[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 58 (Friday, March 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15892-15895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-7282]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Gold/Boulder/Sullivan; Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, 
Montana

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 Gold/Boulder/Sullivan Project to disclose the 
effects of vegetative management through timber harvest and prescribed 
fire, and road management including road maintenance, reconstruction, 
and decommissioning. The Gold/Boulder/Sullivan project area encompasses 
the Gold Creek, Boulder Creek, and Sullivan Creek drainages 
approximately 12 miles southwest of Eureka, Montana.
    The proposed activities are considered together because they 
represent either connected or cumulative actions as defined by the 
Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.23). The purpose and need 
for action is to achieve desirable and sustainable conditions in forest 
stands, improve big game winter range conditions, improve visual 
quality, improve water quality, and provide goods and services.
    The EIS will tier to the Kootenai National Forest Land Resource

[[Page 15893]]

Management Plan, as amended, and the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (FEIS), and Record of Decision (ROD) of September 1987, which 
provides overall guidance for forest management of the area.

DATES: Written comments and suggestions should be received on or before 
April 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The Responsible Official is Bob Castaneda, the Kootenai 
National Forest Supervisor, 1101 Hwy 2 West, Libby, Montana 59923. 
Written comments and suggestions concerning the scope of the analysis 
should be sent to Glen M. McNitt, District Ranger, Rexford Ranger 
District, 1299 Hwy 93 N, Eureka, MT 59917.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Ron Komac, Acting NEPA 
Coordinator, Rexford Ranger District, Phone: (406) 296-2536.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The project area is approximately 37,000 
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: T34-36N; R28-30W.
    Average annual precipitation ranges from 14 to 1000 inches. At 
higher elevations, most precipitation falls as snow. The decision area 
contains a combination of open-grown ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir in 
the lower elevations, adjacent to Lake Koocanusa; upland areas contain 
multistoried western larch/Douglas-fir intermixed with lodgepole pine, 
as well as uniform lodgepole pine stands.
    Wildfire historically played a role in interrupting forest 
succession and creating much of the vegetative diversity that is 
apparent on the landscape today. Since the early 1900's, a policy of 
wildfire suppression has been in place on National Forest lands, 
interrupting the natural vegetation cycle. Existing stands in the lower 
elevations 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. Lodgepole pine in the upper elevations have 
experienced a high level of mortality due to mountain pine beetles and 
are not contributing toward a desired condition of forest health. A 
portion of the Decision Area is highly visible from the Tobacco Valley 
as well as the Scenic Byway (State Highway 37). A portion of the Mount 
Henry Inventoried Roadless Area is included within the project area. 
There are no treatments proposed for this area.
    The Kootenai National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 
provides overall management objectives in individual delineated 
management areas (MAs). Most of the proposed timber harvest activities 
encompass five predominant MAs: 11, 12, 15, 16, 17. Briefly described, 
MA 11 is managed to maintain or enhance the winter range habitat 
effectiveness for big game species and produce a programmed yield of 
timber. MA 12 is managed to maintain or enhance the summer range 
habitat effectiveness for big game specifies and produce a programmed 
yield of timer. MA 15 focuses upon timber production using various 
silvicultural practices while providing for other resource values. MA 
16 is managed to produce timber while providing for a pleasing view. MA 
17 is managed to maintain or enhance a natural appearing landscape and 
produce a programmed yield of timber. Minor amounts of timber harvest 
and/or other proposed activities such as prescribed burning are found 
in other MAs, including 2 (roadless recreation); 5 (viewing areas); 10 
(big game winter range); 13 (old growth), 19 (steep slopes), 21 
(research natural area), and 24 (low productivity areas).

Purpose and Need

    The primary purpose and need for the project is to: (1) Achieve 
desirable and sustainable conditions in forest stands by reducing stand 
densities and species competition, and salvage of mortality due to 
insects or disease; (2) improve big game winter range conditions 
through the use of prescribed fire to rejuvenate browse species; (3) 
improve water quality by reducing road effects through road maintenance 
and reconstruction, and road decommissioning; (4) improve visual 
quality through feathering edges to reduce line and form; and (5) 
respond to the social and economic desires of the surrounding area by 
providing a range of products from the forested environment, while 
maintaining a resilient, sustainable forest environment over time.

