Shasta Trinity National Forest, South Fork Management Unit, California Salt Timber Harvest and Fuels Hazard Reduction Project, 15966-15968 [E8-5954]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
15966
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 26, 2008 / Notices
use a campfire on the property of
another person and also requires
individuals to obtain a campfire permit
issued under U.S. Forest Service
authority for campfires on National
Forest System lands. As part of a formal
agreement with the State, the U.S.
Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management, and the California
Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection have agreed to issue an
interagency campfire permit that meets
the intent of the State law.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
California Public Resources Code 4433:
Permits Required. A person shall not light,
maintain, or use a campfire upon any brushcovered land, grass-covered land, or forestcovered land which is the property of
another person unless he first obtains a
written permit from the owner, lessee, or
agent of the owner or lessee of the property.
If, however, campsites and special areas
have been established by the property owner
and posted as areas for camping, a permit is
not necessary.
A written campfire permit duly issued by
or under the authority of the United States
Forest Service is necessary for use on land
under the jurisdiction and control of the
United States Forest Service.
Issuance of the California Campfire
Permit will occur in every Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management,
and CAL FIRE office in the State that is
open to the public. The permit is
required for any individual that intends
to make a campfire on National Forest
System lands or Bureau of Land
Management lands. Only one permit is
required per year per person. The
permit requires individuals to provide
their name and address, which is used
by designated law enforcement officials
to verify that the permit belongs to a
responsible individual that is present at
a campfire. The information is not
otherwise used or maintained for any
purpose by the Forest Service or Bureau
of Land Management.
The California Campfire Permit is a
valuable fire prevention tool that
provides firefighting organizations in
California an opportunity to educate
members of the public on safe and
responsible campfire use, and allows
agencies to personally provide fire
prevention messages to every individual
that intends to build or maintain a
campfire in the state. Without the Forest
Service and Bureau of Land
Management participating in the
distribution of this permit, those
agencies would lose an important fire
prevention tool while making it
impossible for individuals to comply
with state law due to the language in the
state law requiring a campfire permit to
be issued under U.S. Forest Service
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:52 Mar 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
authority for campfires on National
Forest System lands.
Estimate of Annual Burden: 5
minutes.
Type of Respondents: Individuals.
Estimated Annual Number of
Respondents: 250,000.
Estimated Annual Number of
Responses per Respondent: 1.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on
Respondents: 20,833 hours.
Comment Is Invited
Comment is invited on: (1) Whether
this collection of information is
necessary for the stated purposes and
the proper performance of the functions
of the agency, including whether the
information will have practical or
scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including the use of
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology.
All comments received in response to
this notice, including names and
addresses when provided, will be a
matter of public record. Comments will
be summarized and included in the
submission request toward Office of
Management and Budget approval.
March 20, 2008.
Robin L. Thompson,
Associate Deputy Chief, State & Private
Forestry.
[FR Doc. E8–6039 Filed 3–25–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Shasta Trinity National Forest, South
Fork Management Unit, California Salt
Timber Harvest and Fuels Hazard
Reduction Project
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Hayfork District of the
Shasta Trinity National Forest is
proposing to use vegetation treatments
to improve forest health, reduce risks
from fire and provide forest products on
approximately 1,658 acres within the
upper Salt Creek watershed on the
South Fork Management Unit of the
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Shasta Trinity National Forest.
Prescribed treatments are expected to
produce approximately 4.8 million
board feet or 10,600 hundred cubic feet
(ccf) of merchantable sawtimber, and an
estimated 4,710 bone dry tons of
biomass. The Forest Service will
analyze these vegetation treatments
within the constraints of the Shasta
Trinity National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan, 1995.
The proposed Salt project is in Trinity
County, 10 air miles south of Hayfork,
California and 3 air miles east of Post
Mountain, California. The project area is
within the Hayfork Adaptive
Management Area (AMA), and
Management Area 19, Indian Valley/
Rattlesnake, of the Shasta-Trinity Land
and Resource Management Plan (USFS
1995, p. 4–64 & 65). Treatment areas in
T29N, R11W sections 4–9, T29N, R12W
sections 1, 2 and 12, T30N, R11W
sections 31 and 32, and T30N, R12W
sections 25, 26, 35, and 36 M.D.M.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope
of the analysis must be received by
April 22, 2008 or 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register,
whichever is later. The draft
environmental impact statement is
expected in August, 2008 and the final
environmental impact statement is
expected January, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Please send written
comments to Sandy Mack, TEAMS
USFS Enterprise Unit, 1801 N. First,
Hamilton, MT 59840–3114. Comments
may also be submitted by e-mail to:
comments-pacificsouthwest-shastatrinity-yo11abollahayfork@fs.fed.us
with ‘‘Salt Project’’ as the subject.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sandy Mack, Project Team Leader,
TEAMS USFS Enterprise Unit, 1801 N.
