[Federal Register: January 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 4)]
[Notices]
[Page 1201-1202]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07ja08-24]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plumas National Forest; California; Moonlight Fire Recovery and
Restoration Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, Plumas National Forest will prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to harvest fire-
killed trees on approximately 14,000 acres in the Moonlight Fire area.
The Moonlight Fire burned about 65,000 acres in September 2007 on the
Plumas National Forest.
DATES: The draft environmental impact statement is expected in June
2008 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in
September 2008.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Rich Bednarski, Interdisciplinary
Team Leader, Mt. Hough Ranger District, 39696 Highway 70, Quincy, CA
95971. Comments may be: (1) Mailed; (2) hand delivered between the
hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. weekdays Pacific Time; (3) faxed to (530)
283-1821; or (4) electronically mailed to:
comments-pacificsouthwest-plumas-mthough@fs.fed.us. Please indicate the name ``Moonlight Fire
Recovery and Restoration Project'' on the subject line of your email.
Comments submitted electronically must be in Rich Text Format (.rtf) or
Word (.doc).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich Bednarski, Interdisciplinary Team
Leader, Mt. Hough Ranger District, 39696 Highway 70, Quincy, CA 95971.
Telephone: (530) 283-7641 or electronic address: rbednarski@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action is designed to meet the
standards and guidelines for land management activities in the Plumas
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1988), as amended by
the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD)
(1999, 2003), and as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment
FSEIS and ROD (2004).
The proposed project is located in Plumas County, California,
within the Mt. Hough Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest. It
is located in all or portions of Sections 13, 23-27, 34-35, T28N, R10E;
all or portions of Sections 13-14, 17-19, 23-24, 29-34, T28N, R11E; all
or portions of Sections 19-20, 29-32, T28N, R12E; all or portions of
Sections 1-2, 13-14, 23-25, T27N, R10E; all or portions of Section 2-
11, 13-15, 17, 19-22, 25, 35-36, T27N, R11E; and all or portions of
Sections 5, 8, 17-20, 29-32, T27N, R12E.
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the project would be to contribute to the stability
and economic health of rural communities. The project would provide for
local economic benefit by creating jobs from the sale of dead
merchantable trees, as well as contribute to local and regional areas
with net revenues and receipts. The wood quality, volume, and value of
dead trees deteriorate rapidly. The value of trees would cover the cost
of their removal and possibly other activities associated with the
project.
As a result of the Moonlight Fire, thousands of acres burned with
high vegetation burn severity resulting in deforested condition. As a
result, shrub species will dominate these areas for decades and
experience a delay in returning to a forested condition. The early
establishment of conifers through reforestation will expedite forest
regeneration.
Proposed Action
The proposed action would harvest fire-killed conifer trees on
approximately 14,000 acres using the following methods: Ground based,
skyline, and helicopter. Trees greater than 14 inches diameter at
breast height (dbh) would be whole tree harvested on the ground-based
areas. Trees less than 14 inches dbh would be removed as biomass
material on the ground-based areas. About 600 acres would have trees
less than 14 inches dbh removed as biomass material. Ground-based
equipment would be restricted to slopes less than 35 percent, except on
decomposed granitic soils where equipment would be restricted to slopes
less than 25 percent. On the skyline and helicopter areas, trees
greater than 16 inches dbh would be harvested. Limbs and tops in the
skyline and helicopter areas would be lopped and scattered to a depth
less than 18 inches in height. Skyline yarding would require one end
suspension, with full suspension over intermittent or perennial
streams. Fire-killed conifers would be harvested from Riparian Habitat
Conservation Areas. Equipment restriction zone widths within Riparian
Habitat Conservation Areas would be established based on the stream
type and steepness of the slope adjacent to the streams. Snags would be
retained in snag retention areas, that are approximately ten acres in
size, on approximately ten percent of the project area. Salvage harvest
would not occur within the snag retention areas except for operability
(safety) reasons. Approximately 25 miles of temporary roads would be
constructed. Approximately 20 acres (nine landings) of helicopter
landings would be constructed. Excess fuels on landings would be piled,
a fireline constructed around the piles, and the piles burned.
Following completion of the project, the temporary roads and landings
would be subsoiled, reforested, and closed. Approximately 14,000 acres
would be reforested with conifer seedlings in widely spaced clusters to
emulate a naturally established forest. The areas would be reforested
with a mixture of native species.
The Moonlight Fire impacted twenty California spotted owl Protected
Activity Centers (PACs). According to the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan
Amendment FSEIS and ROD (2004), page 37, after a stand-replacing event,
the habitat conditions are evaluated within a 1.5 mile radius around
the activity center to identify opportunities for re-mapping the PAC.
If there is insufficient suitable habitat for designating a PAC within
the 1.5 mile radius, the PAC may be removed from the network.
Possible Alternatives
In addition to the proposed action, a no action alternative would
be analyzed. Additional alternatives may be developed and analyzed
throughout the environmental analysis.
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
The USDA, Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal.
Responsible Official
Alice B. Carlton, Plumas National Forest Supervisor, P.O. Box
11500, Quincy, CA 95971.
[[Page 1202]]
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The decision to be made is whether to: (1) Implement the proposed
action; (2) meet the purpose and need for action through some other
combination of activities; or, (3) take no action at this time.
Scoping Process
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides
the development of the environmental impact statement. Scoping comments
will be most helpful if received by January 4, 2008. Scoping is
conducted to determine the significant issues that will be addressed
during the environmental analysis.
Permits or Licenses Required
An Air Pollution Permit and a Smoke Management Plan are required by
local agencies. Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in
Subsequent Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement
will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft
environmental impact statement will be 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, 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.
Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who
comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal
and will be available for public inspection.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, Section 21)
Dated: December 21, 2007.
Maria T. Garcia,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 07-6301 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M