1

I. DECISION TO BE IMPLEMENTED A. Decision Description:

I have decided to approve the Petty Creek Big Game Ecosystem Maintenance Burning Project, which includes hand thinning and broadcast burning on approximately 6,330 acres, located in the Petty Creek Drainage in the following legal locations: T15N, R22W, Sections 34 & 35; T14N, R22W, Sections 2, 3, 4, 9, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, & 34; T13N, R22W, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 28, & 29; T14N, R23W, Sections 24, 25, 26, 33, 35, & 36; T13N, R23W, Sections 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, & 15 (See Appendix D). No ground disturbing activities or heavy machinery use will occur as a part of this project, nor will any temporary or permanent roads be created. This decision incorporates all design features and mitigation measures listed in Appendix A.

B. Rationale for Decision: The primary purpose of the Petty Creek Big Game Ecosystem Maintenance Burning (EMB) Project is to reduce fuel accumulations on approximately 6,330 acres in the Petty Creek area. Through a combination of hand-thinning and low to moderate intensity burning using both aerial and hand ignition, the project will reduce fuel concentrations in drainages that align with prevailing westerly winds. This will enhance the habitat for bighorn sheep, elk, and mule deer winter range on 4,434 acres and restore fire on the landscape in ponderosa pine stands, where historically fire intervals occur more frequently. These treatments will provide more defensible space to values and private lands in the event a wildfire were to become established. Approximately 3,071 acres of the project area are within the wildland-urban interface; these treatments will enhance firefighter and public safety by reducing the potential for crown fire initiation and fireline intensity in stands within 1.5 miles of private property. The thinning and spacing of ponderosa pine will also provide the opportunity for maintaining healthy stands of timber in accordance with the management objectives for this area per the Lolo National Forest Land Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, 1986).

USDA Forest Service Decision Memo

Petty Creek Big Game Ecosystem Maintenance

Burning Project

USDA Forest Service Ninemile Ranger District

Lolo National Forest Missoula County, Montana

March 28, 2016

2

This decision is consistent with the Lolo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) as shown in Appendix B of this document. The Forest Plan includes Forest-wide management direction goals to:

� Provide a sustained yield of timber and other outputs at a level that will help support the economic structure of local communities and provide for regional and national needs.

� Provide habitat for viable populations of all indigenous wildlife species and for increasing populations of big game animals.

� Provide for a broad spectrum of dispersed recreation involving sufficient acreage to maintain a low user density compatible with public expectations.

� Provide a pleasing and healthy environment, including clear air, clean water, and diverse ecosystems.

� Emphasize conservation of energy resources. � Encourage a “Good Host” concept when dealing with the public. � For threatened and endangered species occurring on the Forest manage to contribute to the

recovery of each species to nonthreatened status. � Meet or exceed State water quality standards.

The Forest Plan allows for the use of prescribed fire to meet a variety of resource objectives. This project’s treatment units fall within Management Areas (MAs) 1, 2, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 27 (See Appendix B). A Forest Plan Standard common to all of these MAs is as follows:

• To achieve management goals and objectives, prescribed burning may be planned and executed

to maintain or restore the composition and structure of plant communities, or for hazard reduction purposes.

Forest-wide management direction will be followed where the project occurs on any lands lacking Management Area designation, such as Legacy lands.

II. REASONS FOR CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDING THE DECISION Decisions may be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA) when they are within one of the categories established by the Secretary at 7 CFR part 1b.3; or the proposed action is within a category listed in 36 CFR 220.6 (d) and (e) and there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the decision that may result in a significant individual or cumulative effect on the quality of the human environment. This project is within category 36 CFR 220.6(e)(6) Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than 1 mile of low standard road construction. Examples include, but are not limited to:

(i) Girdling trees to create snags; (ii) Thinning or brush control to improve growth or to reduce fire hazard including the

opening of existing road to a dense timber stand; (iii) Prescribed burning to control understory hardwoods in stands of southern pine; and

3

(iv) Prescribed burning to reduce natural fuel build-up and improve plant vigor. A. Relationship to Extraordinary Circumstances

