[Federal Register: December 4, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 233)]
[Notices]
[Page 72136-72138]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04de02-24]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plumas and Lassen National Forests; California; Administrative
Study 4202-02-01
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, Plumas and Lassen National Forests,
in cooperation with the Pacific Southwest Research Station will prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to complete an
administrative study on approximately 493,000 acres of National Forest
System lands. The official title of the proposed administrative study
is ``Fire and Fuels Management, Landscape Dynamics, and Fish and
Wildlife Resources: Study Design for Integrated Research on the Plumas
and Lassen National Forests.''
Direction to undertake this administrative study is in the Regional
Forester's Record of Decision (January 12, 2001) for the Sierra Nevada
Forest Plan Amendment. In his decision, the Regional Forester directed
the Forest Service and the Pacific Southwest Research Station to
cooperatively design and implement a study to examine the relationship
between management-caused changes in vegetation and their effects on
spotted owl habitat and spotted owl population dynamics. The Regional
Forester also directed that this study include group selection
provisions of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group pilot project.
To meet the Regional Forester's direction, the administrative study
is designed to address four principal questions:
1. Are specific combinations of defensible fuel profile zones
(DFPZs) and subsequent area fuel treatments effective in reducing the
extent and severity of wildlands fires? What are practical
considerations and costs of constructing, maintaining, and using (for
fire suppression) alternative combinations of fuel treatments? Are
hypothesized fire management gains from these fuel treatment
combinations (in the form of reduced property and resource losses,
increased resource benefits from wildland fires, and increased
suppression efficiencies) commensurate with the costs and potential
adverse ecological impacts of the treatments?
2. Is small group selection effective in promoting regeneration of
shade-intolerant tree species; establishing desirable forest age,
species, and size distributions at landscape scales; and providing
sustainable levels of timber harvest?
3. How does the combination of DFPZs, area treatments, group
selection, riparian protection standards, and species-specific
protection measures--collectively defined as a management regime--
affect landscape dynamics such as forest structure, composition, and
succession at multiple scales of space and time?
4. How will key species, such as California spotted owls and their
prey, respond to changes in vegetation composition, structure, and
distribution induced by different forest management regimes? How is
change manifested at the individual or local population level and
larger population scales?
DATES: Comments in response to this Notice of Intent concerning the
scope of the analysis should be received in writing on or before
February 3, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Forest Supervisor, Plumas National
Forest, P.O. Box 11500, Quincy, CA 95971.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Matthews, Interdisciplinary
Team Leader, Plumas National Forest, telephone (530) 283-5549.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Proposed Action
The proposed study encompasses eleven treatment units ranging in
size from 45,000 to 79,000 acres (average size is 55,700 acres). The
total area encompassed by the eleven treatment units is approximately
613,000 acres (493,000 acres of National Forest and 120,000 acres of
other ownership). Two of the treatment units are located on the Lassen
National Forest and nine on the Plumas National Forest.
The eleven treatment units (TUs) are divided into three treatment
regimes (TRs) designed to reflect different levels of vegetative and
fuels management and to create a range of forest conditions over the
long term. TR-A proposes the least amount of activity and consists of 3
TUs (total of 191,000 acres); TR-B proposes the next highest amount and
intensity of management activity and consists 4 TUs (total of 198,000
acres); and, TR-C proposes the greatest amount and intensity of
management activity and consists of 4 TUs (total of 224,000 acres).
Specifically, TR-A includes approximately 13,854 acres of proposed
defensible fuels profile zones (DFPZ) and 30,175 acres of strategically
placed area treatments (SPLAT) designed to reduce fuel levels across
the landscape. An estimated 11 miles of system road
[[Page 72137]]
and 18 miles of temporary road would be constructed. Group selection is
not proposed within TR-A. All activities proposed within TR-A would
comply with current forest plan direction as amended by the Sierra
Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.
TR-B includes approximately 15,970 acres of DFPZ and 39,185 acres
of SPLATs. In addition, TR-B includes approximately 3,833 acres of
group selection designed as \1/2\-acre to 2-acre openings. An estimated
37 miles of system road and 19 miles of temporary road would be
constructed. TR-B also proposes approximately 23 miles of road to be
decommissioned.
TR-C includes approximately 19,055 acres of DFPZ and 46,439 acres
of SPLATs. In addition, TR-C includes approximately 7,945 acres of
group selection designed as \1/2\-acre to 2-acre openings. An estimated
42 miles of system road and 34 miles of temporary road would be
constructed. TR-C also proposes approximately 15 miles of road to be
decommissioned.
