Clancy-Unionville Vegetative Treatment/Travel Management Plan EIS; Helena National Forest, BLM Headwaters Resource Area, Lewis & Clark and Jefferson Counties, Montana

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Clancy-Unionville Vegetative Treatment/Travel Management Plan

EIS; Helena National Forest, BLM Headwaters Resource Area, Lewis &

Clark and Jefferson Counties, Montana

AGENCIES: Forest Service, USDA and Bureau of Land Management, USDI.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare Environmental Impact Statement and

BLM Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management

are gathering information and preparing an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) for a planning effort involving vegetative treatments

and motorize travel management actions. This EIS will analyze the

impacts of utilizing prescribed fire on grassland vegetation types and

a combination of prescribed fire and tree removal within the forested

vegetation. It will also evaluate the effects of alternative strategies

for managing motorized travel uses throughout the affected area.

Alternative travel management actions will address spatial, temporal

and vehicle type allocations. Travel planning will also guide the long-

term management of new roads needed to access the vegetation treatment

areas. The project area is located immediately south of Helena,

Montana, and totals 40,000 acres of public lands (including 5,000 acres

of BLM lands).

The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management propose to treat

approximately 5750 acres of grassland and forested vegetation through

prescribed burning and tree removal. On the National Forest,

approximately 2800 acres would be treated with prescribed burning and

2200 acres of timber would be harvested. On the Bureau of Land

Management lands approximately 750 acres would be harvested of which

250 acres would be treated further with prescribed burning.

Timber would be sold and removed using commercial thinning,

selection, shelterwood, seedtree and clearcut harvest systems.

Approximately 17.4 miles of new temporary road construction is needed

to access treatment areas. Following treatment all but 1 mile of the

temporary roads would be recontoured and physically closed. New road

construction would occur in the Grizzly Gulch, Go Devil Creek, Whiteman

Gulch, Little Buffalo Gulch, Jackson Creek, Lump Gulch and Quartz Creek

vicinities.

The travel management proposal is to establish a ``Restricted

Area'' designation for the entire area that would limit public

motorized travel to designated routes. The use of some roads and trails

would also be restricted to specific seasons and/or certain vehicle

classes. Snowmobile users would be able to travel off routes in some

portions of the area.

The proposal is designed to help achieve the goals and objectives

of the 1986 Helena National Forest Plan and move selected areas towards

the desired conditions identified from the Forest Plan. These needs are

supported by the findings of the Divide Landscape Analysis (September

1996). This proposal would fulfill the vegetative management direction

of the BLM Headwaters RMP and create some changes regarding travel

management direction, ultimately requiring an amendment.

More specifically, the proposal has the following purpose:

to create a more diverse forest with a wide variety of

trees of varying ages, species and sizes.

to minimize the threat of large scale, catastrophic

wildfire by reducing the amount of forest vegetation (trees, shrubs and

grasses) and litter on the forest floor. Vegetation treatments would be

done in concert with the existing qualities of the urban/rural setting,

while protecting the area's scenic and recreational amenities.

to insure a variety of different plant and animal habitats

which would meet the needs of the area's plant and animal species.

to manage the area with designated roads and trails that

serve the needs of a wide variety of public users, both motorized and

non-motorized, while still protecting other resource values of the

landscape.

to produce an array of forest wood products (i.e. saw

timber, post and pole material, firewood, Christmas trees) while still

maintaining a sustainable forest.

to improve water quality through sediment reduction

measures and an up-dated travel management plan.

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

in writing on or before November 17, 1997.

The draft EIS is scheduled for public release and comment in the

spring of 1998.

ADDRESSES: The responsible officials are Tom Clifford, Forest

Supervisor, Helena National Forest, Supervisor's Office, 2880 Skyway

Drive, Helena, MT. 59601. Phone: (406) 449-5201, and James R. Owings,

Butte District Manager, Bureau of Land Management, 106 N. Parkmont,

Butte, MT. 59701, Phone (406) 494-5059.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denis A. Hart, Helena District Ranger,

Helena Ranger District, 2001 Poplar Helena, MT. 59601. Phone: (406)

449-5490; or Merle Good, Headwaters Resource Area Manager, P.O. Box

3388, Butte, MT. 59702. Phone: (406) 494-5059; or Fan Mainwaring,

Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Helena Ranger District, 2001 Poplar,

Helena, MT. 59601.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The prescribed burning, timber harvest, and

temporary road construction would occur on National Forest and Bureau

of Land Management lands in portions of Grizzly Gulch, Go Devil Creek,

Whiteman Gulch, Little Buffalo Creek, Jackson Creek, Lump Gulch and

Quartz Creek drainages of the Helena Ranger District of the Helena

National Forest and Headwaters Resource Area of the Bureau of Land

Management. Included in the area being analyzed is all or portions of

T.10N., R.4W., Sections 34-35; T.9N., R.4W., Sections 1-5, 8-12, 20-23,

26-29; T9N., R3W., Sections 29-33; T8N., R3W., Sections 12-14, 25-27,

35-36; T8N., R4W., Sections 7-8, 17-20, 29-30, Montana Principle

Meridian.

The areas of proposed tree removal and prescribed burning are

within

[[Page 54038]]

Management Areas T-1, T-4, T-5, L-1, R-1, W-1 and M-1 described in the

Helena Forest Plan. The Forest Plan direction states that:

--T-1 Lands available and suitable for timber production. Although

these areas consist primarily of suitable forest lands, there are

inclusions on non-forest and non-productive forest lands.

--T-4 Productive timberland within sensitive viewing area of many

major travel routes, use areas and water bodies. Most of the area is

suitable forest land, but there may be inclusions of non-forest or non-

productive forest land.

