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

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