Spar and Lake Forest Health Project; Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, MT

[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48342-48345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22983]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Spar and Lake Forest Health Project; Kootenai National Forest, 
Lincoln County, MT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The USDA-Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) for the Spar and Lake Forest Health Project to disclose 
the effects of timber management, prescribed fire, and road management 
including reconstruction, Best Management Practices (BMP) compliance, 
and decommissioning. The Spar and Lake project area encompasses the 
Lake Creek drainage immediately south of Troy, Montana, including Iron, 
Keeler, Twilight, Stanley, Ross, Camp, Madge, Spring and Noggle 
drainages as well as several small tributaries to Lake Creek. The 
purpose and need for action is to: (1) Improve overall forest health by 
stimulating natural processes that encourage more stable and resilient 
conditions. This includes salvaging trees with high levels of mortality 
from insect and disease as well as addressing stand density and species 
competition

[[Page 48343]]

concerns; (2) Improve winter range conditions; (3) Improve growing 
conditions and long term management options for overstocked sapling/
pole stands; (4) Improve water quality; and (5) Provide a sustained 
yield of timber.
    The DEIS is expected to be filed with the EPA and available for 
public review by February, 2000.

DATES: Written comments and suggestions should be received on or before 
October 4, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and suggestions concerning the scope of the 
analysis should be sent to Michael L. Balboni, District Ranger, Three 
Rivers Ranger District, 1437 Hwy 2, Troy, MT 59935.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Donald, Interdisciplinary Team 
Leader, Three Rivers Ranger District. Phone: (406) 295-4693.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The project area is approximately 135,000 acres and has a favorable 
climate and good site conditions for forest vegetation. Proposed 
activities within the decision area include portions of the following 
areas: T28N, R33W, sec 2, 4-8; T28N, R34W, sec 1-4, 11, 12; T29N, R33W, 
sec 3, 4, 6, 9, 18, 19; T29N, R34W, sec 1-3, 8, 11, 13, 15-17, 23-25, 
27, 34, 35; T30N, R33W, sec 19, 27, 30, 31, 33; T30N, R34W, sec 1, 3, 
10-17, 20-28, 30, 32-35; T31N, R33W, sec 20; and T31N, R34W, sec 34. 
Activities would take place in Management Areas (MA) 2, 8, 10, 10og, 
11, 12, 13, 18, 18og, 19, 24 as defined by the Kootenai National Forest 
Plan. Average annual precipitation ranges from 29 to 100 inches. At the 
higher elevations, most precipitation falls as snow. The Lake Creek 
valley is a unique combination of open-grown ponderosa pine and 
Douglas-fir, multistoried western larch/Douglas-fir, and dense stands 
of western red cedar and western hemlock with pockets of lodgepole 
pine. The upland areas vary from even-aged Douglas-fir/grand fir stands 
to multi-storied forests of mixed conifers and uniform lodgepole pine 
stands.
    Wildfire historically played a role in interrupting forest 
succession and creating much of the vegetative diversity that is 
apparent. Since the early 1900s, a policy of wildfire suppression has 
been in place on National Forest lands, interrupting the natural 
vegetation cycle. Existing stands in general have a higher stocking 
level than occurred naturally and are dominated by Douglas-fir which is 
susceptible to bark beetles and root disease when stressed. In the 
project area many mature Douglas-fir stands are experiencing bark 
beetle-caused mortality. Once a dominant feature of this area, western 
white pine has been severely impacted as a result of the blister rust 
fungus; western larch is also less prevalent due to its age and lack of 
fire-induced site preparation that enables natural regeneration.
    1. Treatments to improve forest health for salvage and restoration 
include:
    •  Stand improvement cutting in the majority of treatment 
areas to reduce overall stand densities, improve species composition 
and quality, and reduce the high risk of continued mortality. 
Restoration of the forest structure would be addressed in part through 
the salvage of dead and dying trees.
    •  Prescribed burning would be applied in some areas 
following harvest to restore the fire dependent ecosystems, reduce 
fuels, prepare the site for planting, and/or improve vegetative 
conditions.
    •  Removal of trees would be accomplished primarily with a 
helicopter due to the steep slopes. Temporary roads may be needed to 
access units to be harvested with ground-based systems. These temporary 
roads would be decommissioned after timber sale activities are 
accomplished.
    •  Post treatment reforestation within regeneration units 
would include planting a mix of conifer species, including blister 
rust-resistant western white pine, ponderosa pine, western larch, and 
Engelmann spruce.
    •  In order to implement this proposal and provide for 
grizzly bear security during the proposed timber harvest activity, 
several miles of road currently restricted to public access would be 
opened to access harvest units and available for public use. One road 
currently open to public access, the Hiatt Creek road overlooking Spar 
Lake, would be considered for closing with an earth berm to meet core 
habitat standards for grizzly bear. Several more roads which are 
currently restricted to public vehicular access with a gate (in the 
Twilight, Thicket, NF Keeler and Upper Iron Creek drainages) would be 
earthbermed to meet grizzly bear core habitat standards. Berming these 
already gated roads would have no direct effect on public access.
    •  Prescribed burning without timber harvest would be 
utilized over approximately 3,300 acres to improve big game habitat, 
reduce fuels, improve vegetative conditions, and restore important 
ecological processes.
    2. Vegetative treatments, as described in #1 above, are designed to 
also improve big game habitat conditions through reduction of stand 
density and underburning.
    3. Approximately 400 acres of overstocked sapling size trees would 
be precommercially thinned. These areas are within managed plantations 
and natural stands that have regenerated after wildfire. Lynx habitat 
will not be precommercially thinned.
    4. Watershed rehabilitation activities would be implemented to 
reduce water routing and sediment transport from existing roads. This 
would be accomplished through application of Best Management Practices 
and activities such as outsloping, waterbarring, culvert replacement or 
removal and/or removal of the actual prism to restore a more natural 
surface flow pattern to the landscape.
    5. The timber harvest described under #1 above would also 
contribute timber products to local and regional markets.
    The Kootenai Forest Plan provides guidance for management 
activities within the potentially affected area through its goals, 
objectives, standards and guidelines, and management area direction. A 
portion of the Scotchman Peaks Inventoried Roadless Area is included 
within the project area, approximately 500 acres of which are proposed 
for prescribed burning.
    The proposed action includes project-specific forest plan 
amendments to meet the goals of the Kootenai National Forest Plan.