--T-5 Suitable timberlands interspersed with natural openings,

generally with existing livestock allotments.

--L-1 Generally nonforested forage producing areas where forage

production is optimized and timber harvest and prescribed fire may be

used as tools for this purpose, but not for timber management sake.

--R-1 These management areas consist of large blocks--greater than

3,000 acres--of undeveloped land suited for dispersed recreation. These

areas provide opportunities for semi-primitive, non-motorized

recreation and are characterized predominantly by natural or natural

appearing environment where there is a high probability of isolation

from man's activities.

--W-1 This management area consists of a variety of wildlife

habitat ranging from important big game summer range to big game winter

range.

--M-1 Non-forest and forested land where timber management and

range or wildlife habitat improvements are currently uneconomical or

environmentally infeasible.

The affected area of this EIS includes portions of Management Units

(MUs) 8, 23 and 24 as described in the BLM Headwaters RMP of 1984.

These MUs were identified as having high forest land values with a high

priority for management. This vegetative treatment analysis will meet

the RMP directive to complete a Compartment Management Plan in this

area. The RMP designated MUs 8 and 24 as open to motorized travel and

available for permitted motorized event consideration. MU 23 is

classified as restricted to motorized travel and closed to motorized

events. The travel management proposal complies with the RMP direction

for MU 23 and is inconsistent with the direction for MUs 8 and 24.

Therefore, Plan Amendment procedures will be followed in this EIS

planning effort.

The decisions to be made, based on this environmental analysis,

are:

1. Whether or not to treat the forested and nonforested vegetation

at this time, and if so, what areas to treat, and what treatment

methods would be employed.

2. What roads, trails, and areas need to be closed or restricted to

ensure resource protection and what roads, trails and areas should

remain open for motorized users.

If it is decided to implement the proposal, activities may begin as

early as 1998 and take up to 3 years to implement.

This EIS will tier to the Helena Forest Plan Final EIS of April

1986 and the BLM Headwaters RMP of 1984 that provide program goals,

objectives and standards and guidelines for conducting management

activites in this area. All activities associated with the proposal

will be designed to maintain or enhance the resource objectives

identified in the two plans. The Forest Service will also strive to

meet the objectives further refined in the Divide Landscape Analysis.

The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are seeking

information and comments from Federal, State, local agencies and others

organizations or individuals who may be interested in or affected by

the proposed action. The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land

Management invite written comments and suggestions on the issues for

the proposal and the area being analyzed. Information received will be

used in preparation of the Draft EIS. Preparation of the EIS will

include the following steps:

1. Identification of potential issues.

2. Identification of issues to be analyzed in depth.

3. Elimination of insignificant issues or those that have been

covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis.

4. Identification of additional reasonable alternatives.

5. Identification of potential environmental effects of the

alternatives.

Prescribed harvest treatments in this proposal include: a)

unevenaged management techniques such as individual tree selection and

group selection; b) intermediate treatments such as commercial

thinning; and c) regeneration treatments include seedtree, shelterwood,

and clearout harvest methods. Alternatives to this proposal will

include the ``no action'' alternative, in which none of the proposed

treatments would be implemented. Other alternatives will examine

variations in the location, amount and method of vegetative management.

The preliminary issues identified are:

1. The effects of the vegetative treatments on existing noxious

weed populations.

2. The effects of the vegetative treatments and temporary road

construction on wildlife resources.

3. The effects of the vegetative treatments on existing recreation

use.

4. The effectiveness of the vegetative treatment upon forest health

and forest fuel accumulations.

5. The effects on threatened, endangered and sensitive plant and

animal species.

6. The effects on motorized and non-motorized recreation use.

7. The economic trade-offs of implementing this proposal.

8. The effects on cultural resources within the project area.

9. The effects upon public safety and adjacent private lands from

log hauling and prescribed burning.

The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management will analyze and

disclose in the DEIS and FEIS the environmental effects of the proposed

action and a reasonable range of alternatives. The DEIS and FEIS will

disclose the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental effects of

each alternative and its associated site specific mitigation measures.

Public participation is especially important at several points of

the analysis. Interested parties may visit with the Forest Service and

Bureau of Land Management officials at any time during the analysis.

However, two periods of time are specifically identified for the

receipt of comments. The first comment period is during the scoping

process when the public is invited to give written comments to the

Forest Service and Bureau of Land management. This period extends for

30 days from the date of publication of this notice, in the Federal

Register. The second review period is during the 45 day review of the

DEIS in and when the public is invited to comment on the DEIS.

The DEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and available for public review in March 1998. At that

time, the EPA will publish a notice of availability of the DEIS in the

Federal Register.

The comment period on the DEIS will be 45 days from the date the

notice of availability is published in the Federal Register.

At this early stage in the scoping process, the Forest Service and

the Bureau of Land Management believe it is important to give reviewers

notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the

environmental review process. First, reviews of DEIS

[[Page 54039]]

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). Secondly, environmental objections

that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage,

but that are not raised until after completion of the FEIS 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. 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 objects are made available to the Forest

Service and Bureau of Land Management at a time when they can

meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the FEIS.

To assist the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management in

identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action,

comments on the DEIS 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 DEIS 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.)

After the comment period ends on the DEIS, the comments will be

analyzed and considered by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management in preparing the FEIS. The FEIS is expected to be filed in

July 1998.

Dated: October 6, 1997.

Tom Clifford,

Forest Supervisor, Helena National Forest.

Dated: September 29, 1997.

James R. Owings,

Butte District Manager, Bureau of Land management.

[FR Doc. 97-27542 Filed 10-16-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M