The Lolo National Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices

573 Pages·2005·32.48 MB·English

The Lolo National Forest Plan
United States
Department of A~riculture
Forest Service Final Environmental
Lolo Impact Statement
National Forest
February, 1986
Appendices
COVER: Lolo Peak, a prominent landmark just south of Missoula,
towers above Lolo Creek at an elevation of 9,096 feet.
The Lolo National Forest, which includes the original
Lolo Forest Reserve established in 1906, is named after
this mountain.
APPENDIX A - IDENTIFICATION OF I~SUES, _~_OJ~CERN$, AND OPP~
A preliminarys copingo f issues and concerns was completedb y May, 1978.
Past planning actionsa nd public involvementa ctivities,a long with current
managementc oncerns,l ed to the originall isting of tentativei ssues.
A letter was mailed May, 1978 to 750 partiesw ho indicateda n interest in
the Forest Plan. Included were times and dates for public workshopst o be
held as part of the issue identificationp rocess. There were 52 responses
to this initial mailing.
A news release announcingF orest Plan workshopsw as distributedt o local
media. Workshops were held in Missoula,S eeley Lake, Plains, Thompson
Falls, Superior, and Frenchtown in June, 1978. Planning teams, the Public
InformationO fficer, and Forest Supervisorc onductedt he workshops.A total
of 135 people attended.S imilar workshopsw ere held at the Supervisor’sa nd
District Offices for Forest employees.S ome 31 issues were identifieda nd
ranked after these workshops.
The Notice of Intent to prepare a Forest Plan and EnvironmentalS tatement
was publishedi n the Federal Registeri n August, 1978.
A total of 182 responsesw ere received from the public. The following affil-
iations were represented:7 1 industry-relatedr esponses, 22
government-relaterde sponses,1 2 recreationists,6 3 private individuals,t wo
communityr epresentatives,s ix environmentalist/conservationisttsh,r ee
from local media, and three educators.
Items identifieda t workshopsa nd in letters or phone calls were initially
grouped by MIH (ManagementI nformationH andbook)c odes. This list was
reviewedb y the interdisciplinaryt eam to sort which issues could be
addressedb y the Forest Plan, those ~ssues which could be or had been
resolvedb y laws, regulations,o r current policy, and those resolveda t the
Forest level.
Upon finalizingt he issues, the interdisciplinaryt eam compiled a list of
those managementc oncerns that could not be combinedi nto broad issue
statements.T he list was submitted to the Forest Supervisorw ho indicated
his prioritiesf or managementc oncerns to be addresedi n the planning
process. Upon Regional Forester’ss taff review, a final list of management
concerns was prepared.
A packet containinga final list of issues and public concerns leading to
them was mailed on July 28, 1978. Copies were sent to all parties who
participatedi n the process, a number of agencies and officialsw ho remained
on the mailing list, Regional Office staff units, and other Region One
Forests.

County Commissioners- Flathead,G ranite, Lake, Mineral,M issoula , Powell,
Ravall~,a nd Sanders Counties.
AgriculturalS tabilization& ConservationS ervice,
Army NationalG uard,
BonnevilleP ower Administration,
Maine, Bureau of Public Land
Bureau of Land Management,
Bureau of indian Affairs,
City-CountyP lanning,M issoula,M ontana
City Plann, Superior,M ontana
County Board of Commissioners,C onrad, Montana
State of MontanaD ept. of Health & Environment~LlS ciences
Idaho, Dept. of Fish, Wildlife,a nd Game
Dept. of Highways,H elena, Montana
MontanaD ept. of Natural Resources& Conservation
Dept. of Parks & Recreation
Montana Dept. of State Lands
Montana Dept. of Documents,M ontanaS tate Library
BC, Environment& Land Use Comm. Secretariat
Montana EnvironmentalI nformationC enter
EnvironmentalP rotectionA gency
Montana EnvironmentalQ uality Council
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
FederalE nergy Administration,O ffice of Enviror~entalP rograms
Federal Energy RegulatoryC omm., Office of Electric Power Regulation
Federal Highway Administration
County Court House, Five ValleysD istrict Council, Missoula,M ontana
Forest Commission,M elbourne,V ictoria
Granite County ConservationD istrict,P hilipsburg,M ontana
Granite County ExtensionS ervice, Philipsburg,M ontana
GranityC ounty Planning Board, Philipsburg,M ontana
Lake County PlanningB oard, Poison, Montana
MineralC ounty, Superior,M ontana
MichiganD ept. of Natural Resources
Mineral County PlanningB oard, Superior,M ontana
Mineral County SheriffO ffice, Superior,M ontana
City-CountyL ibrary,M issoula,M ontana
County ExtensionS ervice,M issoula,M ontana
Missoula County Rural ConservationD istrict,F renchtown,M ontana
Planning Board, Missoula,M ontana
TechnicalC enter, ForestryD ept., Missoula,M ontana
Montana AeronauticsC ommission
MontanaB ureau of Mines & Geology,
Montana Dept. of Fish & Game
Montana Dept. of Forestry
Montana Divisiono f Forestry,
Montane Dept. of Highways, Right-of-WayB ure~
MontanaS tate Dept. of Livestock
Montane HistoricalS ociety
Montana Dept. of State Land
Montan~ State Clearinghouse,O ffice of Budget & Program
NationalP ark Service
NorthernF orest Fire Laboratory,M issoula,M ontem.a
A-3
Office of EnvironmentalQ uality,S ee. of Agri., Washington,D C
Sanders County ExtensionA gent, ThompsonF alls, Montana
Sanders Coumty Sheriff’sO ffice, Thomp~onF alls, Monta~a
Missoula County Water District,S eeley Lake, Montana
Soil ConservationS ervice
Montana State Historic PreservationO ffice
US Corps of Engineers
USDA-ForestS ervice
USDA-ForestS ervice,D irector Civil Rights
USDA-ForestS ervice,N .E. Forest ExperimentS ta.
