[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