Beaver Creek Landscape Management Project, Ashland Ranger District, Custer National Forest; Powder River County, MT, 16728-16731 [2010-7213]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
16728
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Notices
1028, (E)
juan.hermandez@me.usda.gov.
MD—Jon F. Hall, John Hanson Business
Center, 339 Busch’s Frontage Road,
Suite 301, Annapolis, Maryland
21401–5534, Phone: 410/757–0861
x315, Fax: 410/757–0687, (V) 9053–
315, (E) jon.hall@md.usda.gov.
MA—Christine Clarke, 451 West Street,
Amherst, Massachusetts 01002–2995,
Phone: 413/253–4351, Fax: 413/253–
4375, (V) 9047–4352, (E)
Christine.clarke@ma.usda.gov.
MI—Garry D. Lee, 3001 Coolidge Road,
Suite 250, East Lansing, Michigan
48823–6350, Phone: 517/324–5270,
Fax: 517/324–5171, (V) 9048–5277,
(E) garry.lee@mi.usda.gov.
MN—Jennifer Heglund, Acting, 375
Jackson Street, Suite 600, St. Paul,
Minnesota 55101–1854, Phone: 651/
602–7900, Fax: 651/602–7913 or
7914, (V) 9041–7854, (E)
Jennifer.heglund@mn.usda.gov.
MS—Homer Wilkes, Suite 1321, Federal
Building, 100 West Capitol Street,
Jackson, Mississippi 39269–1399,
Phone: 601/965–5205, Fax: 601/965–
4940, (V) 9000–965–2065, (E)
homer.wilkes@ms.nrcs.usda.gov.
MO—J.R. Flores, Parkade Center, Suite
250, 601 Business Loop 70 West,
Columbia, Missouri 65203–2546,
Phone: 573/876–0901, Fax: 573/876–
9439, (V) 9034–1367, (E)
jr.flores@mo.usda.gov.
MT—Joyce Swartzendruber, Federal
Building, Room 443, 10 East Babcock
Street, Bozeman, Montana 59715–
4704, Phone: 406/587–6813, Fax: 406/
587–6761, (V) 9056–6813, (E)
joyce.swartzendruber@mt.usda.gov.
NE—Stephen K. Chick, Federal
Building, Room 152, 100 Centennial
Mall, North, Lincoln, Nebraska
68508–3866, Phone: 402/437–5300,
Fax: 402/437–5327, (V) 9026–4103,
(E) steve.chick@ne.usda.gov.
NV—Bruce Petersen, 5301 Longley
Lane, Building F, Suite 201, Reno,
Nevada 89511–1805, Phone: 775/857–
8500, Fax: 775/857–8524, (V) 9000–
784–1390, (E)
bruce.petersen@nv.usda.gov.
NH—George Cleek, Federal Building, 2
Madbury Road, Durham, New
Hampshire 03824–2043, Phone: 603/
868–7581 ext. 125, Fax: 603/868–
5301, (V) 9000–868–8035, (E)
george.cleek@nh.usda.gov.
NJ—Thomas Drewes, 220 Davidson
Avenue, Somerset, New Jersey 08873,
Phone: 732/537–6040, Fax: 732/537–
6095, (V) 9000–767–1000, (E)
tom.drewes@nj.usda.gov.
NM—Dennis L. Alexander, 6200
Jefferson Street, N.E., Suite 305,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109–
3734, Phone: 505/761–4402 (Rita),
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:40 Apr 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
Fax: 505/761–4481, (V) 9016–4401,
(E) dennis.alexander@nm.usda.gov.
NY—Astor Boozer, 441 South Salina
Street, Suite 354, Syracuse, New York
13202–2450, Phone: 315/477–6504,
Fax: 315/477–6550, (V) 9015–6501,
(E) astor.boozer@ny.usda.gov.