USDA-ForestS ervice,S outheasternR egion
USDA Forest Service,R egion 5
USDA-ForestS ervice, WatershedS ystems Dev. Group
Tribal Council, Flathead Indian Agency, Pablo, Montana
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USDA-Officeo f Equal Opportunity
USDA-Officeo f the Secretary
US Dept. of Commerce
US Dept. of the Interior,B IA
US Dept. of the Interior,F ish and Wildlife
US Dept. of the Interior,O ffice of Inv. Project Review
USDI-BIA FlatheadI rrigationP roject
USGS ConservationD ivision
~MissoulaV alley River Parks System - ConceptualP lan
-VisualQ uality should be maintainedt o Retentiono r Partial
Retentions tandards.
-Access should be maintainedt o all parcels of land along the
rivers.
-Severalo f the parcels along the river west of Missoulaa re
recommendedf or exchange to other public agencies,t his should not
reduce public access or increased evelopmentp ossibilities.
Granite County ComprehensiveP lan
-The plan is concernedt hat the "blue ribbon"s tatus of Rock Creek
be maintained.
-Importantw ildlife values in the area should be protected,s uch as
mountain goat habitat, deer and elk winter range, and bighorn sheep
habitat.
-Concerna bout yearlong access above Ranch Creek.
-Concerno ver additionald evelopmenti n the Rock Creek area.
MineralC ounty ComprehensiveP lan
-This plan lists concern about employment in the County. The
NationalF orest contributiono f timber into the market place should
be at about presentl evels.
-Several locat~ons which have recreational values should be
protected.
-Several existing and potential domestic watersheds were listed for
protect ion.
Missoula County Comprehensive Plan
-This plan expressed concern about needing additional access to the
Clark Fork River and producing a broad economic base, including
recreation development to expand employment opportunities in the
Seeley Lake area.
Clark Fork of the Columbia River Basin - Cooperative Study
-This plan calls for a reservoir in the Rattlesnake drainage.
-Additional funds are requested for recreation maintenance and
construction¯
-There is a concern for additional public access to the river.
-Preservation of minimum streamflows is required.
Bonneville Power Administration - Long range energy corridor
requirements for the Pacific Northwest.
-This agency is concerned about potential energy corridors.
Flathead Indian Reservation of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes - Timber Management Plan.
-The Tribe is concerned about access to the Reservation from the
Forest¯
-The tribal land in the South Fork of the Jocko is sacred ground
where only tribal members are permitted.
-A large portion of the boundary between the Ninemile District and
the reservation is ineccessible land and is considered important
for roadless recreation and wildlife values.
-Most of the reservation la~d near the common boundary north of the
Flathead River is planned for timber management.
2. Other CQn~IZ~Qn~
Other consultations included written and personal contacts with both
private individuals and concerned groups. The responses from these
parties centered around the following issues:
Environmentalist Groups
-Concerned with wilderness management
-Roadless management
-Water quality, sediment production
-Total forest management, values of all resources, not just timber
A-5
-Hunting and fishingq uality improvedo r maintained
-Wildlifep otentials hould be maximized
-Study impactso f Forest managemento n fisherieso utsidet he forest
boundaries
-Timberm anagement,l ong-terms ustainedy ields should be below the
calculatedm aximum,e liminateu nprofitablet imber sales
-Need a plan for powerline/pipelinceo rridors
-Roads,n o new ~ccess allowed,s hould close all new roads
-Threateneda nd endangered,s hould providef or recoverya nd eventual
delisting
-Thorougha nd realistice conomic analysis,s uitable and unsuitable
lands identified
-Managementf or old growth
-Oil and gas leases studied
RecreationG roups
-Trails,c ontinue or increaseo pportunitiesf or construction,
maintenance,f acilitiesa nd structures
-Analyzef ish and wildlifer ecreatione conomicv alues
-Maintaino r enhance qualityo f huntinga nd fishing
-Study impacts of Forest managemento n fisherieso utsidet he forest
boundaries
-Ensure that timber goals are consistentw ith other resource
management
-Monitor qualityo f the water and sediment production
-Close all new ~ccess roads
-Analyzec apabilitieso f the land
-Maintaino pportunityt o lease residencesa nd resorts
-Wildernessm anagement
-Analyzee conomicso f all recreationv alues
Industry
-Timber supply remain constant,m uch of industry is dependento n the
Lolo NationalF orest
-Threateneda nd endangereds pecies managementi s not appropriatei n
all the areas suggestedb y the Lolo
-Old growth managementi s not needed, enough old growth exists in the
wildernessa reas
-Too much roadlessa rea is being proposed
-Should encouraged omesticm ineral exploration
-Landownershipa djustment,c onsider needs of other landowner~
-Fire management,c onsider air quality, economicso f proposals
C. _S_EL~TED_~_SSUECSO,N ~C/~_RN$A,N D OPPORTUNITIES
I. I~_e~_~ddr_e~_~D__tbeE IS
Public issues were addressedt hrougho ne or more of the followingm eans:
quantitativea nalysis using a mathematicalm odel; Forest policies,
standardsa nd guidelines( found in the Forest Plan) to guide the way
certainr esourcesa re managed; and managementa reas and related
A-6
prescriptionsc reated to accomplishs pecific resourceo bjectivest hrough
specificm anagementp ractices.