Proposed Activities

    The Forest Service proposes to harvest between 18100 and 35600 CCF 
(hundred cubic feet), equivalent to between 9.1 and 17.8 MMBF (million 
board feet) of timber through the application of a variety of harvest 
methods on approximately 2528 acres of forestland. Silvicultural 
systems include 826 acres of regeneration harvest, 1423 acres of 
improvement harvest, 118 acres of salvage, and 161 acres of removal of 
small diameter material. Some treatments would feather or thin stands 
adjacent to existing units with abrupt edges to improve the visual 
setting for outdoor recreation.
    Removal of trees would be accomplished by a variety of methods 
including: helicopter, tractor, and line skidding operations. Temporary 
roads may be needed to access some units to be harvested with ground-
based systems. These temporary roads would be decommissioned after 
timber sale activities are accomplished.
    The proposal also includes approximately 2,528 acres of prescribed 
in association with commercial timber harvest and approximately 3,316 
acres of prescribed burning without commercial timber harvest. 
Prescribed burning without timber harvest is proposed within management 
area 13 (designated old growth).
    The proposed action would result in four additional openings over 
40 acres, ranging from 49 to 83 acres. The size of seven other large 
openings would be increased, ranging from 55 to 464 acres.
    The proposal also includes .1 mile of temporary road construction, 
64 miles of reconstruction to meet Best Management Practices 
requirements and decommissioning of four closed roads to restore 
natural drainage patterns.
    Implementation of this proposal would require opening several miles 
of road currently restricted to public access. It is expected that 
public access would be allowed on a portion of these roads while 
management activities are occurring. Restrictions for motorized access 
would be restored following the conclusion of the management 
activities.
    The proposed action includes precommercial thinning of sapling-
sized trees on 2600 acres within managed plantations and natural stands 
that have regenerated after wildfire. Precommercial thinning would not 
occur in lynx habitat.

Forest Plan Amendments

    The proposed action includes a project-specific forest plan 
amendments and a programmatic amendment to meet the goals of the 
Kootenai National Forest Plan.
    A programmatic amendment to allow long-term MA 12 open road density 
to be managed at 1.1 miles/square mile, which exceeds the facilities 
standard of 0.75 miles/square mile. The roads currently open access 
high-use recreation facilities or are important access routes for 
forest users and have been managed as open roads for several decades. 
There is a social need to maintain these roads as open to motorized 
access.
    A project specific amendment to allow harvest adjacent to existing

[[Page 15894]]

openings in up to 11 big game movement corridors. 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 mountain pine beetle activity have precluded alternative 
treatments. These opening sizes more closely correlate to natural 
disturbance patterns. Snags and down woody material would be left to 
provide wildlife habitat and maintain soil productivity.

MA-21; Research Natural Area Candidates

    The proposed activities in the Big Creek Research Natural Area 
would involve fuel treatment activities prior to conducting an 
underburn in this low elevation area. The Kootenai Forest Plan 
scheduled two underburns for this area. Some smaller diameter 
understory trees would be removed in order for this burning to be 
successful. Any management proposals would be conducted with the full 
involvement of Forest Service Research.

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 may be 
considered to achieve the projects purpose and need and to respond to 
specific resource issues and public concerns.

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 permanently remove approximately 3 miles of road from the 
landscape 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. Although the 
proposed action is designed to improve the visuals of past harvest 
activities, some members of the public may feel that it will have 
additional scenic impacts.
    Wildlife: The proposed action could potentially reduce existing 
cavity habitat in snags and reduce suitable hiding cover for wildlife 
security.
    Management activities inside of a Research Natural Area: Typically, 
commercial thinning is not permitted within RNA's. In this particular 
case, a commercial thinning is necessary in order to remove fuels prior 
to underburning. If these fuels are not removed, there is a high 
likelihood that a stand destroying fire could occur rather than a cool 
underburn which is characteristic for this site.

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 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 and programmatic Forest 
Plan amendments for MA 12 and MA 21 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 January 2000 preliminary efforts were made to involve the public 
in looking at management opportunities within the Gold/Boulder/Sullivan 
Planning 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 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 assist in identifying potential issues, 
identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth, identifying 
alternatives to the proposed action, identifying 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 June, 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 September, 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 state, 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 objectives that could be raised at the 
draft environmental impact statement stage may be waived or dismissed 
by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hotel, 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 
objectives 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 draft EIS should be as specific 
as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement or the merit 
of the

[[Page 15895]]

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 Glen M. McNitt, District Ranger, Rexford Ranger 
District.

    Dated: March 15, 2000.
Bob Castaneda,
Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest.
[FR Doc. 00-7282 Filed 3-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M