MA-10; Big Game Winter Range/Unsuitable Timber Lands

    The proposed harvest near Stanley Mountain, Pheasant Point and 
Northeast of Keeler Mountain is largely in Management Area 10. A Forest 
Plan amendment would be necessary to suspend wildlife and fish standard 
#3 for MA 10 harvest in order to enhance wildlife habitat by increasing 
forage. Some salvage opportunity also exists to retard the spread of 
insect and disease. These areas contain existing standing dead trees. 
Although the intent is to protect as much of the existing cavity 
habitat as possible, it cannot be guaranteed that all the cavity 
habitat would be retained since some of the existing snags may need to 
be felled for safety reasons to meet OSHA requirements. New snags may 
be created by girdling live trees after the harvest operations.

MA-12; Big-Game Summer Range/Timber

    The proposed harvest in Sec. 23, T29N, R34W could result in an 
opening of over 40 acres when considered with adjacent past harvest (of 
34 acres) which does not yet provide hiding cover for big game species. 
A Forest Plan Amendment would be needed to

[[Page 48344]]

suspend wildlife and fish standard #7 and timber standard #2 for this 
area. These standards state that movement corridors and adjacent hiding 
cover be retained. In this situation, high levels of bark beetle caused 
mortality precludes alternative treatment. Snags and down woody 
material would be left to provide wildlife habitat and maintain soil 
productivity.

