Lolo National Forest Big Game Winter Range Restoration Project

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Lolo National Forest Big Game Winter Range Restoration Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service has identified 21 big game winter ranges on

the Lolo National Forest that are in a downward trend due to the

invasion of noxious weeds and encroaching conifers. The Forest Service

will evaluate these winter ranges and analyze various management

activities to reduce the spread and density of noxious weeds and allow

native and desirable vegetation to reestablish itself and regain vigor.

The purpose and need for this project is for the Forest Service to

restore the condition of certain high value winter ranges across the

Lolo National Forest over the next five to ten years. The proposed

actions being considered to achieve the purpose and need include a

combination of: burning, cutting small trees and leaving them on site,

biological week management, other physical weed controls, and applying

herbicides by ground equipment and helicopter. Due to the steep

topography on the majority of these sites, we are considering the

aerial application of herbicides using a helicopter. The total

[[Page 40696]]

area under consideration encompasses approximately 19,300 acres.

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

in writing on or before September 14, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Forest Supervisor, Lolo National

Forest, Building 24A, Fort Missoula, MT 59804.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andy Kulla, Resource Assistant, Missoula Ranger District, (406) 329-

3962.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These management activities would be

administered by the Lolo National Forest in Missoula, Mineral, Sanders,

and Granite Counties, Montana. This EIS will comply with the Forest

Plan (April 1986) which provides the overall guidance to achieve the

desired future condition for winter ranges and the Final Environmental

Impact Statement for Noxious Weed Management (March, 1991) amendment to

the Lolo Forest Plan.

The process used in preparing the Draft EIS will include: (1)

Identification of potential issues; (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; and (6)

determination of potential cooperating agencies and task assignments.

To date we have identified the following issues:

(1) On these weed infested winter ranges, what is the existing

compared to the potential condition?

(2) How can we coordinate our activities with neighboring land

owners?

(3) How will herbicide applications affect noxious weed

communities, non-target native plants, winter range forage, wildlife,

fish populations, and human health?

(4) What measures will be needed to prevent the reinvasion of weeds

if these sites are treated?

The winter ranges we plan to look at in this analysis are:

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

Maximum

Ranger district Project area treatment Township, range

acres( \1\)

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

Missoula............................... O'Brien Creek............. 1,648 T13N, R20W & T13N, R21W.

Northside 1............... 649 T14 N, R20W & T15N, R20W.

Kitchen Gulch............. 541 T11N, R16W & T11N, R17W.

Babcock Complex........... 3,313 T10N, R16W & T11N, R16W.

Schwartz/Greenough........ 2,988 T12N, R17W & T12N, R18W.

Pattee Blue............... 1,059 T12N, R19W & T13N, R20W.

Ninemile............................... Madison Gulch............. 390 T14N, R22W & T14N, R23W.

Eddy Creek................ 125 T15N, R22W.

French Gulch.............. 347 T14N, R22W & T15N, R22W.

Plains................................. Prospect.................. 1,480 T21N, R30W.

Wee Teepee................ 268 T21N, R27W.

Cougar Silcox............. 1,404 T21&22N, R29W.

Cutoff.................... 930 T18N, R26W.

Knowles Creek............. 677 T19N, R24W.

Henry Creek............... 222 T20N, R25W.

Seeley Lake............................ Salmon Lake............... 641 T15N, R14W.

Superior............................... Bald Hill................. 638 T17n, R27W.

Mayo Gulch................ 266 T18N, R28W.

Murphy Creek.............. 450 T17N, R27W.

Blacktail................. 1,184 T17N, R26W.

Little Baldy.............. 66 T17N, R26W.

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

Totals............................. 21 Project areas.......... 19,286

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

\1\ These are the maximum treatment acres. Actual treatment acres may be less.

The agency invites written comments and suggestions on the issues

and management opportunities in the area being analyzed. To be most

helpful, comments should be sent to the agency within 45 days from the

date of this publication in the Federal Register.

The 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 potential affected area is within the following Management Areas:

Management Area 6: Research Natural Areas.

Management Area 9: Consists of lands that receive concentrated

public use. Goals for these lands are to provide a wide variety of

dispersed recreation opportunities and provide for the management of

other resources in a manner consistent with the recreation objectives.

Management Area 11: Consists of large, roadless blocks of land

distinguished primarily by their natural environmental character. Goals

for these lands are to provide a wide variety of dispersed recreation

activities and to provide for old-growth dependent species.

Management Area 16: Goals for these lands are to provide for

healthy stands of timber and provide for dispersed recreation

opportunities, wildlife habitat, and livestock use.

Management Area 17: This MA is similar to 16 except that slopes are

generally over 60% and are best managed from an economic perspective

with a low road density.

Management Area 18: Consists of lands designated as important deer,

elk, and bighorn sheep 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 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 21: Consists of timber lands designated important

for

[[Page 40697]]

old-growth species. Goals for these lands are to manage for viable

populations of old-growth-dependent wildlife species.

Management Area 22: Consists of timbered lands below 5,000 feet on

south-facing slopes with a high visual sensitivity. These lands are

important winter ranges for deer, elk, and bighorn sheep. Goals for

these lands are to provide for optimum cover:forage ratios for big game

while achieving visual quality objectives.

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 small changes

to the visual character of the lands while providing optimal

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

timber.

Management Area 24: Consists of lands of high visual sensitivity

and which are available for timber management, dispersed recreation

use, wildlife habitat, and livestock use.

Management Area 25: Consists of lands of visual sensitivity and

which are available for timber management. The management goals allow

for timber management while achieving visual quality objectives and

providing for dispersed recreation opportunities, wildlife habitat, and

livestock use.

A range of alternatives will be considered. One of these will be

the ``no-action'' alternative, which would allow no vegetation

manipulation or noxious weed treatment to occur under this analysis.

Other alternatives will examine various combinations of weed treatment

(including aerial application of herbicides) and vegetative

manipulation (including cutting of smaller diameter trees on the site).

The Forest Service will analyze and document the direct, indirect, and

cumulative environmental effects of the alternatives. In addition, the

EIS will include site specific mitigation measures and discussions

about their effectiveness.

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 of these periods

occurs during the next 45 days and the second period is during the

review of the Draft EIS.

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 by December of 1999. 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 June of

2000. The Forest Service will respond to the comments received in the

FEIS. The Forest Supervisor, 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 because 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,

533 (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.) (Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7)

I am the responsible official for the environmental impact

statement. My address is: Lolo National Forest, Building 24A Fort

Missoula, Missoula, MT 59804.

Dated: July 17, 1998.

Barbara K. Beckes,

Acting Forest Supervisor, Lolo National Forest.

[FR Doc. 98-20405 Filed 7-29-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M