Mormon Ridge Winter Range Restoration Project

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mormon Ridge Winter Range Restoration Project

AGENCY: Forest, Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Forest Service is considering various alternatives to

improve winter range on Mormon Ridge, which is 10 air miles southwest

of Missoula, Montana. Alternatives include the aerial application of

herbicides to control invasive exotic species such as spotted knapweed

(Centaurea maculosa) and harvesting smaller trees to restore the area

to a more open, park-like condition that existed prior to extensive

fire suppression. The area under consideration encompasses

approximately 900 acres.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received

in writing by April 20, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to District Ranger, Missoula Ranger

District, Building 24-A Fort Missoula, Missoula, MT 59801.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andy Kulla, Project Team Leader, (406) 329-3962.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These management activities would be

administered by the Missoula Ranger District of the Lolo National

Forest in Missoula County, Montana. This EIS will tier to the Lolo

Forest Plan (February 1986) which provides the overall guidance to

achieve the desired future condition for this area.

The proposed action has two primary goals. The first is to improve

winter range forage production for deer and elk. The invasion of

noxious weeds such as knapweed and the increased tree cover has reduced

forage production. The second goal is to restore a mix of forest

conditions that more closely resembles the forest structure that

existed prior to extensive fire suppression and timber harvest. Fire

suppression, while successful in reducing the number of fires, has

increased the risks of catastrophic fire and insect and disease

outbreaks. If we restore a more open, park-like condition we can reduce

these risks, as well as, improve the site for wildlife species

dependent on older ponderosa pine.

The process used in preparing the Draft EIS will include:

1. Identification of potential issues.

To date we have identified these issues:

What is the existing condition compared to the potential condition of

the winter range?

How can we coordinate our activities with neighboring landowners?

What are the effects of using herbicides?

What should we do to reduce the dense stands of small trees?

How do nearby agricultural operations affect elk and deer?

How much can prescribed and natural fire improve the winter range?

Are native or introduced grasses available that can crowd out knapweed

and leafy spurge?

2. Identification of issues to be analyzed in depth.

3. Elimination of insignificant issues or those which have been

covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis.

4. Identification of reasonable alternatives.

5. Identification of potential environmental effects of the

alternatives.

6. Determination of potential cooperating agencies and task

assignments.

The agency invites written comments and suggestions on the issues

and management opportunities in the area being analyzed. For most

effective use, comments should be sent to the agency within 45 days

from the date of this publication in the Federal Register. The Lolo

Forest Plan provides the overall guidance for management activities in

the potentially affected area through its goals, objectives, standards

and guidelines, and management area direction. The potentially affected

area is within the following management areas:

Management Area 19: Consists of lands designated as important

winter range for deer and elk. The management goal is to optimize this

winter range and to provide for dispersed recreation.

Management Area 18: Consists of lands designated as important

winter range that will be managed to attain a proper balance of cover

and forage for big game through regulated timber harvest. Goals for

these lands are to optimize forage production and to maintain healthy

stands of timber while considering the needs of big game.

Management Area 26: Consists of portions of the forest's critical

elk summer habitat lying outside of wilderness and roadless areas. The

management goals are to maintain or improve elk habitat through

specifically prescribed vegetation manipulation and to provide for

other resource objectives if they are consistent with elk management in

this area.

Management Area 23: Consists of timber lands on south-facing slopes

that are visible from major roads and other high-use areas. These lands

are important winter ranges. The management goals allow only small

changes to the visual character of the lands while providing optimal

cover: forage rations for big game and maintaining healthy stands of

timber.

Management Area 14: Consists of primary riparian areas. The goal is

to manage riparian areas to feature riparian-dependent resources (fish,

water quality, maintenance of natural channels, and certain vegetation

and wildlife communities) while producing other resource outputs.

A range of alternatives will be considered. One will be the ``no-

action'' alternative, which would allow no vegetation manipulation or

noxious weed treatment. Other alternatives will examine various methods

of weed treatment (including aerial application of herbicides) and

vegetation manipulation (including harvest of smaller diameter trees on

the site). The Forest Service will analyze and document the direct,

indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the alternatives.

Public participation will be important during the analysis. People

may visit with Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis

and prior to the decision; however, two periods of time are identified

for the receipt of comments on the analysis. The first period occurs

during the next 45 days and the second period is during the review of

the draft Environmental Impact Statement.

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.

The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) is expected to be

available for public review in October, 1994. After a 45-day public

comment period, the comments received will be analyzed and considered

by the Forest Service in preparing the final environmental impact

statement (FEIS). The FEIS is scheduled to be completed by March, 1995.

The Forest Service will respond to the comments received in the FEIS.

The Missoula District Ranger, who is the responsible official for this

EIS, will make a decision regarding this proposal considering the

comments and responses, environmental consequences discussed in the

FEIS, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The decision and

reasons for the decision will be documented in a Record of Decision.

The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement 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 to give reviewers

notice at this early stage 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. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,

553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the

draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised

until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may

be waived or dismissed by the courts. Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v.

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 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: February 18, 1994.

Dave Stack,

District Ranger, Missoula Ranger District, Lolo National Forest.

[FR Doc. 94-5322 Filed 3-8-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M