Based on discussions with Forest and District specialists, I have determined that the Petty Creek Big Game EMB Project meets each of the criteria above and, as described in 36 CFR 220.6(e)(6), no resource conditions are present that lead to a finding of extraordinary circumstances that might cause the action to have significant effects. I have examined the proposed actions and have concluded that because there are no notable individual effects from the proposed action, there will be no significant cumulative effects. Forest specialist reports are located in the project record and are summarized in the following table. Based on these findings, I believe that the effects on the quality of the human environment are not individually or cumulatively significant; therefore, the action is categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or an EIS. TABLE 1. EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES REVIEW [36 CFR 220.6 (b)]

Resource Condition Applicability to This Project

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects have been analyzed in the following assessments provided by Forest and District resource specialists for the Petty Creek Big Game EMB Project: Wildlife: Federally listed Threatened and Endangered Species: The Lolo N.F. Wildlife Biologist completed a Biological Assessment and consulted with US FWS and findings show that the implementation of this project “May Affect but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect” federally listed threatened species including the Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis) and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos). The findings show the project “Will Effect” grizzly habitat and have “No effect” on lynx Critical habitat. On February 23, 2016, USFWS concurred with these findings. The Lolo N.F. Wildlife Biologist found the implementation of the project would have “No Effect” on the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Cozzycus americanus) or its habitat.

4

i. Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat or Forest Service sensitive species.

The Lolo N.F. Wildlife Biologist findings show that the implementation of this project will have “No Effect” on lynx Critical Habitat. R1 USFS Sensitive Species: Findings show the Petty Creek Big Game EMB Project “May Impact Individuals or Habitat” on the following R1 USFS sensitive species: wolverine (Gulo gulo) (minor disturbance will occur during burning operations, but expected increases in big game populations should have positive benefit), gray wolf (Canus lupus) (minor disturbance will occur during burning operations, but expected increases in big game populations should have positive benefit), flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) (minor disturbance may occur in a few stands with larger PP/DF trees and snags, but effects will be short-term in duration and are expected to enhance habitat conditions by increasing grasses and moth habitat), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) (some short-term disturbance may occur and cause temporary stress or displacement, but long-term effects are expected to improve habitat; mitigations would ensure adequate available forage and undisturbed areas in project area). Findings also show the Petty Creek Big Game EMB Project would have “No Impact” on the following R1 USFS sensitive species or their habitat (No suitable habitat in project area): bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), common loon (Gavia immer), harlequin duck (Histronicus histronicus), black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), northern bog lemming (Synaptomys borealis), Townsend’s big eared bat (Plecotus townsendi), fisher (Martes pennant), Coeur d’Alene salamander (Plethodon vandykei idahoensis), boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas), and northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens). Lolo Management Indicator Species: The Lolo N.F. has three Management Indicator Species. The Project “May Impact Individuals

5

or Habitat” on the following species or their habitat: northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), and elk (Cervus elaphus). Fisheries: The Lolo N.F. Fisheries specialist report concluded that the major effects of implementing the Petty Creek Big Game EMB Project would be to maintain the indicators of the following diagnostic pathways for bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and western pearlshell mussel and their habitat: water quality, habitat access, habitat elements, channel conditions and dynamics, flow and hydrology, watershed conditions, subpopulation characteristics, and the integration of species and habitat conditions. The minor effects of project implementation would degrade the following indicators: temperature, sediment, and substrate embeddedness. There could be a degrading of Integration of Species and Habitat. The project would be in compliance with INFISH guidelines. The Lolo N.F. Fisheries specialist Biological Assessment of Listed Species found that the implementation of this project “May Affect, Not Likely To Adversely Affect” the threatened bull trout species and bull trout critical habitat. The Biological Evaluation of Sensitive Species also shows the project “May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But will Not Likely Contribute to A Trend Towards Federal Listing or Loss Of Viability to The Population Or Species” of the western pearlshell or westslope cutthroat trout. Botany: Federally listed Threatened and Endangered Species: The Lolo N.F. Botanist determined that the Petty Creek Big Game EMB Project will have “No Effect” on the following federally threatened plant species or habitat (No habitat present in the project area): water howellia (Howellia

6

aquatilis) and Spalding’s silene (Silene spaldingii). R1 USFS Sensitive Species: The Lolo N.F. Botanist determined that the Petty Creek Big Game EMB Project would have “No Effect” on sensitive plant species as there are no known sensitive plant populations in the project area. There may be a slight benefit by returning fire to these units to enhance suitable habitat.

ii. Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds.