First, Hamilton, MT 59840. Phone (406)
375–2638.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose and need for the Salt
project is fourfold: Improve forest health
and resiliency, reduce hazardous fuels
conditions and the potential impacts
from wildfire to the National Forest and
neighboring land, provide timber
products, and decommission roads no
longer needed for management.
Competition for limited water, nutrients
and sun in many highly stocked stands
in the Salt project area has reduced the
vigor, growth and resiliency of the
mixed conifer species. Thinning is
needed to improve tree resiliency to
disturbance factors such as drought,
insects, disease, and fires. Conversely,
there are some stands in the suitable
timber base that are understocked and
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 26, 2008 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
are not growing well because of
decadence. These stands are not
meeting the growth and yield potential
for those sites, and will not unless
regeneration occurs. Reducing fuels and
stocking levels through thinning and
regeneration harvests requires the
removal of trees, some of which have
commercial value. Fuel loadings and
excessive ladder fuels have created the
potential for crown fire initiation and
spread, resulting in fires that can pose
a threat to National Forest System lands
as well as private land near the Salt
project area. Decreasing fuels in the Salt
project area is needed to help reduce
this threat of wildfire to forest resources
and local communities. The Trinity
County Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (Trinity County Fire Council 2005,
p. 61, 62) discusses the need for pre-fire
fuel treatment in and around three
dispersed residential communities that
are all within 3 miles of the Salt project
area (Post Mountain—1 mile west,
Peanut—3 miles north, and Wildwood—
3 miles east). Salt is the sixth in a series
of watershed scale projects occurring in
a south to north pattern. This project
strategically connects fuels treatments
from other projects to reduce the ability
for crown fire transition and spread that
can be a threat to these communities.
Roads can be a major source of
sedimentation. Watersheds can be
improved and future road maintenance
costs reduced by removing this potential
sediment source when road access is no
longer needed for management
activities.
The purpose and need for the Salt
project are consistent with Management
Plan Goals #3, #10, #11, #34, #35, #36,
#39, and #40 Shasta-Trinity Land and
Resource Management Plan (USFS 1995,
p. 4–5 and 4–6).
Proposed Action
The Salt project would treat
approximately 1,658 acres to improve
forest health, reduce risks from fire and
provide forest products, including:
• 984 acres of Intermediate Thinning
from below, 31 units.
• 14 acres of Hand Fuel Treatment, 1
unit.
• 499 acres of Pre-commercial
Thinning (plantations), 60 units.
• 103 acres of Intermediate Thinning
(shaded fuel break), 1 unit.
• 58 acres of Regeneration Harvest
with Green Tree Retention, 4 units.
These treatments are expected to
produce approximately 4.8 million
board feet (10,600 ccf) of merchantable
saw timber and 4,710 tons (bone dry) of
biomass. Timber prices are at a 15-year
low. For this reason appropriated
dollars and service contracts may be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:52 Mar 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
required to complete all the treatments
planned.
Additionally, the proposed action
would decommission approximately 8
miles of road no longer needed for
management activities to improve
watershed conditions. Approximately
3.4 miles proposed for decommissioning
are ‘‘unclassified’’ roads, meaning they
are abandoned or illegally developed
roads. The remaining 4.6 miles are
classified roads, meaning they are
currently maintained and tracked as
Forest Service System roads.
The Proposed Action was developed
with design features to minimize or
eliminate impacts from the vegetation
treatments. Some of the design features
include:
• Maintenance and reconstruction of
18 miles of roads that will be used to
haul timber to reduce potential
sedimentation.
• Snags and downed logs greater than
19 inches in diameter at breast height
would be left on site for wildlife habitat.
Snags felled for safety reasons will be
left on site as downed logs.
• Five tons of logs per acre will be
retained with a preference to have 4 to
6 logs per acre at the largest available
diameter.
• All hardwoods that have a
reasonable chance of surviving and
thriving after stand treatments will be
retained.
• Numerous detailed specifications
and restrictions will be fully explained
in the environmental impact statement
and implemented to assure thinning
within the intermittent and ephemeral
riparian reserves meet the Aquatic
Conservation Strategy Objectives.
• Limited Operating Periods would
be applied to avoid direct adverse
impacts to spotted owls if territories are
occupied.
• Ground disturbing activity will not
occur during wet weather conditions.