Range of Alternatives

    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 will be implemented. Additional alternatives will 
examine varying levels and locations for the proposed activities to 
achieve the proposal's purposes, as well as to respond to the issues 
and other resource values.
    The EIS will analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative 
environmental effects of the alternatives. Past, present, and project 
activities on both private and National Forest lands will be 
considered. The EIS will disclose the analysis of site-specific 
mitigation measures, if needed, and their effectiveness.
    Preliminary Issues: Tentatively, several preliminary issues of 
concern have been identified. These issues are briefly described below:
    Transportation Systems: The implementation of the proposed action 
would change access within the Spar and Lake Analysis Area which may 
affect the public's ability to use traditional routes.
    Visual Resources: Implementation of the proposed action may alter 
the existing scenic resource within the project area. Even though the 
proposed action is planned to improve the visuals of the past harvest 
activities, some members of the public may feel that it will have 
additional scenic impacts.
    Watershed: Past management activities and those associated with the 
implementation of the Proposed Action may result in increased peak 
flows and sediment production. Water Quality Limited Segments (WQLS), 
as defined by the state of Montana, exist within the analysis area.
    Fish: While the intent is to improve long term water quality, bull 
trout may experience short term impacts.
    Wildlife: The proposed action could potentially reduce existing 
cavity habitat in snags and reduce suitable hiding cover to wildlife 
security.
    Decisions To Be Made: The Kootenai Forest Supervisor will decide 
the following:
    •  Whether or not to harvest timber and, if so, identify the 
selection of, and site-specific location of, appropriate timber 
management practices (silvicultural prescription, logging system, fuels 
treatment, and reforestation), road construction/reconstruction 
necessary to provide access and to achieve other resource objectives, 
and appropriate mitigation measures.
    •  Whether or not water quality improvement projects 
(including road decommissioning) should be implemented and, if so, to 
what extent.
    •  Whether or not wildlife enhancement projects (including 
prescribed burning) should be implemented and, if so, to what extent.
    •  Whether road access restrictions or other actions are 
necessary to meet big game wildlife security needs.
    •  Whether or not project specific Forest Plan amendments for 
MA 10 and 12 are necessary to meet the specific purpose and need of 
this project, and whether those amendments are significant under NFMA.
    •  What, if any, specific project monitoring requirements 
would be needed to assure mitigation measures are implemented and 
effective.
    Public Involvement and Scoping: In September of 1998, preliminary 
efforts were made to involve the public in looking at management 
opportunities within the Spar Sub-unit analysis area. Comments received 
prior to this notice will be included in the documentation for the EIS. 
The public is encouraged to take part in the process and is encouraged 
to visit with Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis 
and prior to the decision. The Forest Service will be seeking 
information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local 
agencies and other individuals or organizations who may be interested 
in, or affected by, the proposed action. This input will be used in 
preparation of the draft and final EIS. The scoping process will 
include:
    •  Identifying potential issues.
    •  Identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth.
    •  Identifying alternatives to the proposed action.
    •  Explore additional alternatives which will be derived from 
issues recognized during scoping activities.
    •  Identify potential environmental effects of this project 
and alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and 
connected actions).
    Estimated Dates for Filing: While public participation in this 
analysis is welcome at any time, comments received within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice will be especially useful in the 
preparation of the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS is expected to be filed 
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for 
public review by February, 2000. At that time 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 publishes 
the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. It is very 
important that those interested in the management of this area 
participate at that time.
    The final EIS is scheduled to be completed by May, 2000. In the 
final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to comments and 
responses received during the comment period that pertain to the 
environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS and applicable 
laws, regulations, and policies considered in making a decision 
regarding the proposal.
    Reviewer's Obligations: The Forest Service believes, at this early 
stage, it is important 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 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 may 
be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 
1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and 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 and respond to them 
in the final EIS.
    To be most meaningful, comments on the draft EIS should be as 
specific as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement or 
the merit of the alternatives discussed. 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.
    Responsible Official: As the Forest Supervisor of the Kootenai 
National Forest, 1101 US Highway 2 West, Libby, MT 59923, I am the 
Responsible Official. As the Responsible Official I will decide if the 
proposed project will

[[Page 48345]]

be implemented. I will document the decision and reasons for the 
decision in the Record of Decision. I have delegated the responsibility 
to prepare the EIS to Michael L. Balboni, District Ranger, Three Rivers 
Ranger District.

    Dated: August 13, 1999.
Bob Castaneda,
Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest.
[FR Doc. 99-22983 Filed 9-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M