Plumas National Forest, California; Empire Vegetation Management Project, 6830-6831 [05-2494]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6830-6831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2494]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Plumas National Forest, California; Empire Vegetation Management 
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 construct a 
Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ), harvest trees using group-
selection and individual tree selection silvicultural methods, and 
perform associated road-system improvement work in forested areas of 
public land northeast of Quincy, California.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
within 30 days of the date of publication of this Notice of Intent in 
the Federal Register. The draft EIS is expected in April 2005 and the 
final EIS is expected in July 2005.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to James M. Pe[ntilde]a, Plumas 
National Forest, PO Box 11500, Quincy, CA 95971. Fax: (530) 283-7746. 
Electronic comments should be sent to: comments-pacificsouthwest-
plumas@fs.fed.us.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rotta, Interdisciplinary Team 
Leader, Mt. Hough Ranger District, telephone (530) 283-7687.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Tentative or Preliminary Issues and Possible Alternatives

    In June 2004, James M. Pe[ntilde]a solicited public comment for the 
Empire Vegetation Management Project proposed action. Comments received 
during that initial scoping period will be considered in this analysis. 
Substantial questions regarding the potential environmental effects of 
the original proposed action have prompted the preparation of an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). All action alternatives will need 
to respond to the specific condition of providing benefits equal to or 
better than the current condition. Other alternatives may be developed 
based on significant issues identified during the scoping process for 
this EIS. Alternatives being considered at this time include: (A) The 
Proposed Action and (B) No Action, as well as possible alternatives 
that consider watershed concerns, fuel treatments that allow for 
continuity of wildlife habitat, increased economical efficiency, 
density of group selection harvest units and how it affects continuous 
forest cover and edge effect.
    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) (LRMP) as amended by the 
Record of Decision for the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest 
Recovery Act (1999) (HFQLG), and as amended by the Record of Decision 
for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2004).
    The proposed action is located in Plumas County, California, within 
the Mt. Hough Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest in all or 
portions of Section 1, T23N, R9E; Section 6, T23N, R10E; Sections 4 & 
8, T23N, R11E; Sections 1-6, 8-12, 13-16, 22-26, 31, and 32, T24N, 
R10E; Sections 5-8, 15, 17, 21-28, and 33-35, T24N, R11E; Sections 1, 
10-12, 13, 14, 21-28, 33-34, and 26, T25N, R9E; Sections 6-8 and 14-35, 
T25N, R10E; Sections 19, 29, 30, 31, and 32, T25N, R11E, MDM.

Purpose and Need for Action

    The need for and purpose of the project has three elements: (1) To 
implement fuel reduction in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and, as 
part of the larger HFQLG fuel treatment strategic network as called for 
by the HFQLG Act (section 401[b][1] and [d][1]) and the HFQLG amendment 
to the LRMP, to reduce the potential size and intensity of wildfires 
and provide fire suppression personnel safe locations for taking action 
against wildfires; (2) to implement group selection and individual tree 
selection, as directed in the HFQLG Act (section 401[b][1] and [d][2]) 
and the HFQLG amendment of the LRMP, to test the effectiveness of an 
uneven-aged silvicultural system in achieving an all-aged, multistory, 
fire resilient forest, providing an adequate timber supply that 
contributes to the economic stability of rural communities, and 
improving and maintaining ecological health of the forest; and (3) to 
reduce impacts of the transportation system on forest resources and 
provide the necessary access for the fuel treatments and the group and 
individual tree selection harvests.

Proposed Action

    The assessment area for the project is about 103,000 acres. The 
project is composed of four actions: (1) Fuel treatments; (2) group 
selection timber harvest; (3) individual tree selection harvest; and 
(4) transportation system improvement. Fuel treatments would consist of 
construction of defensible fuel profile zones (DFPZs) and other areas 
of hazardous fuel reduction around communities, totaling about 6,600 
acres. Group selection timber harvest as part of the HFQLG pilot 
project would be conducted on about 1,300 acres. Individual tree 
selection harvests would take place over about 4,000 acres surrounding 
the group selection units, with a focus on dead or dying trees, those 
at high risk or of poor genetic quality, and crowded stands. To provide 
access for the project and reduce impacts of the existing road system 
on key resources, about three miles of new system roads would be 
constructed and closed after use; six miles of temporary

[[Page 6831]]

roads would be constructed and decommissioned after use; 17 miles of 
existing roads would be closed; 15 miles of existing roads would be 
permanently decommissioned; and 117 miles of existing roads would be 
reconstructed to sustain project use and reduce water quality impacts.

Lead Agency

    The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal.

Responsible Official

    Plumas National Forest Supervisor James M. Pe[ntilde]a is the 
responsible official. Plumas National Forest, PO Box 11500, Quincy, CA 
95971.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    Forest Supervisor James M. Pe[ntilde]a will decide whether to 
implement the Empire Project as proposed and described above, implement 
the project based on an alternative to this proposal that is formulated 
to resolve identified conflicts, or not implement this project at this 
time.

Scoping Process

    Public questions and comments regarding this proposal are an 
integral part of this environmental analysis process. Comments will be 
used to identify issues and develop alternatives to the proposed 
action. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering 
issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments should be as 
specific as possible.
    A copy of the Proposed Action and/or summary of the Proposed Action 
will be mailed to adjacent landowners, as well as those people and 
organizations that have indicated a specific interest in the Empire 
project, individuals who attended the two open houses held prior to the 
development of a landscape assessment for the watersheds surrounding 
the project, people who sent in previous comments, to Native American 
entities, and federal, state, and local agencies. The public will be 
notified of any meetings regarding this proposal by mailings and press 
releases sent to the local newspaper and media. There are no meetings 
planned at this time.

Permits or Licenses Required

    An Air Pollution Permit and a Smoke Management Plan are required by 
local agencies.

Comment

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides 
the development of the environmental impact statement under NEPA, which 
will guide development of the EIS. Our desire is to receive substantive 
comments on the merits of the Proposed Action, as well as comments that 
address errors, misinformation, or information that has been omitted. 
Substantive comments are defined as comments within the scope of the 
proposal, that have a direct relationship to the proposal, and that 
include supporting reasons for the Responsible Official's 
consideration.

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 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 Regualtions 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: February 3, 2005.
Terri Simon-Jackson,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05-2494 Filed 2-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M