Hydrology: The Lolo N.F. Hydrologist findings showed there is a low likelihood of the Petty Creek Big Game EMB Project creating extraordinary circumstances that would adversely affect any floodplains, wetlands, municipal watersheds, or resource conditions in a 303d listed, water quality limited segment. Soils: The Lolo N.F. Soils Scientist deemed that there is low likelihood of extraordinary circumstances occurring based on erosion risk. The Lolo N.F. Soils Scientist deemed that there is no likelihood of extraordinary circumstances occurring base on mass failure or landslide risk.

iii. Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas.

The Petty Creek Big Game EMB Project would not degrade any character of wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas because the project does not lie within these areas.

iv. Inventoried Roadless Areas

Approximately half of the Petty Creek Big Game EMB Project is located within the Petty

7

Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area. Prescribed burning will not adversely affect roadless characteristics because fire has historically been a natural disturbance process in this area. No temporary or permanent roads will be created as a part of this project.

v. Research Natural Areas.

The Petty Creek Big Game EMB Project would not degrade any research natural area characteristics because the project does not include any of these areas.

vi. American Indian or Alaska Native religious or cultural sites.

Heritage: The Lolo N.F. Archaeologist determined that the proposed project would cause no effect to historic properties (36 CFR 800.4(d) (1)). No field survey was required due to the nature of the proposed project, sufficiently adequate previous survey and inventories, and low potential for cultural resources within the area of potential effects. The Petty Creek Big Game EMB Project is consistent with Heritage standards in the Lolo N.F. Plan.

vii. Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas.

Heritage: The Lolo N.F. Archaeologist determined that the proposed project would cause no effect to historic properties (36 CFR 800.4(d) (1)). No field survey was required due to the nature of the proposed project, sufficiently adequate previous survey and inventories, and low potential for cultural resources within the area of potential effects. Known sites will be protected from burning if possible. The Lolo N.F. Heritage program will be notified if any additional cultural resources are located during project implementation (See Appendix A). The Petty Creek Big Game EMB Project is consistent with Heritage standards in the Lolo N.F. Plan.

8

III. SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT A. Scoping

The Petty Creek Big Game EMB Project was proposed to the Small Project National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Interdisciplinary Team for internal scoping on March 11, 2015. Forest Service specialists reviewed the resource conditions applicable to their fields and identified where design features and/or mitigation measures would be necessary (see Appendix A). In response to further discussions, the proposed action was modified to include the potential for hand thinning to facilitate the desired burn effects and also the potential for moderate severity burning. A 30-day scoping period began on September 30, 2015 and email correspondence and letters were sent to interested parties of the public, private residents directly adjacent to the project, Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribal Members, and Nez-Perce Tribal Members. Three comments were received during this time and are filed in the project record. These comments were supportive of the project and issues raised helped shape the project design features and mitigation measures found in Appendix A. The comments and Forest Service response can be read in Appendix C. IV. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY AND/OR RELATED TO OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS This decision is in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Federal Land Policy and Management Act - This Act allows the granting of easements across National Forest System Lands. No easements will be granted with this decision so this decision is consistent with the Act. Forest Plan Consistency (National Forest Management Act) - This project is consistent with the forest-wide goals, objectives and standards given in the 1986 Lolo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, and as amended by the 1995 Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) Decision Notice. The Act requires all projects and activities are consistent with the plan. The plan has been reviewed in consideration of this project. This decision is consistent with the standards and guidelines contained in the Forest Plan and subsequent amendments. The proposed activity is consistent with the standards, goals and objectives of Management Areas 1, 2, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 27, as determined in the Lolo National Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986). Endangered Species Act and Sensitive Species (Forest Manuel 2670) – Project resource specialists evaluated the proposed action for compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Reviews for threatened, endangered and sensitive plants and animals and their proposed or designated critical habitat are contained within the project record and the findings are summarized in Table 1 of this document. Clean Water Act – The intent of the Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of waters. The Forest Service complies with this Act through the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). This decision incorporates Best Management Practices to ensure protection of soil and water resources and complies with the Clean Water Act and State water quality standards.