Responsible Official: The Responsible
Official for this project is Donna
Harmon, South Fork Management Unit
District Ranger, Shasta-Trinity National
Forest, P.O. Box 159, Hayfork, CA
96041.
Nature of Decision To Be Made: The
District Ranger will decide whether to
implement the proposed action, take an
alternative action that meets the
purpose and need, or take no action.
Scoping Process—Public Comment: In
October of 2006 we anticipated an
environmental assessment would be
prepared for this project and requested
input from the public through direct
mailings and notice published in the
Trinity Journal—a local newspaper. The
proposed project was also listed
quarterly in the Schedule of Proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15967
Environmental Actions (SOPA), a
Shasta-Trinity National Forest
publication. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) was consulted
regarding the proposed action and
members of the interdisciplinary
planning team met with the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA
Fisheries) and California Regional Water
Quality Control Board (North Coast
Region) to review the proposed action.
Three public comments were received.
Based on the initial scoping of the
project including interdisciplinary team
review, field work, public input and
agency consultations, the District has
modified the proposal and will prepare
an environmental impact statement. A
scoping letter for a proposed
Environmental Impact Statement was
mailed March 19, 2008, to twenty
individuals and organizations. In
addition, the notice was published in
the Trinity Journal—a local newspaper.
The proposed project is again listed in
the Schedule of Proposed
Environmental Actions, a Shasta-Trinity
National Forest publication. Although
comments are welcome throughout the
planning process, providing your
comments by April 22, 2008 will allow
time for us to consider your input
during alternative development and
analysis. Information on the proposed
action will also be posted on the forest
Web site: https://www.fs.fed.us/r5/
shastatrinity/projects.
Preliminary Issues
Issues identified during initial
scoping include economics, how long
treatments will be effective, cumulative
effects from past management, fish
habitat, non-critical spotted owl habitat,
wildlife species viability.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the
scoping process, which guides the
development of the environmental
impact statement. Comments submitted
during this 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 commenter has
with the proposal. The scoping process
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.
(e) Identifying potential
environmental effects of the proposed
action and alternatives.
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
15968
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 26, 2008 / Notices
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
reviewers’ 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 45day 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.
Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22;
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section
21.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:52 Mar 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
Dated: March 19, 2008.
Donna F. Harmon,
South Fork Management Unit District Ranger,
Shasta-Trinity National Forest.
[FR Doc. E8–5954 Filed 3–25–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration
Opportunity To Comment on the
Applicants for the Cedar Rapids, IA
Area Consisting of Northeast Iowa,
Southeast Minnesota, and East Texas
Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration, USDA.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: GIPSA requests comments on
the applicants for designation to provide
official services in the Cedar Rapids,
Iowa area that was open for designation.
• Gulf Country Inspection Service,
Inc. (Gulf Country) applied for the Cedar
Rapids, Iowa area.
• South Texas Grain Inspection, LLC
(South Texas) applied for part of the
Cedar Rapids, Iowa area, the east Texas
region.
• Mid-Iowa Grain Inspection, Inc.
(Mid-Iowa) applied for their current
designation in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
DATES: Comments must be postmarked
or electronically dated on or before
April 25, 2008.
ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit
comments on these applicants. You may
submit comments by any of the
following methods:
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver to
Karen Guagliardo, Review Branch Chief,
Compliance Division, GIPSA, USDA,
Room 1647–S, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250.
• Fax: Send by facsimile transmission
to (202) 690–2755, attention: Karen
Guagliardo.
• E-mail: Send via electronic mail to
Karen.W.Guagliardo@usda.gov.
• Mail: Send hardcopy to Karen
Guagliardo, Review Branch Chief,
Compliance Division, GIPSA, USDA,
STOP 3604, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–
3604.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments and reading any comments
posted online.
Read Applications and Comments:
All applications and comments will be
available for public inspection at the
office above during regular business
hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen Guagliardo at 202–720–7312, email Karen.W.Guagliardo@usda.gov.
This
Action has been reviewed and
determined not to be a rule or regulation
as defined in Executive Order 12866
and Departmental Regulation 1512–1;
therefore, the Executive Order and
Departmental Regulation do not apply
to this action.
In the December 3, 2007, Federal
Register (72 FR 67885), GIPSA asked
persons interested in providing official
services in the Cedar Rapids, Iowa area
to submit an application for designation.
