[Federal Register: December 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 73904-73906]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04de08-17]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plumas National Forest; CA; Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery
and Restoration Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Revised notice of intent to prepare a revised draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction: A notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the
Moonlight Fire Recovery and Restoration Project was published in the
Federal Register on Monday, January 7, 2008 (Vol. 73, No.4, pp. 1201-
1202). After scoping the Moonlight Fire and Wheeler Fire Recovery and
Restoration Projects separately in December 2007, the Forest Service,
Plumas National Forest, has merged the two projects together. In
December 2007, the Mt. Hough Ranger District of the Plumas National
Forest began the process to determine the scope (the depth and breadth)
of the environmental analysis. At that time, it was anticipated that
the Moonlight Fire Recovery and Restoration Project analysis would be
documented in an EIS and the Wheeler Fire Recovery and Restoration
Project analysis would be documented in an Environmental Assessment.
From comments received, it was determined to document the analysis for
both projects in one EIS. The new project name is Moonlight and Wheeler
Fires Recovery and Restoration Project. A second notice of intent to
prepare an ElS for the Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery and
Restoration Project was published in the Federal Register on Thursday,
May 22, 2008 (Vol. 73, No. 100, pp. 29735-29736).
The Moonlight Safety and Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project was a
separate project identified to remove hazardous trees with structural
defects likely to cause failure in all or part of the tree, which may
fall and hit the road prism within the next three years. Moonlight
Safety and Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project was being analyzed
utilizing a categorical exclusion (category 4) and overlapped with a
portion of the Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery and Restoration
Project. From comments received, it was determined to document the
analysis for both projects in one EIS. A revised draft EIS will be
prepared as the purpose and need of this project will change, and the
project name will remain Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery and
Restoration Project.
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, Plumas National Forest will prepare
a revised EIS on a proposal to harvest dead trees on approximately
10,366 acres within the Moonlight Fire and Antelope Complex (includes
Wheeler Fire) perimeters. The proposal also includes harvesting dead
and dying hazard trees on 4,389 acres along National Forest System
(NFS) roads in the Moonlight Fire perimeter. The Moonlight Fire and
Antelope Complex burned about 88,000 acres between July and September
2007 on the Plumas National Forest.
DATES: The revised draft EIS is expected in February 2009. The revised
final EIS is expected in April 2009. A decision is expected in May
2009.
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. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays Pacific Time; (3) faxed to (530)
283-1821; or (4) electronically mailed to: comments-
pacificsouthwestplumas-mthough@fs.fed.us.
Please indicate the name ``Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery and
Restoration Project'' on the subject line of your e-mail. Comments
submitted electronically must be in Rich Text Format (.rtf), plain text
format (.txt), or Word format (.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. The project is located in all or portions of: Sections 13, 23-
27, 34-35, T28N, R1OE; sections 13-14, 17-19, 23-24, 29-34, T28N, R11E;
sections 19-20, 29-32, T28N, R12E; sections 1-2, 13-14, 23-25, T27N,
R1OE; sections 2-11, 13-15, 17, 19-22, 25, 35-36, T27N, Ri 1E; sections
5, 8, 17-20, 29-32, T27N, RI2E; sections 1-5, 9-12, 14-16, 21-23, and
26-27, T26N, R12E; sections 23-29 and 31-36, T27N, R12E; and sections
19, 20,
[[Page 73905]]
and 30, T27N, R13E; Mount Diablo Meridian.
Purpose and Need for Action
The purposes of the project are: (1) To remove hazardous trees with
structural defects likely to cause failure in all or part of the tree,
which may fall and hit the road prism within the next three years; (2)
to recover the value of the dead trees before natural deterioration
occurs in the treatment areas; and (3) to re-establish forested
conditions. The project would harvest dead and dying hazard trees that
pose a safety hazard to the public along 120 miles of NFS roads within
the Moonlight Fire perimeter; harvest dead merchantable trees before
the economic value is lost to natural deterioration; and reforest
specific areas within the Moonlight Fire and Antelope Complex
perimeters.
Hazard trees need to be removed in a timely, efficient, and cost-
effective manner so that access to affected areas can be restored and
normal National Forest operations can resume. The wood quality, volume,
and value of dead trees deteriorate rapidly. Given the rate of
deterioration of the dead trees within the project area, there is an
immediate need to recover the economic value. The National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) sets policy to maintain appropriate forest cover
in accordance with Forest plans and requires best effort to reforest
within 5 years after harvest. As it relates to wildfires, it is Agency
policy to consider post-fire salvage harvest the functional equivalent
of a regeneration harvest and to make a best effort to recover forested
conditions within 5 years after harvest.
Proposed Action
The proposed action would harvest dead and/or dying conifer trees
on approximately 14,755 acres (10,366 acres of dead trees and 4,389
acres of dead and dying roadside hazard trees) using the following
methods: Ground based, skyline, and helicopter. Dead trees greater than
14 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) would be whole tree harvested
on the ground-based areas. Approximately 8,536 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
skyline, helicopter, and ground-based units (not removed as biomass)
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. Dead conifers would be
harvested from Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs). Equipment
restriction zone widths within RHCAs 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, which are approximately ten
acres in size, within salvage unitson approximately ten percent of the
project area. Harvest activities would not occur within the snag
retention areas except for operability (safety) reasons. Approximately
19 miles of temporary roads would be constructed. Approximately 30
acres of helicopter landings (fourteen) 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,
temporary roads and landings would be subsoiled, reforested, and
closed. Approximately 16,006 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.
Possible Alternatives
In addition to the proposed action, four other alternatives would
be analyzed, a no action alternative (alternative B), a ground-based
only action alternative (alternative C), an action alternative
consistent with the 2001 SNFPA ROD (alternative D), and a roadside
hazard only action alternative (alternative E).
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
The USDA, Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal.
Responsible Official
Alice B. Canton, Plumas National Forest Supervisor, PO Box 11500,
Quincy, CA 95971.
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
Scoping is conducted to determine the significant issues that will
be addressed during the environmental analysis. Comments that were
received for the first draft EJS for Moonlight and Wheeler Fires
Recovery and Restoration Project and for the categorical exclusion
Moonlight Safety and Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project will be
considered in the combined analysis. Additional comments on the
Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery and Restoration Project will also
be considered. Scoping comments will be most helpful if received by
December 12, 2008.
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 revised draft EIS will be prepared for comment. The comment
period on the revised draft EIS 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 EISs 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
EJS stage, but that are not raised until after completion of the final
EIS, 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 EIS.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the revised draft EIS
should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer
to specific pages or chapters of the revised draft EIS. Comments may
also address the adequacy of the revised draft EIS 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
[[Page 73906]]
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: November 24, 2008.
Alice B. Carlton,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E8-28558 Filed 12-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M