NC—J. B. Martin, Acting, 4405 Bland
Road, Suite 205, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27609–6293, Phone: 919/
873–2102, Fax: 919/873–2156, (V)
9025–2101, (E)
JB.martin@nc.usda.gov.
ND—Paul Sweeney, 220 E. Rosser
Avenue, Room 278, P.O. Box 1458,
Bismarck, North Dakota 58502–1458,
Phone: 701/530–2000, Fax: 701/530–
2110, (V) 9051–2003, (E)
paul.sweeney@nd.usda.gov.
OH—Terry J. Cosby, 200 North High
Street, Room 522, Columbus, Ohio
43215–2478, Phone: 614/255–2472,
Fax: 614/255–2548, (V) 9000–881–
1870, (E) terry.cosby@oh.usda.gov.
OK—Ronald L. Hilliard, 100 USDA,
Suite 206, Stillwater, Oklahoma
74074–2655, Phone: 405/742–1204,
Fax: 405/742–1126, (V) 9037–1280,
(E) ron.hillard@ok.usda.gov.
OR—Ron Alvarado, 101 SW Main
Street, Suite 1300, Portland, Oregon
97204–3221, Phone: 503/414–3200,
Fax: 503/414–3103, (V) 9019–3201,
(E) ron.alvarado@or.usda.gov.
PA—Dave Brown, Acting, 1 Credit
Union Place, Suite 340, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17110–2993, Phone:
717/237–2203, Fax: 717/237–2238,
(V) 9039–2203, (E)
dave.brown@pa.usda.gov.
PR—Angel Figueroa, Acting, Director,
Caribbean Area, IBM Building, Suite
604, 654 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Hato
Rey, Puerto Rico 00918–4123, Phone:
787/766–5206, ext. 237, Fax: 787/
766–5987, (V) 9000–769–1030, (E)
angel.figueroa@wdc.usda.gov.
RI—Richard ‘‘Pooh’’ Vongkhamdy, 60
Quaker Lane, Suite 46, Warwick,
Rhode Island 02886–0111, Phone:
401/828–1300, Fax: 401/828–0433,
(V) 9023–115, (E)
pooh.vongkhamdy@ri.usda.gov.
SC—Keisha Brown, Acting, Strom
Thurmond Federal Building, 1835
Assembly Street, Room 950,
Columbia, South Carolina 29201–
2489, Phone: 803/253–3935, Fax: 803/
253–3670, (V) 9031–3940, (E)
Keisha.brown@sc.usda.gov.
SD—Janet L. Oertly, Federal Building,
Room 203, 200 Fourth Street, S.W.,
Huron, South Dakota 57350–2475,
Phone: 605/352–1200, Fax: 605/352–
1288, (V) 9036–1201, (E)
janet.oertly@sd.usda.gov.
TN—Kevin Brown, 675 U.S.
Courthouse, 801 Broadway, Nashville,
Tennessee 37203–3878, Phone: 615/
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
277–2531, Fax: 615/277–2578, (V) 90
58–2530, (E)
kevin.brown@tn.usda.gov.
TX—Donald W. Gohmert, W.R. Poage
Federal Building, 10l South Main
Street, Temple, Texas 76501–7602,
Phone: 254/742–9800, Fax: 254/742–
9819, (V) 9038–9803, (E)
don.gohmert@tx.usda.gov.
UT—Sylvia A. Gillen, W.F. Bennett
Federal Building, 125 South State
Street, Room 4402, Salt Lake City,
Utah 84111, Phone: 801/524–4555,
Fax: 801/524–4403, (V) 9000–625–
1550, (E) sylvia.gillen@ut.usda.gov.
VT—Judith M. Doerner, 356 Mountain
View Drive, Suite 105, Colchester,
Vermont 05446, Phone: 802/951–
6795, Fax: 802/951–6327, (V) 9000–
768–1240, (E)
judy.doener@vt.usda.gov.
