[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-4787]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 3, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service

 

Sheppard-Griffin, Flathead National Forest, Tally Lake Ranger 
District, Flathead and Lincoln Counties, State of Montana; Intent To 
Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) to analyze and disclose the environmental effects of 
watershed and fisheries restoration activities in Sheppard and Griffin 
Creeks and their tributaries.
    The area is located in the area west of Whitefish, Montana and 
north of the town of Marion, Montana.

    The need for this proposal stems from vegetative conditions that 
have deteriorated due to insect and weather events and will have slow 
recovery if no action is taken. Current watershed and fisheries 
conditions do not fully support cold-water fisheries and aquatic life. 
These conditions, taken in combination with the vegetative conditions, 
will persist in the long-term.
    The purpose of the project is to restore watershed and fisheries 
conditions in Sheppard and Griffin Creeks.
    The proposals's actions to regenerate predominantly dead lodgepole 
pine stands and wind damaged stands, construct temporary roads and 
recondition roads necessary to access these stands, correct chronic 
sediment sources primarily by rehabilitation of roads not needed for 
future land management activities, remove sediment from stream pools, 
and stabilize stream channels are being considered together because 
they represent either connected or cumulative actions as defined by the 
Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.25).
    This EIS will tier to the Flathead National Forest Land and 
Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and EIS of January, 1986, which provide 
overall guidance of all land management activities on the Flathead 
National Forest.
    Extensive scoping has been done for this project during the initial 
stages of preparation of an Environmental Assessment, and during the 
analysis of alternatives over the past fourteen months. The Forest 
Service has determined that an EIS will be prepared for this project. 
The Forest Service is seeking information and comments from Federal, 
State, and local agencies and other individuals or organizations who 
may now be interested in or affected by the proposed actions. These 
comments will be used in preparing the Draft EIS.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
on or before April 18, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions or a request to be 
placed on the project mailing list to Bert Stout, District Ranger, 
Tally Lake Ranger District, Highway 93 West, Whitefish, MT 59937.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Doug Berglund, EIS Team Leader, Phone (406) 862-2508.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The need of the proposal is a result of a 
mountain pine beetle outbreak which has caused significant mortality 
and stands damaged by an intense storm which caused significant 
blowdown. In both conditions, if no action is taken, regeneration of 
conifers would occur slowly over several decades. This slow rate of 
vegetative recovery would result in slow recovery of watershed and 
fisheries conditions. Also, several chronic sources of sediment in 
Sheppard and Griffin Creeks are causing degradation of cold-water 
fisheries. Sections of many of the tributaries of Sheppard and Griffin 
Creeks are deficient in woody debris and native shrubs which is 
important in stabilizing stream channels and protecting fisheries 
habitat.
    The purpose of the proposal is to restore watershed and fisheries 
conditions by a variety of management practices where existing 
conditions are not fully supporting identified beneficial uses of cold-
water fisheries and aquatic life. Specifically, the purpose is to:
    (1) Accelerate regeneration of conifer species in stands with high 
amounts of lodgepole pine mortality caused by mountain pine beetle and 
in stands with significant amounts of blowdown.
    (2) Reduce chronic sediment sources in Sheppard and Griffin Creeks 
and their tributaries by rehabilitation and revegetation of existing 
roads.
    (3) Improve fisheries habitat by sediment removal from pools.
    (4) Stabilize stream channels lacking woody debris and native 
shrubs.
    (5) Conduct management practices in a manner to provide economic 
opportunity and to provide a timber supply to the local lumber 
manufacturing industry.
    Regeneration of primarily dead lodgepole pine stands is proposed on 
approximately 1520 acres, regeneration of wind damaged stands on 
approximately 115 acres, maintenance and minor intermittent 
reconditioning of approximately 55 miles of existing roads, 
construction of approximately 5 miles of temporary roads, 
rehabilitation of 13 miles of roads, placement of large woody debris 
intermittently in 39 miles of streamcourses, native shrub planting on 
approximately 55 acres and sediment removal at 15 sites in Sheppard, 
Griffin and Squaw Meadows Creeks.
    The decision to be made is what, if anything, should be done in the 
Sheppard-Griffin area to: (a) Accelerate regeneration of primarily dead 
lodgepole pine stands and wind damaged mixed conifer stands, (b) 
rehabilitate sediment sources that are primarily roads not needed for 
long-term management, (c) stabilize stream channels by placement of 
large woody debris and planting native shrubs to reduce the erosive 
power of streamflow during peak flows, and (d) improve fisheries 
habitat by sediment removal from pools.
    The LRMP for the Flathead National Forest provides the overall 