9

Clean Air Act – Under this Act, areas of the country were designated as Class I, II or III airsheds for “Prevention of Significant Deterioration” purposes. Impacts to air quality have been considered for this decision. The Lolo N.F. is classified as Class II airshed. All burning will be conducted under the guidelines of the Idaho/Montana State Airshed group. Burn permits will be obtained by Montana DEQ regulations. 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule - The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) was the subject of litigation in multiple jurisdictions. Ultimately, the Rule was judicially upheld and it is in effect, with the exceptions of the States of Idaho and Colorado where separate rules apply. See Wyoming v. U.S.D.A., 661 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2011) (upholding 2001 Roadless Rule); Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2002) (reinstating Roadless Rule); Jayne v. Sherman, No. 11-35269 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2013) (upholding Idaho Roadless Rule). About half of the project area is located within the Petty Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). In the Lolo Forest Plan, most of the land within this IRA is allocated to Management Area 11 (roadless blocks). Prescribed burning is not prohibited under the Roadless Rule. Incidental cutting of small diameter trees may occur in the IRA as part of prescribed burning activities for safety and/or protection of other resources. Any cut trees would be left on site. This tree cutting would meet the Roadless Rule exemption in CFR 294.13(b)(ii)(2), which allows the cutting of timber if it is incidental to the implementation of management activities not otherwise prohibited by this subpart. Prescribed burning within the Inventoried Roadless Area is consistent with the Forest Plan and the 2001 Roadless Conservation Rule, and will have no notable effect on roadless characteristics. The National Historic Preservation Act This project does not include ground-disturbing activities associated with harvest operations. No impacts to cultural resources are expected. The proposed action would be consistent with Forest Plan direction and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Environmental Justice In accordance with Executive Order 12898, the proposed action has been assessed to determine whether it would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. No impacts to minority or low-income populations were identified during scoping or effects analysis. Migratory Bird Treaty Act – There will be no known substantial losses of migratory bird habitat expected from the implementation of this proposal. Federal Cave Resources Protection Act – This Act is to secure, protect, preserve and maintain significant caves to the extent practical. There are no caves in the general area of the project that would be affected.

National Environmental Policy Act – This Act requires public involvement and consideration of potential environmental effects. The entirety of documentation for this decision supports compliance with this Act.

'1

Other Laws or Requirements - The proposed action is consistent with all other Federal, State, and/orlocal laws or requirements for the protection of the environmental and cultural resources.

V. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES

Pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 and the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Farm Bill)this decision is not subject to administrative review and may be implemented immediately uponsignature.

VI. IMPLEMENTATION DATE

Implementation of this project is anticipated to begin in the spring of 2011 and activities can beexpected in the spring and fall seasons for the next 10 years, depending on conditions. TheResponsible Official is Erin Phelps, Ninemile District Ranger, Lolo National Forest.

VII. CONTACT PERSON i i,

Further information about this decision may be obtained from Andy Bidwell, during normal officehours (Weekdays 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the Ninemile Ranger District Office (Address: 20325Remount Road, Huson, MT 59846; Phone: (406) 626-5201; E-mail: abidwell@fs.fed.us.

Erin PhelpsNinemile District Ranger

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohiblts discrlmlnation in all its programs andactivities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disabillty, and where appllcable, sex,marltal status, famtltal status, parental status, reHgion, serual orientation, geneticinformation, poHtical beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income isderived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communlcation of progfaminformation (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDAS TARGET Center at12021720-2600 (voice and TDD).To file a complalnt of dlscrlmlnatlon, wrlte to USDA, Direetor, Offlce of Civil Rights, 14OOIndependence Avenue, S.W., trrashington, D.C. 2O25,O-941O, or call (8OO) 795-3.272 (voice) or(2o.21720,-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer."

A*"h eg, zot bDate

10

11

APPENDIX A DESIGN CRITERIA AND MITIGATION MEASURES The following are design criteria, mitigation measures, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Petty Creek Big Game EMB Project: Wildlife:

• Areas in the vicinity of trail 731 above Printer’s Creek where whitebark pine is currently established will be omitted from ignition and stand replacing fire.

• Delay burning Petty Pasture until a cheatgrass management and monitoring strategy has been

developed by the district botanist and wildlife biologist.

• Stagger burning units to avoid affecting two adjacent units in the same season.

• To protect lambing areas from disturbance during lambing season, no burning will occur during lambing season (April 1- June 15) in the French Gulch unit or any other areas identified as lambing areas in the future.

• Spring Gulch and/or Martin Spring unit(s) will be burned prior to Petty Pasture to allow for habitat improvement in areas alternate foraging for bighorn sheep.

• Treatments in important bighorn sheep habitat will be designed to greatly reduce tree cover in order to enhance sight distances for sheep.

• Treatments in the upper elevations of Printer’s Creek will be designed to greatly reduce conifer densities in order to enhance summer range for elk.