VA—Vicky Drew, Acting, Jack Bricker,
Culpeper Building, Suite 209, 1606
Santa Rosa Road, Richmond, Virginia
23229–5014, Phone: 804/287–1691,
Fax: 804/287–1737, (V) 9003–1682,
(E) jack.bricker@va.usda.gov.
WA—Roylene Rides at the Door, Rock
Pointe Tower II, W. 316 Boone
Avenue, Suite 450, Spokane,
Washington 99201–2348, Phone: 509/
323–2900, Fax: 509/323–2909, (V)
9035–2901, (E) door@wa.usda.gov.
WV—Kevin Wickey, 75 High Street,
Room 301, Morgantown, West
Virginia 26505, Phone: 304/284–7540,
Fax: 304/284–4839, (V) 9049–7542,
(E) kevin.wickey@wv.usda.gov.
WI—Patricia Leavenworth, 8030
Excelsior Drive, Suite 200, Madison,
Wisconsin 53717, Phone: 608/662–
4422, Fax: 608/662–4430, (V) 9018–
222, (E) pat.leavenworth@wi.usda.gov.
WY—J. Xavier Montoya, Federal
Building, Room 3124, 100 East B
Street, Casper, Wyoming 82601–1911,
Phone: 307/233–6750, Fax: 307/233–
6753, (V) 9000–951–1015, (E)
Xavier.montoya@wy.usda.gov.
[FR Doc. 2010–7515 Filed 4–1–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–16–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Beaver Creek Landscape Management
Project, Ashland Ranger District,
Custer National Forest; Powder River
County, MT
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice; intent to prepare
environmental impact statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Forest Service will
prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to disclose the effects of
E:\FR\FM\02APN1.SGM
02APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
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 shortand 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 precommercial 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 noncommercial 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.
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.
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:40 Apr 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
If you prefer, you can submit
comments on the Internet at commentsnorthern-custer-ashland@fs.fed.us 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 shortand 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-, midand 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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16729
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
E:\FR\FM\02APN1.SGM
02APN1
16730
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:40 Apr 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\02APN1.SGM
02APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Notices
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
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Young Dodge SEIS; Kootenai National
Forest, Lincoln County, MT
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare a
supplemental environmental impact
statement.
AGENCY:
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Forest Service will
prepare a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Young
Dodge project. The Young Dodge project
includes urban interface fuels
treatments, vegetation management,
watershed rehabilitation activities,
wildlife habitat improvement, and
access management changes, including
road decommissioning. The project is
located in the Young Dodge planning
subunit on the Rexford Ranger District,
Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln
County, Montana, and seven miles
northwest of Eureka, Montana. The
Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS
for this project was published in the
Federal Register (70 FR 14315) on
February 22, 2008, and the notice of the
Final EIS (70 FR 38131) on May 1, 2008.
The Record of Decision on this project
was administratively appealed to the
Regional Forester per 36 CFR part 215.
The Regional Forester reversed the
decision on July 24, 2008, citing
insufficient evidence or rationale to
explain why an analysis of potential
effects on the goshawk was not
warranted. A Supplemental EIS is being
prepared to further address potential
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:40 Apr 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
effects of the Young Dodge project on
wildlife species.
ADDRESSES: The line officer responsible
for this analysis is: Glen M. McNitt,
District Ranger, Eureka Ranger Station,
Rexford Ranger District, 949 Highway
93 North, Eureka, MT 59917.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat
Price, Team Leader, Rexford Ranger
District, at (406) 296–2536.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Young Dodge project area is
approximately seven miles northwest of
Eureka, Montana, within all or portions
of T37N R28W and part of T37N R29W,
PMM, Lincoln County, Montana. The
purpose and need for the project is to:
(1) Reduce fuel accumulations, both
inside and outside the Wildland-Urban
Interface, to decrease the likelihood that
fires would become stand-replacing
wildfires; (2) Restore historical
vegetation species and stand structure;
and (3) Restore historical patch sizes.
