[Federal Register: April 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 63)]
[Notices] =20
[Page 16728-16731]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02ap10-34] =20
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
=20
Beaver Creek Landscape Management Project, Ashland Ranger=20
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=20
Statement (EIS) to disclose the effects of
[[Page 16729]]
managing forest vegetation in a manner that increases resiliency of the=20
Beaver Creek Landscape Management Project area ecosystem to future=20
wildland fires. Vegetation treatments proposed as part of this project=20
are needed to trend the project area towards a more desired fire=20
adapted state and to perpetuate short- and long-term forest health and=20
habitat management goals. The decision will be to determine whether to=20
proceed with the action as proposed, as modified by another alternative=20
or not at all. If an action alternative is selected, the Responsible=20
Official will determine what design features, mitigation measures and=20
monitoring requirements to require.
The Beaver Creek Landscape Management Project includes treatments=20
previously proposed as the Whitetail Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project,=20
and East Otter Hazardous Fuels project. The Whitetail project was=20
initially proposed in 2007 and the East Otter project in 2008. Since=20
that time, the Forest Service has refined these treatment proposals in=20
response to public comment and collaboration and to better address=20
multiple landscape objectives.
The use of prescribed fire, thinning, no treatment, commercial and=20
pre-commercial forest vegetation treatments to address the project=20
purpose and need was evaluated for 14,052 acres of National Forest=20
System Lands on the Ashland Ranger District. A team of=20
interdisciplinary specialists proposed treatments based on a multitude=20
of factors, including topography, tree crown densities, access, ladder=20
fuel components, wildlife habitat needs, and past management=20
activities.
Proposed vegetation treatments would be accomplished using=20
appropriate tools, such as mechanical fuels treatment, commercial and=20
non-commercial timber harvest, and prescribed burning. In the event=20
that a commercial timber product is not marketable, use of mechanical=20
treatments and prescribed fire would proceed where appropriate and as=20
allocated funding allows.
DATES: The draft environmental impact statement is planned to be=20
released in mid-April 2010 and the final environmental impact statement=20
is planned for release in June 2010. The project was initially released=20
for public scoping January 28, 2010 through March 1, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Beaver Creek Landscape Management=20
Project, Ashland Ranger District, P.O. Box 168, Ashland, MT 59003 or by=20
phone at 406-784-2344.
If you prefer, you can submit comments on the Internet at comments-
northern-custer-ashland@fs.fed.us by typing on the subject line=20
``Beaver Creek Landscape Management Project.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Seifert, Project Coordinator, at=20
(406) 446-2103.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:=20
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose for the Beaver Creek Landscape Management Project is to=20
manage forest vegetation in a manner that increases resiliency of this=20
ecosystem to future wildland fires. Vegetation treatments proposed as=20
part of this project are needed to trend the project area towards a=20
more desired fire adapted state and to perpetuate short- and long-term=20
forest health and habitat management goals.
Currently, there are high accumulations of forest fuels in the=20
project area. Continuous fuel beds, increased ladder fuels, high=20
surface fuel loading and landscapes dominated by closed canopy stands=20
have played a major role in increasing wildfire size and severity for=20
recent fires on the Ashland District, as evidenced by the effects of=20
the Tobin, Stag, Watt Draw, and Lost wildfires. In some cases, these=20
wildfires have resulted in burn severities that preclude timely natural=20
forest revegetation, have reduced or eliminated habitats for=20
intrinsically and economically important wildlife species, and have=20
reduced or eliminated an economically important sawtimber and=20
sustainable wood product base. Current fuel conditions threaten the=20
future availability of cover habitat attributes important to wildlife=20
species due to a higher probability of stand replacement fires and=20
consequently, significantly reduced forest cover across the project=20
area.
Currently the project area is dominated by late development closed=20
canopy stands. There is a need to manage vegetation for more early-,=20
mid- and late-development open forest structural classes to promote=20
disturbance regimes and processes more consistent with a fire adapted=20
ecosystem. Without a diversity of these conditions the risk of large=20
stand replacement events is higher. More specifically, the proposal is=20
needed to change vegetation characteristics across the landscape and=20
create a spatial distribution of forest development classes and=20
structure that is more resistant to large scale, high severity, stand=20
replacement fires in order to provide sustainable environmental,=20
social, and economic benefits. This is consistent with Custer Forest=20
Management Plan (Forest Plan) direction (p. 18), where ``Management=20
activities, including prescribed fire, will be conducted to maintain or=20
enhance the unique value associated within woody draws and riparian=20
zones, as well as a variety of successional stages.'' Also, where=20
timber harvest on suitable forest lands is proposed, the Forest Plan=20
(p. 24) directs that timber management is to be designed and applied to=20
maintain a variety of age classes. The Forest Plan (p. 25) notes that=20
Timber harvest on unsuitable forest lands may occur to further=20
management area goals.
The need for fuels reduction in the project area was also=20
identified in the 2004 Powder River Community Fire Plan (Powder River=20
County 2004). In this jointly produced document between local=20
landowners, Powder River County Staff, and Forest Service personnel,=20
the Beaver Creek project area was identified as part of the highest=20
priority for fuel reduction within the 2,102,400 acres of Powder River=20
County. The project is located adjacent to or within close proximity of=20
private landholdings and Forest Service infrastructure, including the=20
historic Whitetail Cabin and Holiday Campground.
Primary Objectives Include
1. Increase fire resiliency throughout the project area by reducing=20
high fuel loads.
2. Respond to Forest Plan direction to encourage management=20
activities that maintain or enhance a variety of successional=20
vegetative stages. This project is intended to improve forest stand=20
health and create a diversity of stand conditions throughout the=20
project area by managing for early development (post disturbance), mid=20
development closed, mid development open, late development closed, and=20
late development open conditions.
