[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