Tahoe National Forest; Sierraville Ranger District: California; Phoenix Project, 67989-67991 [05-22350]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67989-67991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22350]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Tahoe National Forest; Sierraville Ranger District: California; 
Phoenix Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest, Sierraville 
Ranger District gives notice of the Agency's intent to prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental 
effects of applying silvicultural and fuel treatment prescriptions to 
treatment units totaling approximately 5,057 acres. This project is 
part of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act 
Pilot Project. The proposed treatments would take place on the 
Sierraville Ranger District, and be implemented within the next 5 
years.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
by November 18, 2005. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 
is expected to be completed in March of 2006, and the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is expected to be completed in 
July of 2006.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Jeff Leach, USDA Forest Service, 
Sierraville Ranger District, P.O. Box 95 (317 South Lincoln), 
Sierraville, CA 96126, office hours 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday; 
telephone (530) 994-3401; FAX (530) 994-3143; e-mail: comments-
pacificsouthwest-tahoe-sierraville@fs.fed.us.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Leach or Timothy Evans at the 
above addresses and phone number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of the HFQLG Act Pilot Project, the 
Sierraville District completed the planning and NEPA environmental 
analysis for the Euro and Checkmate Projects. The District Ranger 
signed the Decision Notice for the Euro Project on May 2, 2005, and the 
Decision Notice of the Checkmate Project on June 7, 2005. Four Notices 
of Appeal were filed on the Euro Project Decision. Because of an appeal 
on the Euro Project Decision by the Lahontan Region of the California 
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the denial of a Conditional 
Waiver of Discharge Requirements for Discharges Related to Timber 
Harvest Activities by the Central Valley Region, both the Euro and 
Checkmate Project Decisions were withdrawn on June 28, 2005. Since that 
time, four public field trips took place to review some of the 
treatments of both the Euro and Checkmate projects. Participants in at 
least one of these field trips included representatives from both the 
Labontan and Central Valley Regions of the California Water Control 
Board, representatives of some of the organizations that filed appeals 
of the Euro Decision, and members of the interested public, including 
representatives of the Quincy Library Group. After considering the 
discussions that took place on these field trips, the Sierraville 
District Ranger decided to combine the Euro and Checkmate Projects into 
one proposed action (now titled the Phoenix Project) and to issue this 
Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS.

Purpose and Need for Action

    The Phoenix Project is being proposed to implement the Herger-
Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act of October 12, 1998 
(HFQLG). The underlying need for the pilot project is to fulfill the 
Secretary of Agriculture's statutory duty under the HFQLG Act, to the 
extent consistent with applicable Federal Law. That duty is to test and 
demonstrate the effectiveness of certain resource management activities 
designed to meet ecologic, economic, and fuel reduction objectives on 
the Lassen and Plumas National Forests and Sierraville District of the 
Tahoe National Forest. The Act requires the Secretary to conduct a 
pilot project for a period of up to 5 years (recently extended through 
2009). To accomplish the purpose of the Act, resource management 
activities are required, including construction of a strategic system 
of Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZs), group selection harvest and 
individual tree selection harvest, and riparian management (watershed 
restoration) projects. The Act directs the Forest Service to construct 
40,000 to 60,000 acres of DFPZs each year. The objectives of the 
Phoenix Project are:
    1. To reduce negative effects from catastrophic wildfire on 
National Forest, private and state lands, and local communities.
    2. To create a safer, more effective fire suppression environment 
and provide connecting links to existing fuelbreaks.
    3. To create the pre-conditions necessary for reintroduction of low 
intensity fire to the ecosystem, thereby beginning the process of 
restoring fire to its natural role in the ecology of the project area.
    4. To improve timber stand health, vigor, and resistance to fire, 
insects, and disease.
    5. Implement riparian management to restore the health and vigor of 
aspen stands.
    6. To protect and improve habitat for Threatened, Endangered, and 
Sensitive Species, and Management Indicator Species, both plant and 
animal.
    7. To generate economic activity, income and employment in support 
of rural community stability.

