[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40695-40697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20405]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