Secondary Objectives Include
1. Perpetuate diverse and sustainable wildlife habitats that are=20
more resilient to wildfire consistent with Forest Plan direction.
2. Provide a source of wood products for dependent local markets=20
and perpetuate a sustainable wood product source for the future=20
consistent with Forest Plan direction.
3. Reduce risk to private property in proximity to Federal lands in=20
which conditions are conducive to a large-scale wildfire.
There is also a need to obliterate roads in the project area that=20
were recommended for decommissioning in the Ashland Ranger District=20
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=20
District, proposes to move portions of the ponderosa pine, grassland,=20
and woody draw ecosystems toward their desired conditions. The desired=20
condition is contrasted with the existing condition in the following=20
sections. Fuel load reduction/alteration would be accomplished through=20
the tools of timber harvest, non timber harvest (non commercial)=20
thinning, and prescribed burning to restore or maintain the structure,=20
function, and composition of the ecosystems across the Project Area.=20
The proposal may reduce the quality of wildlife habitat for the short-
term but would ensure the long-term diversity and quality of habitats=20
for selected species and provide wood products from the area,=20
consistent with Forest Plan direction.
The proposed action treats approximately 2,694 acres by mechanical=20
means (timber harvest) of forested area suited for commercial harvest.=20
Non commercial type thinning activities (hand and mechanical) are=20
proposed on 4,220 acres. Prescribed burning is proposed on 4,463 acres=20
of the harvest and non commercial proposed activities post treatment.=20
In addition to these treatments, prescribed fire is planned on 3,594=20
acres. Prescribed fire will be used for activity fuel reductions, site=20
preparation on regeneration harvests and returning fire to the=20
ponderosa pine, grassland and woody draw ecosystems across the=20
landscape. These proposed treatments will reduce ladder fuels, tree=20
densities, crown cover and maintain surface fuels at levels that will=20
create a diversity of stand conditions in the project area. Where=20
burning is proposed, approximately 10 to 70 percent of each treatment=20
unit will remain unburned, depending upon specific unit prescriptions.=20
No treatment is proposed on 3,545 acres, within the project area.=20
Silvicultural prescriptions will be designed to minimize impacts,=20
improve and retain wildlife habitats, alter current forest structures=20
to enhance the Forest Service's ability to manage fires, and provide=20
for sustainable wood products removal.
Actions connected to the proposed action may involve construction=20
of temporary roads and reconstruction of existing roads (necessary for=20
haul), timber harvest, noxious weed treatment, restoration of the green=20
ash woody draws, slashing, thinning, and prescribed fire within the=20
forested ecosystems and prescribed burning (natural and activity fuels)=20
within the non-forested ecosystem. In addition, the proposed action=20
would reduce the risk of a large fire event, reintroduce fire into=20
these ecosystems and reduce the incidence of epidemic levels of insect=20
infestations and disease infections within the project area.
The harvesting of timber, thinning, prescribed burning, and=20
construction and reconstruction of roads will be analyzed in accordance=20
to the standards and guidelines identified in the Forest Plan, Best=20
Management Practices, as well as, other requirements of pertinent=20
Federal and State laws and regulations. These may include, but are not=20
limited to, the National Forest Management Act, Endangered Species Act,=20
Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and State Water=20
Quality Standards.
No Action Alternative
The No Action alternative would not move any of the lands within=20
the project area toward desired conditions because no treatments would=20
be conducted.
Responsible Official
The Responsible Official is Mary C. Erickson, Forest Supervisor,=20
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=20
Responsible Official will determine whether to proceed with the action=20
as proposed, as modified by another alternative or not at all. If an=20
action alternative is selected, the Responsible Official will determine=20
what design features, mitigation measures and monitoring to require.
Scoping Process
Public scoping was initiated January 28, 2010 and closed March 1,=20
2010. Three public meetings were conducted in local communities that=20
could be affected by the decision. The public meeting in Ashland, MT=20
was attended by eight people. No one attended either of the Billings,=20
MT meetings. The Forest Service received seven letters or other forms=20
of comment (i.e. electronically submitted comments) as a result of=20
scoping.
The Forest Service will consider all public scoping comments and=20
concerns that have been submitted, as well as resource related input=20
from the interdisciplinary team and other agency resource specialists.=20
This input will be used to identify issues to consider in the=20
environmental analysis. A comprehensive list of issues will be=20
determined before the full range of alternatives is developed and the=20
environmental analysis is begun.
Persons and organizations commenting or requesting project=20
information during the initial scoping will be maintained on the=20
mailing list for future information about Beaver Creek Landscape=20
Management Project.
The Responsible Official has determined, at this time that it is in=20
the best interest of the Forest Service to prepare an environmental=20
impact statement.
Comments Requested
Given that scoping and public meetings have been conducted,=20
comments are not being requested at this time.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent=20
Environmental Review
A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for public=20
comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement=20
will be 45 days from the date that the Environmental Protection Agency=20
(EPA) publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.
Written comments are preferred and should include the name and=20
address of the commenter. Comments submitted for this proposed action,=20
including names and addresses of commentors, will be considered part of=20
the public record and available for public review.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important=20
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public=20
participation in the environmental review process. Reviewers of draft=20
environmental impact statements must structure their participation in=20
the review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an=20
agency to the reviewer's position and contentions, Vermont Yankee=20
Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also,=20
environmental objections that could be raised at the draft=20
environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until=20
after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be=20
waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d=20
1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages Inc. v. Harris, 409=20
F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D.Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it=20
is very important those interested in this proposed action participate=20
by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments=20
and objections are made available to the Forest Service at the time=20
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=20
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft=20
environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is=20
also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the=20
draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft=20
environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternative=20
formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer=20
to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing=20
the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at=20
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