

 displayed the information needed to make the pertinent decisions. 



b) Evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed timber sale indicate that significant 

 impacts to the human environment will not occur as a result of the implementation of 

 Alternative B: Harvest. 



c) The ID Team provided opportimities for public review and comment during project 

 development and analysis. 



Jonathan E. Hansen 

 /lissoula Unit Manager 

 November 3. 2003 



