[Federal Register: May 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29735-29736]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22my08-23]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plumas National Forest; California; Moonlight and Wheeler Fires
Recovery and Restoration Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Revised notice of intent to prepare an 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.
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, Plumas National Forest will prepare
an EIS on a proposal to harvest dead trees on approximately 15,568
acres in the Moonlight and Antelope Complex fires areas. The Moonlight
and Antelope Complex fires burned about 88,000 acres between July and
September 2007 on the Plumas National Forest.
DATES: The draft EIS is expected in June 2008 and the final EIS 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 and
Wheeler Fires Recovery and Restoration Project'' on the subject line of
your email. 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, R11E; sections 5, 8,
17-20, 29-32, T27N, R12E; 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,
and 30, T27N, R13E; Mount Diablo Meridian.
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the project would be to provide for short-term 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 project would promote long term economic
recovery through restoration by re-establishing forested conditions.
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 and Antelope Complex fires, 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 dead conifer trees on
approximately 15,568 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. Approximately 7,517 acres would have trees
less than 14 inches dbh removed as biomass material and approximately
122 acres would be removed from site preparation. 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
[[Page 29736]]
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. Dead
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, which are approximately ten acres in size, on
approximately ten percent of the project area. Harvest activities would
not occur within the snag retention areas except for operability
(safety) reasons. Approximately 33 miles of temporary roads would be
constructed.
Approximately 30 acres (fourteen 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 17,474 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 and Antelope Complex fires impacted twenty-five
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, 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 Moonlight Fire Recovery and Restoration Project and
the Wheeler Fire Recovery and Restoration 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 May 23, 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 draft EIS will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the
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 EIS stage, but that are not raised
until after completion of the final EIS, may be waived or dismissed by
the courts. City of Rangoon 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 draft EIS 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 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 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: May 13, 2008.
Mark Beaulieu,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E8-11222 Filed 5-21-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M