Final Environmental Impact Statement

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1
14
• The proposal was presented as a topic at the Custer Volunteer Fire Department
meeting on 5-3-11.
• A News Release was sent to media outlets on April 28, 2011, announcing the
Vestal project, requesting comments on the proposal and noting the time and
place for the public meeting. Articles appeared in both the Custer Chronicle and
the Rapid City Journal.
• A public meeting was held at the Custer High School on May 11, 2011. Two
South Dakota State employees participated in this meeting to provide information
to private landowners on how to protect their property from MPB and wildfire.
• The project was presented at the Tribal consultation meeting on June 22, 2011.
In addition to the specific meetings listed above, the Forest Service has actively worked
with the City, County, State and others in an informal manner to address MPB risk and
fuel hazard.
Using the comments from the public, other government agencies, groups, and tribal
representatives the interdisciplinary team (IDT) identified issues that warranted further
design criteria and determined whether additional alternatives or measures were needed.
Issues
Comments received during the scoping process are used to help define issues, determine
whether additional action alternatives or mitigation measures are necessary, and frame
the analysis of environmental issues. A total of 27 parties provided feedback via letters,
fax, public meeting transcripts, hand delivery, or email during the formal scoping
process. Comments received and the agency ‘response to comments’ are summarized in
the Vestal project record located at the Hell Canyon Ranger District office, Custer, SD.
The majority of the concerns raised during the scoping period were relatively minor
issues that would be addressed through the application of Forest Plan standards and
guidelines or other design criteria. None of the issues raised merited the development of
additional action alternatives.
A description of the two key issues, with measurement indicators, follows below:
1. Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic
Some commentors are concerned that the risk of MPB caused mortality will
continue to be too high in the project area after proposed treatments are
completed, either because some sites would be deferred or because the proposed
treatments are not aggressive enough. Other commentors question whether an
epidemic is occurring throughout the project area and suggest that proposed
treatments are too aggressive and unnecessary.
Measurement indicators:
• Acres of Low MPB Risk
• Acres of High MPB Risk
2. Wildfires and Fire Hazard
There is internal and external concern that the current MPB epidemic is creating
and increasing fuel loadings in the project area. Fire hazard is high or very high