Those issues addressedt hrough quantitativea nalysis vary by alternatives
in this EIS. Many of the issues ~ddressedi n this manner reflect
tradeoffsi n how m~ch of a particularr esourceu se will be availableo r
occur in the future. Goods and services expressedi n outputs are often
the indicatorso f how an alternativea ddresses an issue. Table II-42 in
Chapter II summarizess ome of the indicatorso f how alternatives
addressedt he issues.
The Forest policies,s tandardsa nd guidelinest hat resolve some of the
followingi ssues and concerns were formulatedt hrough alternative
analysis. Alternativesw ere developed to resolve the issue and a
preferreda lternativew as selected from which the directionw as written.
These analyses are included in the Forest planning records. Resolution
of the issues and concernst hrough policy statementsd oes not vary
betweent he alternativesl isted in this EIS.
a. R~nge
(I) $~ion
Most of the Lolo’s range is forestedo r transitory,w ith less than
5 percent classifieda s permanentr angeland. It provides yearlong
forage for big-game and smnmer forage for livestock,i ncluding
pack and saddle livestock.L ivestockg razing is not a major use
of the Forest,b ut it is importantt o a number of permittees.
(2) RelatedI ssues and Concerns
Issue No. I. Where and how much livestock grazing can occur on
the Forest and be compatiblew ith w~ter quality, fisheries,t imber
management,s oils, vegetation,a nd recreation?
Directionf or resolutiono f this issue is establishedb y Forest
Policy No. 1 and Forest ManagementG uidelineN o. I, by specific
grazing prescriptionsf or each managementa rea. The amount of
livestockg razingv aried by alternative( as indicatedb y AUMs
assigned per decade) while consideringt he tradeoff with other
resource values. (See Table II-25 in Chapter II.)
Issue No. 2. khen conflictsa rise between livestockg razing and
wildlifeh abitat, where should emphasis be placed?
Directionf or resolutioni s establishedb y Forest Policy No. i,
developedi n responset o this issue.
Issue No. 3. What are the social and economic aspects of
livestockg razingo n the Lolo NationalF orest?
Informationo n this issue was availablet hrougha nalysis using the
Input/OutputM odel (AppendixB ). Effects on jobs, community
A-7
stability, local social and econcmic situations were considered in
evaluating various alternative grazing levels.
Management Concern No. I. k~at investments should the Forest make
to maintain grazing capacity and minimize conflicts with other
uses?
Management Concern No. 2. How will uses outside the Lolo National
Forest be affected by increased or decreased livestock grazing on
the Forest?
Direction for resolution of these concerns is established by
Forest Management Guideline No. i.
Management Concern No. 3. To what extent will the Forest
consider the use of herbicides to accomplish noxious weed control?
Direction for resolution of this concern is established by Forest
Policy No. 24, developed in response to this concern.
b. Recre~tiQn
(1)
A variety of recreation attractions occur on the Forest, with
opportunities to provide recreational experiences to suit ,Dst
tastes. With 37 percent of the Lolo Forest presently roadless,
future land use assignments for development or roadless manage,~nt
setting, i.e., roaded natural, semiprimitive, or primitive.
Campgrour~s, picnic grounds, and ski areas provide services for
developed recreation activities, maintainiDg a low user density
compatible with public expectations.
Issue No. I. How much roadless, nonwiiderness recreation
opportunity should the Forest provide and where should it be
located?
Directicn for resolving this issue is established through
prescriptions for roadless management in Management Areas 10 and
11. Alternatives provided for varying 8mounts of ro841ess
management while examining the costs and benefits of providing for
other resource values. Indicators of these levels were expressed
by categories of developed, roadless for decades one and five as
well as the amount of roadless recommended for wilderness (Table
II-15). Appendix C provided similar information for each roadless
area.
Issue No. 2. Where and what kinds of access are needed to provide
for the Forest users’ recreation needs?
A-8