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

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