Fisheries:

• No thinning within 50’ of stream channels.

Botany:

• Areas in the vicinity of trail 731 above Printer’s Creek where whitebark pine is currently established will be omitted from ignition and stand replacing fire.

• Delay burning Petty Pasture until a cheatgrass management and monitoring strategy has been developed by the district botanist and wildlife biologist.

• If new occurrences of federally listed or Region 1 sensitive plants are detected within

the project area, the botanist will be contacted immediately so protective measures may be prescribed.

12

Hydrology:

• Apply all standard Lolo NF and State of Montana BMPs. Soils:

• Adjust depth and timing of strip head fire to limit burn severity if necessary to protect the soil resource.

Heritage:

• Project is in an area of low probability. Protect known sites from burning operations if possible. Notify the Lolo N.F. Heritage Program if any additional cultural resources are located during project implementation.

Fire/Fuels:

• Burning will be implemented in accordance with Montana/Idaho Air-shed Group, Missoula County Health Department, Montana Department of Environmental Quality while adhering to Best Smoke Management Practices.

Visual Quality:

• If boundary markings occurs, upon project completion apply black paint to obscure boundary markings if visible from Petty Creek Road.

• If linear elements are evident from Petty Creek Road and I-90 from fuelbreak construction, scatter brush to break up visual contrast after the burn.

• Avoid burning within 100 feet of Petty Creek Road.

13

APPENDIX B

Management Areas (Lolo National Forest Plan, USDA 1986)

Management Area 1 consists of scattered parcels at all elevations, in Habitat Groups 0 and 6 that are non-Forest or noncommercial forest land. These parcels will generally have roads passing through them; the roads will be either open or closed to public use as determined by the Forest Travel Plan. The Lolo National Forest Plan lists the following goal for MA 1:

1. Maintain near-natural conditions; but allow roads to cross to provide access to other management areas, consistent with protection of basic soil and water values.

Management Area 2 sites include Ranger Stations, work centers, lookouts, and other sites throughout the Forest used in the administration of National Forest lands. They will be maintained according to administrative need. Most of these sites will have road access. Some facilities will be closed to the public. The Lolo National Forest Plan lists the following goal for MA 2:

1. Provide sites for facilities necessary for the administration of Lolo National Forest lands. Management Area 11 consists of large, roadless blocks of land distinguished primarily by their natural environmental character. They are located throughout the Forest in a variety of terrain and vegetative habitat types. The Lolo National Forest Plan lists the following three goals for MA 11:

1. Provide opportunities for a wide variety of dispersed recreation activities in a near-natural setting.

2. Provide for old-growth dependent wildlife species. 3. Within the portion of the Forest designated essential grizzly bear habitat, manage to contribute

to the recovery of the grizzly bear to nonthreatened status. Management Area 13 consists of lakes, lakeside lands, major second-order and larger streams and the adjoining lands that are dominated by riparian vegetation. The width of the components of this management area varies and is determined by riparian vegetation and valley bottom width but is a minimum of 100 feet each side of the associated water body. Riparian vegetation is vegetation requiring a high level of soil water. The area is often nearly flat and is subject to varying degrees of flooding. The Lolo National Forest Plan lists the following four goals for MA 13:

1. Manage riparian area to maintain and enhance their value for wildlife, recreation, fishery and aquatic habitat, and water quality.

2. Provide opportunities to improve water quality, minimize erosion, and strengthen or protect streambanks through specifically prescribed vegetation manipulation and/or structural means.

3. Provide opportunities to improve fisheries and wildlife habitat through specifically prescribed vegetation manipulation and/or structural means.

4. Provide for healthy stands of timber and manage timber to give preferential consideration to

14

riparian dependent species on that portion of the Management Area classified as suitable for timber production.

Management Area 14 contains the same kind of lands as Management Area 13 except that it is within existing livestock grazing allotment, and 44 percent is classified as suitable, 56 percent classified as unsuitable for timber production. The Lolo National Forest Plan lists four goals for MA 14:

1. Manage riparian areas to maintain and enhance their value for wildlife, recreation, forage, fishery and aquatic habitat, and water quality, while maintaining livestock grazing that is compatible with the above.

2. Provide opportunities to improve water quality, minimize erosion, and strengthen or protect stream banks through specifically prescribed vegetation manipulation and/or structural means.