Both TR-B and TR-C include a project-specific, non-significant
forest plan amendment for the proposed deviation from current diameter
and canopy cover standards. These deviations are necessary to provide
the contrast and minimum spread of effects between the various
management regimes and to increase the chance of invoking a range of
resource responses necessary to meet the research objectives.
The proposed DFPZs and SPLATs are designed to harvest trees up to
30 inches diameter-at-breast-height (DBH). Group selection within TR-B
and TR-C proposes to harvest trees up to 32 inches DBH in seven
treatment units and up to 34 inches DBH in one treatment unit. These
diameters deviate from current, amended forest plan direction which
allows for harvest of trees up to 12 inches (20 inches for operability)
in old-forest emphasis areas and 20 inches in general forest areas.
TR-B and TR-C also deviate from the current, amended forest plan
standard that governs canopy cover. Current direction for areas where
existing canopy cover exceeds 50% is that it not be reduced below 50%;
also, where existing canopy is between 40% and 50%, no reduction is
allowed. Under TR-B and TR-C, canopy cover would be reduced to a level
less than 50% within the DFPZs and SPLATs. However, canopy cover would
not be reduced below 40% across the treated landscape.
Implementation is proposed to occur within a six-year period. Group
selection and DFPZs would be implemented in the first three to four
years with SPLATs implemented during the last 3 years. Monitoring of
the effects of all activities would occur during each of the
implementation years and beyond for an estimated 10 to 20-year period.
Decision To Be Made
The decision to be made is whether to: (1) implement the proposed
action, including the project-specific, non-significant forest plan
amendment; (2) meet the purpose and need for action through some other
combinations of activities; or (3) take no action at this time.
Lead Agency And Responsible Officials
The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal.
Responsible officials are James M. Pe[ntilde]a (Forest Supervisor,
Plumas National Forest, P.O. Box 11500, Quincy, CA 95971) and Edward C.
Cole (Forest Supervisor, Lassen National Forest, 2550 Riverside Drive,
Susanville, CA 96130).
Tentative or Preliminary Issues and Possible Alternatives
Alternatives being considered at this time include: (1) The
proposed Action and (2) No Action. Other alternatives may be developed
based on significant issues identified during the scoping process for
this EIS. All alternatives would be expected to respond to the specific
purpose and need and research objectives of the proposed administrative
study.
The scoping process for this analysis includes: (a) Identifying
potential issues; (b) identifying issues to be analyzed in depth; (c)
eliminating non-significant issues or those previously covered by a
relevant environmental analysis; (d) exploring additional alternatives;
and, (e) identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed
action and alternatives. As part of the current scoping process, the
Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and assistance from
Federal, State, and local agencies and other individuals or
organizations that may be interested in or affected by the proposed
action.
Public participation is especially important at several points
throughout the analysis. To facilitate public participation,
information about the proposed action is listed in the Plumas National
Forest and the Lassen National Forest Quarterly Schedule of Proposed
Actions. An information packet will be mailed to all who have expressed
interest in the proposed action. Notification of the public scoping
period will be published in the Feather River Bulletin, Quincy, CA, the
Sacramento Bee, Sacramento, CA, and the Lassen County Times,
Susanville, CA.
Comments received during the scoping process should be in writing
and should be specific to the proposed action. The comments should
describe, as clearly and completely as possible, any issues the
individual has with the proposal. An issue is defined as a point of
discussion, debate, or dispute regarding the proposed action or its
environmental effects.
Identification of Permits or Licenses Required
An Air Pollution Permit and a Smoke Management Plan are required by
local agencies to implement the proposed action.
Estimated Dates for Filing
The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency and available for public review in March 2003. The
comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the
Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability of
the draft EIS in the Federal Register. At that time, copies of the
draft EIS will be distributed to interested and affected agencies,
organizations, and members of the public for review and comment. It is
very important that those interested in the management of the Plumas
and Lassen National Forests participate at that time. The record of
decision and final EIS are expected to be published in early June,
2003.
The Reviewer's Obligation To Comment
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 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 EIS stage,
but 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 the 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
[[Page 72138]]
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. In addressing these points,
reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality
Regulation of implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, Section 21)
Dated: November 27, 2002.
James M. Pe[ntilde]a,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 02-30689 Filed 12-3-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M