[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28885-28886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13205]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
 or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
 and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
 delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
 statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
 appearing in this section.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2001 / 
Notices  

[[Page 28885]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Game Range (Vegetation Management Project), Lolo National Forest, 
Sanders County, MT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, will prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental effects of vegetation 
treatment through prescribed burning, timber harvest, reforestation, 
precommercial thinning, and noxious weed spraying in the Maier Gulch, 
Weber Gulch, Dry Gulch and Ashley Creek drainages (herein referred to 
as the Game Range project). The 9400-acre project area is located 
northeast of Thompson Falls from the mouth of Thompson River to Squaw 
Creek. About half of the area proposed for vegetation treatment is 
within the Cube Iron-Silcox Inventoried Roadless Area. The southwest 
analysis area boundary is adjacent to private lands that interface the 
Thompson Falls community.
    Game Range is a joint planning, analysis and implementation project 
for ecosystem management of Lolo National Forest land and State lands 
administered by Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks.
    The proposed actions of prescribed burning, timber harvest, 
reforestation, precommercial thinning, and noxious weed treatment are 
being considered together because they represent either connected or 
cumulative actions as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality 
(40 CFR 1508.25). This EIS will tier to the Lolo National Forest Plan 
Final EIS (April, 1986).

DATES: Written comments and suggestions should be received on or before 
June 25, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions on the proposed 
management activities or a request to be placed on the project mailing 
list to Lisa Krueger, District Ranger, Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger 
District, Lolo National Forest, P.O. Box 429, Plains, and Montana, 
59859.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Yurczyk, EIS Team Leader, 
Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger District, Lolo National Forest, Phone 
(406) 826-4313.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Game Range project area is within T21N, 
R28W; T21N, R29W; T22N, R29W; PMM.

Purpose and Need of Proposed Activities

    The purpose of the proposed activities is to improve ecosystem 
health through (1) reducing the risk of severe wildlife by reducing 
fuel loading; (2) improving big game winter range by prescribed burning 
to stimulate forage production; (3) improving old growth by restoring 
historically more open stand conditions; and (4) reducing noxious weed 
presence by direct control and enhancement of native vegetation. 
Prescribed burning, timber harvest, precommercial thinning, planting 
and herbicide application would be used to achieve these conditions. 
Timber harvest is proposed on approximately 1740 acres of forested land 
that has been designated as suitable for timber management by the Lolo 
National Forest Plan.
    The Lolo National Forest Plan provides the overall guidance for 
management activities in the project area through its goals, 
objectives, standards and guidelines, and Management Area direction. 
The need for these proposed actions is to alter current trends in the 
forest condition and to regulate, over time, changes in vegetative 
cover which could adversely affect forest health, fuel build up, 
watershed stability, wildlife habitat, or timber commodity potential 
while continuing to provide recreation uses. Timber harvest will help 
support the economic structure of local communities while contributing 
to the regional timber supply.
    The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. One of 
these will be the ``No Action'' alternative, in which none of the 
proposed activities would be implemented. Additional alternatives will 
examine varying levels and locations for proposed activities in 
response to issues and other resource values.
    The EIS will analyze the direct, indirect and cumulative 
environmental effects of the alternatives. Past, present and 
foreseeable activities on private, state, and National Forest lands 
will be considered to disclose the site specific effects.

Public Participation

    Public participation is an important part of the analysis. The 
public may visit Forest Service officials at any time during the 
analysis and prior to the decision. Public scoping has been ongoing 
under the Game Range project. The Forest Service will be seeking 
additional information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, 
and local agencies and other individuals or organizations that may be 
interested in or affected by the proposed action. An ``open house'' and 
a public field meeting have been held; no additional public meetings 
are scheduled at this time. Additional comments and those previously 
received from the public on the Game Range project will be used in 
preparing the Draft EIS. Comments will again be solicited during the 
Draft EIS comment period.

Issues

    A number of issues have already been identified for environmental 
effects analysis. The following principles issues have been identified 
so far, to guide alternative development and provide focus for the EIS:
    1. Fire has been excluded from the area for the past 80 years. With 
fire exclusion, total biomass has increased with dense Douglas-fir and 
few ponderosa pine in the understory. With this change, stands are more 
susceptible to high intensity wildfires, defoliating insects and root 
diseases, with wildfires more difficult to control. How would project 
activities affect these conditions?
    2. Big game winter range condition is in a downward trend (low 
quality forage and increased conifer cover) due to lack of periodic 
fire. How would prescribed burning and timber harvest affect big game 
forage conditions?
    3. Game Range project lies within the Cabinet/Yaak Grizzley Bear 
recovery Zone. Would the project affect grizzly bear recovery or other 
threatened, endangered or sensitive species?

[[Page 28886]]

    4. The project area forms the backdrop for Thompson Falls and the 
Clark Fork valley. The scenic character of the landscape is distinctive 
due to its unique combination of vegetation patterns, rock formations 
and proximity to the Clark Fork River. How would prescribed burning and 
timber harvest affect the scenic quality?
    5. Most of the project area is within two to three miles of 
Thompson Falls. How would prescribed burning affect air quality in town 
and the Clark Fork Valley?
    6. Noxious weeds are established on much of the lower part of the 
analysis area. Would prescribed burning and timber harvest affect 
conditions, spread of existing weeds or establishment of new weeds in 
the area? What effect does noxious weed stocking have on big game 
forage and growing conditions for native plants? How can noxious weed 
stocking be reduced and native vegetation increased?
    7. Approximately 5680 acres of the Game Range analysis area is 
within the Cube Iron--Silcox Roadless Area. Timber harvest and 
prescribed burning is proposed with no road construction. Concern for 
management of the area was expressed both within the agency and during 
public scoping. What effect would the project have on the roadless 
resource?
    8. Concern has been expressed that complex silvicultural 
prescriptions that are designed to achieve multi-resource objectives 
and to be compatible with ecosystem processes, would not be 
economically feasible. Using prescribed fire in some areas may result 
in a loss of economically valuable timber. Because there are few roads 
in the area, 86 percent of the proposed harvest area would need to be 
helicopter yarded. Is this cost effective? What is the net public cost 
and benefit of the proposed project including effects on recreation?
    Other issues commonly associated with timber harvesting and 
prescribed burning include effects on cultural resources, soil 
compaction and nutrients, and other resources. This list will be 
verified, expanded, or modified based on additional public scoping for 
this proposal.

Comment Period and Draft EIS Schedule

    The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in July 2001. 
At that time, the EPA will publish a Notice of Availability of the 
Draft EIS in the Federal Register. The comment period on the Draft EIS 
will be 45 days from the date the EPA's notice of availability appears 
in the Federal Register. It is very important that those interested in 
management of the Game Range project participate at that time. The 
Final EIS is scheduled for completion by October 2001.
    The Forest Service believes it is important, at this early stage, 
to give reviewers notice 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 its is 
meaningful and alerts the 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 are not raised until 
after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be 
waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 
1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages v. Harris, 490 F. 
Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it 
is very important those interested in this proposed action participate 
by the close of the 45-day comment period so 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.
    I am the responsible official for this environmental impact 
statement. My address is Lolo National Forest, Building 24--Fort 
Missoula, Missoula, MT 59804.

    Dated: May 7, 2001.
Deborah L.R. Austin,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 01-13205 Filed 5-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M