Proposed Action

    1. Implement mechanical thinning from below on approximately 2,657 
acres. The thinning prescription would be designed to retain all live 
trees greater than or equal to 30 inches DBH.
    2. Implement group selection harvest with groups less than or equal 
to 2.0 acres in size, on approximately 390 acres.
    3. Implement aspen restoration on approximately 217 acres. Conifers 
would be removed to a 40-inch diameter limit in areas where conifers 
are crowding out aspen trees.
    4. Implement hand thinning and piling on approximately 991 acres. 
The hand thinning would thin from below to an upper diameter limit of 
less than or equal to 10 inches DBH.
    5. Implement thinning by mechanical mastication of brush and 
saplings on approximately 802 acres of young

[[Page 67990]]

(approximately 20 years old or less) conifer plantations and natural 
stands.
    6. Retain at least three large logs/acre when available, 12 inches 
diameter or larger at midpoint.
    7. Retain at least three of the largest available snags per acre in 
eastside pine and mixed conifer type, six of the largest available 
snags in the red fir forest type.
    8. Apply Sporax (trade name for sodium tetraborate decahydrate) to 
cut stumps >= 14 inches stump diameter to reduce the spread of the root 
rot Heterobasidion annosum.
    9. Refine DFPZ boundaries identified in the Herger-Feinstein Quincy 
Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG) FEIS (1999).
    10. Implement and maintenance to provide for public and contractor 
safety, road surface protection, and erosion control.
    11. Implement road repair, and road decommissioning to improve 
watershed conditions.
    12. Use approximately 6.9 miles of temporary roads to provide 
short-term access to the treatment area, and decommission these roads 
after the project is completed.
    13. Reconstruct approximately 2.1 miles of existing National Forest 
System roads to improve access for large equipment and trucks to 
treatment areas, while also improving watershed conditions.
    14. Construct 2 new permanent roads totaling approximately 1.7 
miles in length to provide access to treatment areas and improve the 
long-term effectiveness of DFPZs.
    15. Apply standards and guidelines from the Tahoe National Forest 
Land and Resource Management Plan (LMP) (1990), as amended by the HFQLG 
FEIS Record of Decision (ROD (1990), the HFQLG FSEIS ROD (2003), and 
the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) FSEIS ROD (2004). Also 
apply standard management requirements such as contract clauses 
designed to protect forest resources, Best Management Practices (BMPs) 
for water quality protection, and other mitigation measures specific to 
this project. All of the proposed treatments would follow the standards 
and Guidelines applicable to the HFQLG Pilot Project Area described in 
Appendix A, (Section E, pages 66-69) of the SNFPA ROD.

Possible Alternatives

    Alternatives being considered at this time include: 1) proposed 
action; 2) no action. Additional alternatives to the proposed action 
would be based on significant issues identified during the scoping 
process.

Responsible Official

    The District Ranger, Sierraville Ranger District, Tahoe National 
Forest, is the responsible official making the decision, and can be 
reached at P.O. Box 95, Sierraville, CA 96126. As the responsible 
official, the District Ranger will document the decision and reasons 
for the decision in the Record of Decision (ROD), which will be 
published along with the FEIS.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The decision to be made is whether to implement the proposed action 
as described above, to very the location or design of the project to 
meet the purpose and need while addressing issues raised in public 
scoping, or to take no action at this time.

Scoping Process

    Public participation is viewed as an integral part of the 
environmental analysis. The Forest Service will be seeking points of 
dispute, disagreement or debate from Federal, State, and local 
governmental agencies as well as from individuals or organizations that 
may be potentially interested or affected by the proposed action. A 
scoping letter will be mailed to persons who have expressed interest in 
the proposed action based on notifications in the Tahoe National Forest 
Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions and by notification through a 
published legal notice in the Mountain Messenger (the newspaper of 
record for this project), Downieville, California, and the Sierra 
Booster, Loyalton, California. In addition, persons who provided 
comment on the Euro and Checkmate Projects will be mailed scoping 
letters.

Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides 
the development of the EIS. Comments submitted during the scoping 
process should be in writing or e-mail, and should be specific to the 
proposed action. The comments should describe as clearly and completely 
as possible any points of dispute, debate or disagreement the commenter 
has with the proposal. Once scoping letters are received, the District 
shall identify all potential issues, eliminate non-significant issues 
or those covered by another environmental analysis, identify 
significant issues to analyze in depth, develop additional alternatives 
to address those significant issues, and identify potential 
environmental effects of the proposed action as well as all fully 
analyzed alternatives.

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.


[[Page 67991]]


    Dated: October 31, 2005.
Sam J. Wilbanks,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 05-22350 Filed 11-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M