There were three applicants for the
Cedar Rapids, Iowa area comprised of
northeast Iowa, southeast Minnesota,
and east Texas open for designation:
Mid-Iowa, currently designated for the
entire area and doing business as
InterContinental Grain Inspections in
east Texas region, applied for the entire
area. Gulf Country, a corporation not
currently designated, owned by Tyrone
Robichaux, John Shropshire, Eurvin
Williams, Pat LaCour, and Dan
Williams, applied for the entire area, but
stated they would accept no less than
the east Texas region. South Texas, a
limited liability company not currently
designated, owned by Corpus Christi
Grain Exchange, Inc., applied for a
portion of the east Texas region
bounded on the north and east by
Maverick, Uvalde, Medina, Bexar,
Comal, Guadalupe, Gonzales, Lavaca,
and Jackson Counties; and bounded on
the south and west by the Texas state
line.
GIPSA is publishing this notice to
provide interested persons the
opportunity to present comments
concerning the applicants. Commenters
are encouraged to submit reasons and
pertinent data for support or objection
to the designation of the applicants. All
comments must be submitted to the
Compliance Division at the above
address or at https://
www.regulations.gov. Comments and
other available information will be
considered in making a final decision.
GIPSA will publish notice of the final
decision in the Federal Register, and
GIPSA will send the applicants written
notification of the decision.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71–87k.
James E. Link,
Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–5538 Filed 3–25–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–KD–P
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15966-15968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-5954]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Shasta Trinity National Forest, South Fork Management Unit,
California Salt Timber Harvest and Fuels Hazard Reduction Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Hayfork District of the Shasta Trinity National Forest is
proposing to use vegetation treatments to improve forest health, reduce
risks from fire and provide forest products on approximately 1,658
acres within the upper Salt Creek watershed on the South Fork
Management Unit of the Shasta Trinity National Forest. Prescribed
treatments are expected to produce approximately 4.8 million board feet
or 10,600 hundred cubic feet (ccf) of merchantable sawtimber, and an
estimated 4,710 bone dry tons of biomass. The Forest Service will
analyze these vegetation treatments within the constraints of the
Shasta Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1995.
The proposed Salt project is in Trinity County, 10 air miles south
of Hayfork, California and 3 air miles east of Post Mountain,
California. The project area is within the Hayfork Adaptive Management
Area (AMA), and Management Area 19, Indian Valley/Rattlesnake, of the
Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS 1995, p. 4-64 &
65). Treatment areas in T29N, R11W sections 4-9, T29N, R12W sections 1,
2 and 12, T30N, R11W sections 31 and 32, and T30N, R12W sections 25,
26, 35, and 36 M.D.M.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received
by April 22, 2008 or 30 days after publication in the Federal Register,
whichever is later. The draft environmental impact statement is
expected in August, 2008 and the final environmental impact statement
is expected January, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Please send written comments to Sandy Mack, TEAMS USFS
Enterprise Unit, 1801 N. First, Hamilton, MT 59840-3114. Comments may
also be submitted by e-mail to: comments-pacificsouthwest-shasta-
trinity-yo11abollahayfork@fs.fed.us with ``Salt Project'' as the
subject.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandy Mack, Project Team Leader, TEAMS
USFS Enterprise Unit, 1801 N. First, Hamilton, MT 59840. Phone (406)
375-2638.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose and need for the Salt project is fourfold: Improve
forest health and resiliency, reduce hazardous fuels conditions and the
potential impacts from wildfire to the National Forest and neighboring
land, provide timber products, and decommission roads no longer needed
for management. Competition for limited water, nutrients and sun in
many highly stocked stands in the Salt project area has reduced the
vigor, growth and resiliency of the mixed conifer species. Thinning is
needed to improve tree resiliency to disturbance factors such as
drought, insects, disease, and fires. Conversely, there are some stands
in the suitable timber base that are understocked and
[[Page 15967]]
are not growing well because of decadence. These stands are not meeting
the growth and yield potential for those sites, and will not unless
regeneration occurs. Reducing fuels and stocking levels through
thinning and regeneration harvests requires the removal of trees, some
of which have commercial value. Fuel loadings and excessive ladder
fuels have created the potential for crown fire initiation and spread,
resulting in fires that can pose a threat to National Forest System
lands as well as private land near the Salt project area. Decreasing
fuels in the Salt project area is needed to help reduce this threat of
wildfire to forest resources and local communities. The Trinity County
Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Trinity County Fire Council 2005,
p. 61, 62) discusses the need for pre-fire fuel treatment in and around
three dispersed residential communities that are all within 3 miles of
the Salt project area (Post Mountain--1 mile west, Peanut--3 miles
north, and Wildwood--3 miles east). Salt is the sixth in a series of
watershed scale projects occurring in a south to north pattern. This
project strategically connects fuels treatments from other projects to
reduce the ability for crown fire transition and spread that can be a
threat to these communities.
