[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 63 (Friday, April 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16728-16731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7213]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Beaver Creek Landscape Management Project, Ashland Ranger
District, Custer National Forest; Powder River County, MT
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to disclose the effects of
[[Page 16729]]
managing forest vegetation in a manner that increases resiliency of the
Beaver Creek Landscape Management Project area ecosystem to future
wildland fires. Vegetation treatments proposed as part of this project
are needed to trend the project area towards a more desired fire
adapted state and to perpetuate short- and long-term forest health and
habitat management goals. The decision will be to determine whether to
proceed with the action as proposed, as modified by another alternative
or not at all. If an action alternative is selected, the Responsible
Official will determine what design features, mitigation measures and
monitoring requirements to require.
The Beaver Creek Landscape Management Project includes treatments
previously proposed as the Whitetail Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project,
and East Otter Hazardous Fuels project. The Whitetail project was
initially proposed in 2007 and the East Otter project in 2008. Since
that time, the Forest Service has refined these treatment proposals in
response to public comment and collaboration and to better address
multiple landscape objectives.
The use of prescribed fire, thinning, no treatment, commercial and
pre-commercial forest vegetation treatments to address the project
purpose and need was evaluated for 14,052 acres of National Forest
System Lands on the Ashland Ranger District. A team of
interdisciplinary specialists proposed treatments based on a multitude
of factors, including topography, tree crown densities, access, ladder
fuel components, wildlife habitat needs, and past management
activities.
Proposed vegetation treatments would be accomplished using
appropriate tools, such as mechanical fuels treatment, commercial and
non-commercial timber harvest, and prescribed burning. In the event
that a commercial timber product is not marketable, use of mechanical
treatments and prescribed fire would proceed where appropriate and as
allocated funding allows.
DATES: The draft environmental impact statement is planned to be
released in mid-April 2010 and the final environmental impact statement
is planned for release in June 2010. The project was initially released
for public scoping January 28, 2010 through March 1, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Beaver Creek Landscape Management
Project, Ashland Ranger District, P.O. Box 168, Ashland, MT 59003 or by
phone at 406-784-2344.
If you prefer, you can submit comments on the Internet at [email protected] by typing on the subject line
``Beaver Creek Landscape Management Project.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Seifert, Project Coordinator, at
(406) 446-2103.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose for the Beaver Creek Landscape Management Project is to
manage forest vegetation in a manner that increases resiliency of this
ecosystem to future wildland fires. Vegetation treatments proposed as
part of this project are needed to trend the project area towards a
more desired fire adapted state and to perpetuate short- and long-term
forest health and habitat management goals.
Currently, there are high accumulations of forest fuels in the
project area. Continuous fuel beds, increased ladder fuels, high
surface fuel loading and landscapes dominated by closed canopy stands
have played a major role in increasing wildfire size and severity for
recent fires on the Ashland District, as evidenced by the effects of
the Tobin, Stag, Watt Draw, and Lost wildfires. In some cases, these
wildfires have resulted in burn severities that preclude timely natural
forest revegetation, have reduced or eliminated habitats for
intrinsically and economically important wildlife species, and have
reduced or eliminated an economically important sawtimber and
sustainable wood product base. Current fuel conditions threaten the
future availability of cover habitat attributes important to wildlife
species due to a higher probability of stand replacement fires and
consequently, significantly reduced forest cover across the project
area.
Currently the project area is dominated by late development closed
canopy stands. There is a need to manage vegetation for more early-,
mid- and late-development open forest structural classes to promote
disturbance regimes and processes more consistent with a fire adapted
ecosystem. Without a diversity of these conditions the risk of large
stand replacement events is higher. More specifically, the proposal is
needed to change vegetation characteristics across the landscape and
create a spatial distribution of forest development classes and
structure that is more resistant to large scale, high severity, stand
replacement fires in order to provide sustainable environmental,
social, and economic benefits. This is consistent with Custer Forest
Management Plan (Forest Plan) direction (p. 18), where ``Management
activities, including prescribed fire, will be conducted to maintain or
enhance the unique value associated within woody draws and riparian
zones, as well as a variety of successional stages.'' Also, where
timber harvest on suitable forest lands is proposed, the Forest Plan
(p. 24) directs that timber management is to be designed and applied to
maintain a variety of age classes. The Forest Plan (p. 25) notes that
Timber harvest on unsuitable forest lands may occur to further
management area goals.
The need for fuels reduction in the project area was also
identified in the 2004 Powder River Community Fire Plan (Powder River
County 2004). In this jointly produced document between local
landowners, Powder River County Staff, and Forest Service personnel,
the Beaver Creek project area was identified as part of the highest
priority for fuel reduction within the 2,102,400 acres of Powder River
County. The project is located adjacent to or within close proximity of
private landholdings and Forest Service infrastructure, including the
historic Whitetail Cabin and Holiday Campground.
Primary Objectives Include
1. Increase fire resiliency throughout the project area by reducing
high fuel loads.
2. Respond to Forest Plan direction to encourage management
activities that maintain or enhance a variety of successional
vegetative stages. This project is intended to improve forest stand
health and create a diversity of stand conditions throughout the
project area by managing for early development (post disturbance), mid
development closed, mid development open, late development closed, and
late development open conditions.
