Jump to main content.

Post Fire Vegetation and Fuels Management Project, Beaverhead- Deerlodge National Forest, Beaverhead and Deerlodge Counties, MT

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 
[Federal Register: January 30, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 20)]
[Notices]
[Page 4387-4388]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30ja02-33]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
 
Post Fire Vegetation and Fuels Management Project, Beaverhead-
Deerlodge National Forest, Beaverhead and Deerlodge Counties, MT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice, intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement to document the analysis and disclose the environmental 
impacts of proposed hazardous fuels reduction, bark beetle sanitation, 
and the maintenance and/or restoration of vegetative communities 
(willow bottoms, mature riparian spruce, and mature Douglas-fir) on 
approximately 1500 acres in the areas burned by the Mussigbrod and 
Middlefork fires of 2000 in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. 
The project area is located within the Wisdom and Pintler Ranger 
Districts of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in Beaverhead and 
Deerlodge Counties, Montana. The Mussigbrod fire complex burned 
approximately 59,000 acres within the Big Hole River watershed, 
including Trail, Prairie, Tie, Johnson, Bender, Mussigbrod, Plimpton, 
and Pintler Creeks. The Middle Fork fire complex burned approximately 
18,000 acres in 11 areas in the Rock Creek watershed, including the 
Middle Fork, Rock Fork, and West Fork sub basins.
    The decision to be made is the amount of hazardous fuels reduction, 
bark beetle sanitation (harvest and nonharvest methods), and willow 
regeneration treatments to implement.

DATES: Initial comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be 
received in writing no later than March 4, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The responsible official is Forest Supervisor Janette 
Kaiser, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Dillon, Montana. Please 
send comments to Janette Kaiser, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, 
420 Barrett Street, Dillon, MT 59725. Comments may be electronically 
submitted to rl_b-d_comments@fs.fed.us.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Nerbun, ID Team Leader, 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, 420 Barrett Street, Dillon, MT 
59725, or phone (406) 683-3948, or by e-mail to anerbun@fs.fed.us.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this project is to reduce 
hazardous fuels, limit potential for extreme bark beetle damage in 
selected important areas, and promote willow regeneration in areas 
historically occupied by willow. Treatments are proposed on 
approximately 1400 acres in the Mussigbrod complex, and 100 acres in 
the Middle Fork complex.
    Treatment activities would remove trees that pose fuels risk, pose 
the greatest risk to harboring beetle broods, and impede natural 
recovery of historic vegetative communities (i.e. willow bottoms). 
Treatment in roadless areas will be limited to use of anti-aggregation 
pheromones (such as MCH) to reduce the likelihood of beetle attacks.
    Public participation is important to this analysis. Part of the 
goal of public involvement is to identify additional issues and to 
refine general issues. A scoping notice was mailed to the public on 
September 24, 2001. Twenty-eight responses were received Fifteen 
people/organizations provided written comments. Preliminary issues 
identified were:
    1. Bark Beetle Risk. Bark beetle populations and beetle-caused tree 
mortality are expected to increase due to extensive areas of fire-
stressed trees that provide ideal bark beetle habitat. There is a high 
probability that bark beetle populations will increase and expand and 
kill trees in unburned areas.
    2. Continuous heavy fuel loads within the Mussigbrod fire area and 
adjacent to private lands influence the ability to control wildfire 
safely and effectively.
    3. Historic vegetative composition and structure. Heavy fuels 
accumulation and bark beetle related tree mortality could impede 
maintenance and/or natural regeneration of suppressed willow, riparian 
spruce, and large-diameter Douglas-fir.
    Many comments received during scoping centered on impacts to water 
quality, soils, and wildlife. Although theses issues were not 
identified as key issues (i.e. they did not drive an alternative), they 
did have bearing on the alternatives developed, and played a key role 
in the development of mitigation measures.
    The interdisciplinary team developed four alternatives to the 
proposed action, which vary by the amounts and types of treatment 
proposed. The analysis will consider all reasonably foreseeable 
activities.
    People may visit with Forest Service officials at any time during 
the analysis and prior to the decision. Two periods are specifically 
designated for comments on the analysis: (1) during the scoping 
process, and (2) during the draft EIS period.
    During the scoping process, the Forest Service seeks additional 
information and comments from individuals or organizations that may be 
interested in or affected by the proposed action, and federal, and 
state, and local agencies. The Forest Service invites written comments 
and suggestions on this action, particularly in terms of issues and 
alternative development.
    The draft EIS is anticipated to be available for review in March, 
2002. The final EIS is planned for completion in June, 2002.
    The Environmental Protection Agency will publish the Notice of 
Availability of the draft Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal 
Register. The Forest will also publish a legal notice of its 
availability in the Montana Standard Newspaper, Butte, Montana. A 45-
day comment period on the draft EIS will begin the day after the legal 
notice is published.
    The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important 
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public 
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of 
draft environmental impact

[[Page 4388]]

statement must structure their participation in the environmental 
review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to 
the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 
Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,553 (1978). Also, environmental objections 
that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage 
but that are not raised until after completion of the final 
environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the 
courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) 
and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. 
Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that 
those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of 
the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections 
are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can 
meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final 
environmental impact statement.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft 
environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is 
also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the 
draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft 
environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives 
formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer 
to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing 
the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 
40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
    The responsible official will make the decision on this proposal 
after considering comments and responses, environmental consequences 
discussed in the final EIS, applicable laws, regulations, and policies. 
The decision and reasons for the decision will be documented in a 
Record of Decision.

    Dated: January 23, 2002.
Peri Suenram,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 02-2181 Filed 1-29-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.