3. Provide opportunities to improve fisheries and wildlife habitat through specifically prescribed vegetative manipulation and/or structural means.

4. Provide for healthy stands of timber and manage timber to give preferential consideration to riparian-dependent species on that portion of the Management Area classified as suitable for timber production.

Management Area 16 consists of lands of varying physical environments as determined by soil, slope, aspect, elevation, physiographic site, and climatic factors, which are suitable for timber management. Habitat Groups 1 through 5 with sensitive to nonsensitive soils are represented in this Management Area. Within this area are the channels, banks, and lands immediately adjacent to first- and some second-order streams. While they provide limited, if any, fish habitat, they are the headwater streams where high quality water first surfaces to be transmitted through the entire stream system. The Lolo National Forest Plan lists four goals for MA 16:

1. Provide for healthy stands of timber and optimize timber growing potential. 2. Develop equal distribution of age classes to optimize sustained timber production. 3. Provide for dispersed recreation opportunities, wildlife habitat, and livestock use. 4. Maintain water quality and stream stability.

Management Area 17 consists of lands like those in MA 16 except the slopes are generally over 60 percent and are best managed from an economic criteria with a low road density. The Lolo National Forest Plan lists 3 goals for MA 17:

1. Provide for healthy stands of timber and optimize timber growing potential. 2. Develop equal distribution of age classes to optimize sustained timber production. 3. Provide for maintenance of soil productivity and other resource values.

Management Area 18 consists of lands primarily located at elevations below 5,000 feet on south facing slopes. These lands are winter range for deer, elk, and bighorn sheep, generally including Habitat Groups 1, 2, and 3 with inclusions of Group 4. These lands will be managed to attain a proper balance of cover and forage for big game through regulated timber harvest.

15

The Lolo National Forest Plan lists two goals for MA 18:

1. Optimize forage production and cover for deer, elk, and bighorn sheep on winter range. 2. Considering the needs of big game, maintain healthy stands of timber and optimize timber

growing potential. Management Area 19 consists of predominantly shrub lands located at elevations below 5,000 feet on south-facing slopes. These areas are identified as being important deer, elk, and mountain sheep winter range. This land is generally in Habitat Group 0, with inclusions of Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, and unsuitable for regulated timber harvest. Historically, wildfire has played a major role in providing for the needs of big game in areas represented in this Management Area. The Lolo National Forest Plan lists two goals for MA 19:

1. Optimize deer, elk, and sheep winter range. 2. Provide opportunities for dispersed recreation.

Management Area 23 consists of timbered lands located primarily at elevations below 5,000 feet on south facing slopes, and with medium visual sensitivity. These lands are important winter ranges for deer, elk, and bighorn sheep, and generally include habitat groups 2, 3, and 4. The lands are adjacent to or visible from major roads and trails, communities, and other high use areas. The Lolo National Forest Plan lists three goals for MA 23:

1. Achieve the visual quality objective of Partial retention. 2. Provide optimal cover: forage ratios for deer, elk, and bighorn sheep winter range within the

constraints of Goal 1. 3. Maintain healthy stands of timber within the constraints imposed by Goals 1 and 2.

Management Area 27 consists of scattered parcels of commercial forest land in Habitat Groups 2, 3, 4, and 5, and are generally steep and rocky. Timber management is not economically or environmentally feasible at this time due to the physical features of the parcels. Other resource values such as old-growth habitat exist but are not needed to meet resource production goals. The Lolo National Forest Plan lists the following goal for MA 27:

1. Provide basic resource protection including soil and water values until management practices are developed which permit timber management activities or economic conditions change which would make these areas economically feasible to manage for timber.

16

APPENDIX C PUBLIC COMMENTS AND FOREST SERVICE RESPONSE Letter 1: Greetings, I support the plan to burn in the Petty Creek area. I live on the Frenchtown Face and have conducted broadcast burning on my property. It is one of the best interventions for forest health. Fire is a necessary part of the ecosystem and should be used when it can be controlled, i.e. springtime or early summer when the forests have not become explosively dry. Cate Campbell PO Box 16962 Missoula, MT 59808 406-626-4343 Forest Service Response: Thank you for support of the project. The burning will be accomplished using a combination of aerial and hand ignition, when weather and fuel conditions are favorable for controlling the prescribed burn, dispersing smoke and achieving fuel reduction, silvicultural, and wildlife objectives. Detailed objectives will be outlined in a silvicultural prescription and burn plan. The burn plan will address specific burn objectives, and constraints such as fuel moisture and weather parameters, smoke dispersion restrictions, risk assessment and control requirements.

