Analysis of Beaver Park Project Area; Black Hills National Forest; Spearfish/Nemo Ranger District; Lawrence and Meade Counties, SD

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Analysis of Beaver Park Project Area; Black Hills National

Forest; Spearfish/Nemo Ranger District; Lawrence and Meade Counties, SD

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 36 CFR 219.10(g), the District Ranger of the

Spearfish/Nemo Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest, gives

notice of the agency's intent to prepare an environmental impact

statement for the analysis of the Beaver Park Project Area. The

responsible official for this project is John C. Twiss, Forest

Supervisor, Black Hills National Forest.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the District Ranger, Spearfish/Nemo

Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest, 2014 N. Main, Spearfish,

SD 57783.

DATES: This project schedule is as follows: File Draft EIS--December

1999. File Final EIS and Record of Decision signature--February 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Natvig, Project Interdisciplinary

Team Leader, 605-642-4622. Additional information, such as maps,

scoping summary and list of issues identified through the scoping

process can be obtained by written request to the Spearfish/Nemo Ranger

District office, or by phone at the above address and phone number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Timber harvest and associated activities

within the Beaver Park Project Area (24,415 acres) is proposed by the

Spearfish/Nemo Ranger District to address a growing mountain pine

beetle epidemic. The 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

(Forest Plan), which guides management of the Black Hills National

Forest, identifies management goals and objectives relating to insect

outbreaks and epidemics. The planning team has identified that there is

a need for activities in the Beaver Park Project Area in order to meet

these Forest Plan goals and objectives. The purpose and need for the

project is to: (1) Reduce mountain pine beetle populations in pine

stands; (2) cooperate with other agencies and private entities in

efforts to decrease risk of a mountain pine beetle outbreak in the

adjacent Sturgis Community Watershed and other private lands; and (3)

reduce the susceptibility of vegetation to catastrophic fire and

outbreaks of mountain pine beetles.

Proposed activities include commercial timber harvest (both

sanitation harvest of beetle infested trees, and commercial thinning

harvest), road construction and reconstruction associated with

commercial timber harvest, non-commercial treatment of beetle infested

trees, pheromone baiting, prescribed burning, and mechanical fuel

treatment.

This project area includes Beaver Park, a 5,109 acre inventoried

(RARE II) roadless area. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 1997

Forest Plan did not recommend wilderness designation for Beaver Park,

and placed this area into 4 management emphasis areas. The majority of

the area (2,637 acres) is to be managed for Backcountry Non-motorized

Recreation (Management Area (MA) 3.32), and is not part of the land

base considered suitable for timber harvest. Another 106 acres was

placed into the Sturgis Experimental Watershed (MA 5.3B), an area set

aside for watershed research, and not part of the suitable land base.

The remaining area was placed into the land base considered suitable

for timber harvest; 1,795 acres are to be managed for Limited Motorized

Use and Forest Production Emphasis (MA 4.1), and 571 acres are to be

managed for Big Game Winter Range Emphasis. This proposed action

includes timber harvest and new road construction within the roadless

area.

Preliminary issues include effects from management activities on

the roadless and natural characteristics of the Beaver Park roadless

area (especially in MA 3.32), and the result this would have on future

wilderness or Research Natural Area status. Issues also include effects

of the mountain pine beetle epidemic on the City of Sturgis Community

Watershed and Fort Meade Veteran's Administration Watershed, on

wildfire risk, visual resources, and the Centennial Trail.

The EIS will analyze a range of alternatives including, (A) No

Action; (B) Maximum Beetle Suppression, including timber harvest and

road construction within the roadless area; (C) Beetle Suppression with

No Roads in MA 3.32; (D) Beetle Suppression Outside the Beaver Park

Roadless Area; and (E) Beetle Suppression with only Sanitation/Salvage

Harvest in the Beaver Park Roadless Area. Alternatives B through D

include road construction and the use of conventional and cable logging

systems. Alternative E is similar to D outside the roadless area, but

includes helicopter logging within the roadless area. All action

alternatives include removal of currently infested trees and thinning

of healthy stands to reduce the risk of beetle infestation.

The decision to be made in the Beaver Park Project Area is whether

or not to control the existing mountain pine beetle epidemic, and by

what strategy, as displayed in the various alternatives. This decision

will include whether or not to control the epidemic within the roadless

area boundary, and whether or not to allow new road construction within

the roadless area. The decision on this project will abide by the terms

of any decision issued on appeals of the Revised Forest Plan. The Black

Hills

[[Page 61064]]

National Forest is exempt from the existing 18 month interim roads

rule in roadless areas, due to the recently completed Revised Forest

Plan.

The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will

be a minimum of 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection

Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.

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 statements 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, 1033 (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.

Dated: October 29, 1999.

Pamela E. Brown,

District Ranger.

[FR Doc. 99-29324 Filed 11-8-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M