[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