Letter 2: Dear Ms. Phelps: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this extensive project in Missoula County. Given the proximity of the project to a large number of residents of the County, your outreach is greatly appreciated. After visiting with several County departments, the Missoula County Commissioners offer their support for this effort to improve wildlife habitat while concurrently reducing the risk of wildfire in the Petty Creek area. Your past and continuing efforts to involve the Air Quality Division of Missoula County’s Environmental Health Department and the Montana/Idaho Airshed group are to be commended, as is your work coordinating with Missoula County’s Office of Emergency Management. By continuing those efforts relative to this project, residents and visitors alike will benefit from the partnership that has been developed between the County and the Forest Service. The Commissioners also commend your efforts to notify the public through local print and news media outlets prior to commencing any planned burning. Our Disaster and Emergency Services (DES) Coordinator also noted that your efforts to place strategic reader boards near burn operations helps

17

reduce calls to our DES offices, further benefiting the public and helping to reduce the often overwhelming work load on our 9-1-1 center. Consequently, continued placement of those signs is also appreciated by the County and our residents. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Patrick O’Herren Chief Planning Officer Missoula County Community and Planning Services 200 W. Broadway Missoula, Montana 59802-4292 406-258-3432 Forest Service Response: Thank you for your support of the project and attention to our efforts to inform the public and our partners of these projects and their impacts to the community. We recognize the impact our burning program can have on our partners when smoke is visible to such a large community of concerned citizens. As part of our burning program, we strive to inform the public of our planned prescribed burning activities through a variety of methods, such as, posting announcements to the Lolo National Forest Facebook page, submitting press releases to media outlets, and contacting residences in vicinity of the projects. Our local Fire Prevention Officer is active in contacting affected residences sharing information with them of pending burn activities. Residences are encouraged to join a project contact list used to notify those interested in specific project activities. Our burn program requires we coordinate with the Air Quality Division of Missoula County’s Environmental Health Department and the Montana/Idaho Airshed group when conducting prescribed burning. We recognize the impacts of smoke to local residents and communities and make efforts to minimize these impacts when designing, planning, and implementing these fuels reduction projects. Letter 3: Dear Ms. Phelps: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) has reviewed the Scoping notice for this proposal for prescribed burning on approximately 6,000 acres in the Petty Creek area of the Ninemile Ranger District. This proposal is a categorical exclusion (per Forest Service preliminary assessment) project and includes 24 ecosystem maintenance burn (EMB) units. FWP supports the Petty Creek Ecosystem Maintenance Burn Project for the purpose of improving habitat for wintering ungulates, especially elk, mule deer, and bighorn sheep. Most of the proposed EMB units are south-facing slopes; many have conifer encroachment where burning would help reduce small conifers and stimulate the growth of grasses and shrubs, which are important forage for wintering ungulates. EMB units in Printers, Eds, Gus, East Fork Petty, and Bills creeks would be especially beneficial for wintering elk.

18

Lower Petty Creek is core habitat for the Petty Creek bighorn sheep herd. The Petty Pasture EMB unit is especially important for bighorn rams and is infested with cheatgrass, especially at lower elevations. As such, FWP would like to specifically ask for delayed burning in the Petty Pasture unit until the cheatgrass can be effectively treated. Likewise, we would support similar delay and treatments in any other areas where infestations of cheatgrass may be found. Thank you for providing opportunity for FWP to comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Randy Arnold Regional Supervisor Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 3201 Spurgin Road Missoula, MT 59804-3101 406-542-5500 Forest Service Response: Thank you for your support of the project and recognition of the important role fire plays in maintaining and restoring the landscape, especially regarding wildlife habitat. We agree with your particular concerns regarding cheatgrass and have included mitigation measures to address this issue (See Appendix A). Cheatgrass was observed in every unit. All but one unit either had low densities (<25%) found in scattered patches and were located in areas with a vegetative canopy or along roadsides or trails. In our experience these factors limit the spread of cheatgrass after burning. However, the Petty Pasture unit has high densities of cheatgrass (>25%) and is an open hillside with little or no vegetative canopy to provide shade. Therefore, we are including the mitigation to delay burning the Petty Pasture unit until an effective cheatgrass management and monitoring strategy is developed.

19

APPENDIX D