Good Creek Environmental Impact Statement; Flathead National Forest, Tally Lake Ranger District, Flathead and Lincoln Counties, State of Montana

Nature and scope of the proposed action: The need for this proposal stems from conditions within the 72,000-acre Good Creek and Martin Creek watersheds in which high levels of accumulated fuels pose a threat of wildfire to national forest lands within the watershed and to human developments and private lands adjacent to the area. Also, the watershed contains large areas composed almost entirely of lodgepole pine. The lack of diversity in tree species, ages, and sizes and their numbers and distribution across the landscape has reduced available habitat for native wildlife, plant, and fish species. The purpose of the proposal is to reduce fuels to historic levels where appropriate or to levels which might prevent intense fires; to increase habitat for plants, animals, and fish; to maintain hydrologic function, protect water quality, and reduce sediment; to provide access for management activities over the next 10 years; to maintain a variety of recreation opportunities in the Good Creek area; and to meet social and economic needs of local communities. The proposal's actions to regenerate lodgepole pine stands and wind damaged stands, construct temporary roads or recondition roads necessary to access these stands, correct chronic sediment sources, 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). The proposed action outlines 11,914 areas of vegetation treatment, 19 miles of road reclamation, 34 miles of drainage improvements on roads, new temporary road construction of 7 miles, new specified road construction of 13 miles, and culvert replacements on 10 sites, all over a 10 year period. The vegetation treatments proposed consist of combinations of prescribed burning, pre-commercial thinning, and varying intensities of timber harvest with associated fuels treatments and preparation for reforestation. In addition, road access changes are proposed for 37 miles, and fisheries habitat improvement (large woody debris placement) is proposed for a total of 2.6 miles on three streams. The Forest Service believes the current forest conditions resulting from large wildfires that occurred near the turn of the century and subsequent management decisions are causing adverse effects. These effects include an increased risk of property damage on both national forest and adjacent private land from large and intense wildfires; reduced individual tree health in some areas; and a low level of tree species diversity. The Forest Service also believes implementing a no action alternative will further increase these effects in the future. The proposed actions may have short term significant effects on wildfire, fisheries, and surface hydrology, but long term benefits to the function of the ecosystem are more desirable. This EIS will tier to the Flathead National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and EIS of January, 1986, and its subsequent amendments, which provide overall guidance of all land management activities on the Flathead National Forest. Decision to be made: Should the Forest Service implement the proposed action or any action to meet the purpose and need or to defer any action at this time within the Good Creek and Martin Creek watersheds? The deciding official for this project is Catherine Barbouletos, Forest Supervisor, Flathead National Forest. Preliminary issues and alternatives: Public and internal scoping which has already occurred for this project includes one public open house; two public field trips; two mailings to Federal, State, and local agencies and other individuals or organizations; personal conversations with interdisciplinary team members and members of the public, and news media releases. An additional public mailing is planned to present a refined proposed action and give an update on progress. Based on public and internal scoping, the following significant issues emerged: 1. Effects of vegetation treatments and road and trail access on wildlife security. 2. Effects of vegetation treatments and road access on existing and future old growth habitat. 3. Effects of vegetation treatments on the size, shape, continuity, and edge effects of some late seral patches of trees. 4. Effects of the proposed action on some forested connections that serve as

links for wildlife movement between important habitat such as riparian forests and ridgelines. 5. Effects of vegetation treatments and road building and reclamation on water quality, fish habitat, and fine sediment deposition. 6. Effects of vegetation treatments and road building and reclamation on cutthroat trout populations in upper Good Creek. The interdisciplinary team has not yet developed any alternatives to the proposed action that respond to these significant issues. 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 but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement 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 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 it 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). Catherine Barbouletos, 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 rational for the decision will be documented in a Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to appeal under applicable Forest Service regulations.

Dated: December 16, 1998. Jane Kollmeyer, District Ranger, Tally Lake Ranger District, Flathead National Forest. [FR Doc. 98-34719 Filed 12-30-98; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M