Roads can be a major source of sedimentation. Watersheds can be
improved and future road maintenance costs reduced by removing this
potential sediment source when road access is no longer needed for
management activities.
The purpose and need for the Salt project are consistent with
Management Plan Goals 3, 10, 11,
34, 35, 36, 39, and 40
Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS 1995, p. 4-5 and
4-6).
Proposed Action
The Salt project would treat approximately 1,658 acres to improve
forest health, reduce risks from fire and provide forest products,
including:
984 acres of Intermediate Thinning from below, 31 units.
14 acres of Hand Fuel Treatment, 1 unit.
499 acres of Pre-commercial Thinning (plantations), 60
units.
103 acres of Intermediate Thinning (shaded fuel break), 1
unit.
58 acres of Regeneration Harvest with Green Tree
Retention, 4 units.
These treatments are expected to produce approximately 4.8 million
board feet (10,600 ccf) of merchantable saw timber and 4,710 tons (bone
dry) of biomass. Timber prices are at a 15-year low. For this reason
appropriated dollars and service contracts may be required to complete
all the treatments planned.
Additionally, the proposed action would decommission approximately
8 miles of road no longer needed for management activities to improve
watershed conditions. Approximately 3.4 miles proposed for
decommissioning are ``unclassified'' roads, meaning they are abandoned
or illegally developed roads. The remaining 4.6 miles are classified
roads, meaning they are currently maintained and tracked as Forest
Service System roads.
The Proposed Action was developed with design features to minimize
or eliminate impacts from the vegetation treatments. Some of the design
features include:
Maintenance and reconstruction of 18 miles of roads that
will be used to haul timber to reduce potential sedimentation.
Snags and downed logs greater than 19 inches in diameter
at breast height would be left on site for wildlife habitat. Snags
felled for safety reasons will be left on site as downed logs.
Five tons of logs per acre will be retained with a
preference to have 4 to 6 logs per acre at the largest available
diameter.
All hardwoods that have a reasonable chance of surviving
and thriving after stand treatments will be retained.
Numerous detailed specifications and restrictions will be
fully explained in the environmental impact statement and implemented
to assure thinning within the intermittent and ephemeral riparian
reserves meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives.
Limited Operating Periods would be applied to avoid direct
adverse impacts to spotted owls if territories are occupied.
Ground disturbing activity will not occur during wet
weather conditions.
Responsible Official: The Responsible Official for this project is
Donna Harmon, South Fork Management Unit District Ranger, Shasta-
Trinity National Forest, P.O. Box 159, Hayfork, CA 96041.
Nature of Decision To Be Made: The District Ranger will decide
whether to implement the proposed action, take an alternative action
that meets the purpose and need, or take no action.
Scoping Process--Public Comment: In October of 2006 we anticipated
an environmental assessment would be prepared for this project and
requested input from the public through direct mailings and notice
published in the Trinity Journal--a local newspaper. The proposed
project was also listed quarterly in the Schedule of Proposed
Environmental Actions (SOPA), a Shasta-Trinity National Forest
publication. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was consulted
regarding the proposed action and members of the interdisciplinary
planning team met with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA
Fisheries) and California Regional Water Quality Control Board (North
Coast Region) to review the proposed action. Three public comments were
received. Based on the initial scoping of the project including
interdisciplinary team review, field work, public input and agency
consultations, the District has modified the proposal and will prepare
an environmental impact statement. A scoping letter for a proposed
Environmental Impact Statement was mailed March 19, 2008, to twenty
individuals and organizations. In addition, the notice was published in
the Trinity Journal--a local newspaper. The proposed project is again
listed in the Schedule of Proposed Environmental Actions, a Shasta-
Trinity National Forest publication. Although comments are welcome
throughout the planning process, providing your comments by April 22,
2008 will allow time for us to consider your input during alternative
development and analysis. Information on the proposed action will also
be posted on the forest Web site: https://www.fs.fed.us/r5/
shastatrinity/projects.
Preliminary Issues
Issues identified during initial scoping include economics, how
long treatments will be effective, cumulative effects from past
management, fish habitat, non-critical spotted owl habitat, wildlife
species viability.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides
the development of the environmental impact statement. Comments
submitted during this 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 commenter has with
the proposal. The scoping process 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.
(e) Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed
action and alternatives.
[[Page 15968]]
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 reviewers' 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.
Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, Section 21.
Dated: March 19, 2008.
Donna F. Harmon,
South Fork Management Unit District Ranger, Shasta-Trinity National
Forest.
[FR Doc. E8-5954 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
