[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5322]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 9, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