Secondary Objectives Include
1. Perpetuate diverse and sustainable wildlife habitats that are
more resilient to wildfire consistent with Forest Plan direction.
2. Provide a source of wood products for dependent local markets
and perpetuate a sustainable wood product source for the future
consistent with Forest Plan direction.
3. Reduce risk to private property in proximity to Federal lands in
which conditions are conducive to a large-scale wildfire.
There is also a need to obliterate roads in the project area that
were recommended for decommissioning in the Ashland Ranger District
Travel Management Plan Final Environmental
[[Page 16730]]
Impact Statement and Record of Decision (USDA 2009).
Proposed Action
The Forest Service, Custer National Forest, Ashland Ranger
District, proposes to move portions of the ponderosa pine, grassland,
and woody draw ecosystems toward their desired conditions. The desired
condition is contrasted with the existing condition in the following
sections. Fuel load reduction/alteration would be accomplished through
the tools of timber harvest, non timber harvest (non commercial)
thinning, and prescribed burning to restore or maintain the structure,
function, and composition of the ecosystems across the Project Area.
The proposal may reduce the quality of wildlife habitat for the short-
term but would ensure the long-term diversity and quality of habitats
for selected species and provide wood products from the area,
consistent with Forest Plan direction.
The proposed action treats approximately 2,694 acres by mechanical
means (timber harvest) of forested area suited for commercial harvest.
Non commercial type thinning activities (hand and mechanical) are
proposed on 4,220 acres. Prescribed burning is proposed on 4,463 acres
of the harvest and non commercial proposed activities post treatment.
In addition to these treatments, prescribed fire is planned on 3,594
acres. Prescribed fire will be used for activity fuel reductions, site
preparation on regeneration harvests and returning fire to the
ponderosa pine, grassland and woody draw ecosystems across the
landscape. These proposed treatments will reduce ladder fuels, tree
densities, crown cover and maintain surface fuels at levels that will
create a diversity of stand conditions in the project area. Where
burning is proposed, approximately 10 to 70 percent of each treatment
unit will remain unburned, depending upon specific unit prescriptions.
No treatment is proposed on 3,545 acres, within the project area.
Silvicultural prescriptions will be designed to minimize impacts,
improve and retain wildlife habitats, alter current forest structures
to enhance the Forest Service's ability to manage fires, and provide
for sustainable wood products removal.
Actions connected to the proposed action may involve construction
of temporary roads and reconstruction of existing roads (necessary for
haul), timber harvest, noxious weed treatment, restoration of the green
ash woody draws, slashing, thinning, and prescribed fire within the
forested ecosystems and prescribed burning (natural and activity fuels)
within the non-forested ecosystem. In addition, the proposed action
would reduce the risk of a large fire event, reintroduce fire into
these ecosystems and reduce the incidence of epidemic levels of insect
infestations and disease infections within the project area.
The harvesting of timber, thinning, prescribed burning, and
construction and reconstruction of roads will be analyzed in accordance
to the standards and guidelines identified in the Forest Plan, Best
Management Practices, as well as, other requirements of pertinent
Federal and State laws and regulations. These may include, but are not
limited to, the National Forest Management Act, Endangered Species Act,
Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and State Water
Quality Standards.
No Action Alternative
The No Action alternative would not move any of the lands within
the project area toward desired conditions because no treatments would
be conducted.
Responsible Official
The Responsible Official is Mary C. Erickson, Forest Supervisor,
Custer National Forest, 1310 Main Street, Billings, MT 59105.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
Based on the purpose and need for the proposed action, the
Responsible Official will determine whether to proceed with the action
as proposed, as modified by another alternative or not at all. If an
action alternative is selected, the Responsible Official will determine
what design features, mitigation measures and monitoring to require.
Scoping Process
Public scoping was initiated January 28, 2010 and closed March 1,
2010. Three public meetings were conducted in local communities that
could be affected by the decision. The public meeting in Ashland, MT
was attended by eight people. No one attended either of the Billings,
MT meetings. The Forest Service received seven letters or other forms
of comment (i.e. electronically submitted comments) as a result of
scoping.
The Forest Service will consider all public scoping comments and
concerns that have been submitted, as well as resource related input
from the interdisciplinary team and other agency resource specialists.
This input will be used to identify issues to consider in the
environmental analysis. A comprehensive list of issues will be
determined before the full range of alternatives is developed and the
environmental analysis is begun.
Persons and organizations commenting or requesting project
information during the initial scoping will be maintained on the
mailing list for future information about Beaver Creek Landscape
Management Project.
The Responsible Official has determined, at this time that it is in
the best interest of the Forest Service to prepare an environmental
impact statement.
Comments Requested
Given that scoping and public meetings have been conducted,
comments are not being requested at this time.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review
A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for public
comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement
will be 45 days from the date that the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.
Written comments are preferred and should include the name and
address of the commenter. Comments submitted for this proposed action,
including names and addresses of commentors, will be considered part of
the public record and available for public review.
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. Reviewers of draft
environmental impact statements must structure their participation in
the 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, 409
F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D.Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it
is very important 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 the time
when it can meaningfully consider
[[Page 16731]]
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 alternative
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.
Dated: March 25, 2010.
Mary C. Erickson,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2010-7213 Filed 4-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M