Other considerations are: (4) Identify the
minimum transportation system
necessary to provide safe, reasonable,
and efficient access for Forest Service
administrative activities and fire
suppression, recreation use and public
access, and private land owners and
utility companies; (5) Manage the
transportation system to reduce effects
to threatened, endangered, sensitive,
and management indicator species
habitat and security; streams, riparian
areas, and wetlands; big game winter
range; and old growth habitat, and to
minimize road maintenance costs; (6)
Evaluate recreation facilities and
opportunities to meet growing and
anticipated demand; and (7) Evaluate
existing and proposed Special Use
Permits.
The Young Dodge Record of Decision
(ROD) was released at the same time as
the Final EIS and the legal notice of
decision was published in the
newspaper of record on May 1, 2008.
The ROD selected Alternative 1 and
authorized the following: (1) Removal of
commercial timber products from 29
units totaling approximately 3,069 acres
in order to reduce fuel accumulations,
both within and outside of the
wildland-urban interface, to decrease
the likelihood that wildfires would
become large stand-replacing wildfires,
and to restore historical vegetation
patterns, stand structure, and patch
sizes on the landscape. Another 1,053
acres may have commercial products
removed in units identified in the
‘‘Prescribed Burn with Mechanical PreTreatment’’ category; (2) Salvage of up to
200 acres of incidental mortality
resulting from prescribed fire, if
necessary. This salvage would be
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16731
expected to take place in or adjacent to
treatment units authorized under this
decision; (3) Use of site-specific
silvicultural prescriptions, logging
systems, fuel treatments, riparian
habitat conservation areas, and
reforestation practices; (4)
Underburning without harvest in 19
units totaling approximately 4,000 acres
in order to achieve fuel reduction
objectives; (5) Road maintenance
activities on portions of 100 miles of
roads in order to reduce impacts to soil
and water resources; decommissioning
of approximately 12 miles of roads to
provide beneficial effects to the
watersheds; placing approximately 27
miles of roads in intermittent stored
service status to restore natural drainage
patterns and reduce maintenance costs;
reconstruct approximately 0.4 miles of
existing roads; and adding about 9 miles
of ‘‘unauthorized’’ roads to the National
Forest Road System; (6) Construction of
a boat ramp, parking area, and restroom
to provide access on the west shore of
Koocanusa Reservoir; (7) Rerouting and
reconstructing approximately one and a
half miles of non-motorized hiking trail
and construct a small parking area; (8)
Renovation of the Robinson Mountain
Lookout to include it in the cabin rental
program; (9) A project-specific Forest
Plan amendment to Management Area
(MA) 12 Wildlife and Fish standard #7
to allow regeneration harvest in big
game movement corridors adjacent to
previous harvest openings and openings
greater than 40 acres; (10) A projectspecific Forest Plan amendment to MA
12 Timber Standard #2 to allow harvest
adjacent to units that do not provide
suitable hiding cover; and (11) A
project-specific Forest Plan amendment
to MA 12 Facilities Standard #3 to allow
open road density to exceed 0.75 mi/mi2
during project implementation and postproject.
The SEIS is intended to provide
additional documentation of the effects
of the Young Dodge project on goshawk
to the public.
A Draft SEIS is expected to be
available for public review and
comment in April 2010; and a Final
SEIS in June 2010. The comment period
for the Draft SEIS will be 45 days from
the date the EPA publishes the notice of
availability in the Federal Register.
It is important that reviewers provide
their comments at such times and in
such a way that they are useful to the
Agency’s preparation of the EIS.
Therefore, comments should be
provided prior to the close of the
comment period and should clearly
articulate the reviewer’s concerns and
contentions. The submission of timely
and specific comments can affect a
E:\FR\FM\02APN1.SGM
02APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 63 (Friday, April 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16728-16731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 comments-northern-custer-ashland@fs.fed.us 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
