[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48340-48342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22975]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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: 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-growth
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/
[[Page 48341]]
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 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 projected
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
[[Page 48342]]
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 for 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.
Identify 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 in 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 helpful, comments on the drafts 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 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 27, 1999.
Bob Castaneda,
Forest Supervisor Kootenai National Forest.
[FR Doc. 99-22975 Filed 9-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M