guidance for management activities in the potentially affected area 
through its goals, objectives, standards and guidelines, and management 
area direction.
    Most areas of proposed management activities for the Sheppard-
Griffin project are within Management Area (MA) 15. Some activity is 
also planned in MA 17. Management Area 15 consists of lands where 
timber management with roads is economical and feasible. The management 
goal is to manage these lands for the long-term growth and production 
of commercially valuable wood products, as well as provide for soil and 
water protection, wildlife habitat, and roaded recreation 
opportunities. Management Area 17 includes adjacent forested riparian 
lands. The primary goal is to protect and maintain this riparian zone, 
including fish and wildlife habitat, while maintaining a sustained 
yield of timber. The proposal is designed to meet the Forest Plan 
standards and guidelines.
    Public participation has occurred at various times during the 
analysis. Initially, scoping was done separately for the Sheppard 
project and the Griffin project, in November of 1991, and May of 1992, 
respectively. Since that time, the two projects have been combined into 
one analysis based on similarities in purpose, issues and close 
proximity. Two additional periods of time are identified for the 
receipt of comments on the analysis. One period will be during the 45 
days after this notice is published in the Federal Register, and 
another during the 45-day review and comment period of the Draft EIS. 
Scoping at the local level has already commenced. If comments have been 
submitted, there is no need for additional comment. No public meetings 
are scheduled at this time.
    Based on public scoping the following issues have been identified:
    (1) There is concern how the vegetation restoration may affect 
wildlife, particularly big game species such as elk, deer and moose.
    (2) Road construction and management are a concern because of the 
potential impact to water quality, wildlife and fisheries habitat and 
recreation use.
    (3) Harvest methods used in vegetative restoration are a concern to 
many people, especially in regard to fragmentation of a forested 
landscape.
    (4) There is a concern that vegetative restoration may result in 
further adverse effects on watershed and fisheries values.
    The analysis is essentially complete and has included a full range 
of alternatives that respond to issues received from scoping over the 
past year. One of these is the ``no-action'' alternative, in which no 
management activities would take place. As a result of the scoping and 
analysis that has taken place to date, alternatives to the proposed 
action would include:
    (1) Restoration of chronic sediment sources and unstable stream 
channels only. No restoration of dead lodgepole pine stands.
    (2) Modify the proposed action to use existing roads only. No 
restoration of lodgepole pine stands in the drainages containing the 
most unstable stream channels.
    (3) Modify the proposed action to emphasize big-game habitat 
effectiveness.
    (4) Modify the proposed vegetative treatments to minimize 
fragmentation of old-growth management indicator species habitat.
    The EIS will document the direct, indirect, and cumulative 
environmental effects of the alternatives. Past, present and reasonable 
foreseeable actions on both private and National Forest lands will be 
considered. The EIS will disclose the site-specific features that 
reduce or eliminate potential environmental impacts.
    The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in May, 1994. 
At that time the EPA will publish a notice of availability of the draft 
EIS in the Federal Register. The public comment period on the draft EIS 
will be 45 days from the date the EPA's notice of availability appears 
in the Federal Register.
    The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers 
notice at this early stage because 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 stage but that are not raised until after 
completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or 
dismissed by the courts. Wisconsin Heritage, 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 the agency can meaningfully consider them, and 
respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft 
environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is 
also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the 
draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft 
environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives 
formulated and discussed in the statement. (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.).
    Following this comment period, the comments received will be 
analyzed, considered and responded to by the Forest Service in the 
final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The FEIS is scheduled to 
be completed by July 1994. Joel Holtrop, Forest Supervisor, Flathead 
National Forest, 1935 Third Avenue East, Kalispell, MT 59901, is the 
responsible official for the preparation of the EIS and will make a 
decision regarding this proposal considering the comments and 
responses, environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS, and 
applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The decision and rationale 
for the decision will be documented in a Record of Decision. That 
decision will be subject to appeal under applicable Forest Service 
regulations.

    Dated: February 18, 1994.
Bert Stout,
District Ranger, Tally Lake Ranger District, Flathead National Forest.
[FR Doc. 94-4787 Filed 3-2-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M