Plumas National Forest; CA; Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery and Restoration Project, 73904-73906 [E8-28558]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
73904
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Notices
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 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.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22;
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section
21.
Dated: November 26, 2008.
Thomas K. Reilly,
Forest Supervisor, Clearwater National Forest.
[FR Doc. E8–28670 Filed 12–3–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:35 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plumas National Forest; CA; Moonlight
and Wheeler Fires Recovery and
Restoration Project
Forest Service, USDA.
Revised notice of intent to
prepare a revised draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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. A second notice of intent to
prepare an ElS for the Moonlight and
Wheeler Fires Recovery and Restoration
Project was published in the Federal
Register on Thursday, May 22, 2008
(Vol. 73, No. 100, pp. 29735–29736).
The Moonlight Safety and Roadside
Hazard Tree Removal Project was a
separate project identified to remove
hazardous trees with structural defects
likely to cause failure in all or part of
the tree, which may fall and hit the road
prism within the next three years.
Moonlight Safety and Roadside Hazard
Tree Removal Project was being
analyzed utilizing a categorical
exclusion (category 4) and overlapped
with a portion of the Moonlight and
Wheeler Fires Recovery and Restoration
Project. From comments received, it was
determined to document the analysis for
both projects in one EIS. A revised draft
EIS will be prepared as the purpose and
need of this project will change, and the
project name will remain Moonlight and
Wheeler Fires Recovery and Restoration
Project.
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service,
Plumas National Forest will prepare a
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
revised EIS on a proposal to harvest
dead trees on approximately 10,366
acres within the Moonlight Fire and
Antelope Complex (includes Wheeler
Fire) perimeters. The proposal also
includes harvesting dead and dying
hazard trees on 4,389 acres along
National Forest System (NFS) roads in
the Moonlight Fire perimeter. The
Moonlight Fire and Antelope Complex
burned about 88,000 acres between July
and September 2007 on the Plumas
National Forest.
DATES: The revised draft EIS is expected
in February 2009. The revised final EIS
is expected in April 2009. A decision is
expected in May 2009.
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.
and 4:30 p.m. weekdays Pacific Time;
(3) faxed to (530) 283–1821; or (4)
electronically mailed to: commentspacificsouthwestplumasmthough@fs.fed.us.
Please indicate the name ‘‘Moonlight
and Wheeler Fires Recovery and
Restoration Project’’ on the subject line
of your e-mail. 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, Ri 1E;
sections 5, 8, 17–20, 29–32, T27N, RI2E;
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,
E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM
04DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Notices
and 30, T27N, R13E; Mount Diablo
Meridian.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Purpose and Need for Action
The purposes of the project are: (1) To
remove hazardous trees with structural
defects likely to cause failure in all or
part of the tree, which may fall and hit
the road prism within the next three
years; (2) to recover the value of the
dead trees before natural deterioration
occurs in the treatment areas; and (3) to
re-establish forested conditions. The
project would harvest dead and dying
hazard trees that pose a safety hazard to
the public along 120 miles of NFS roads
within the Moonlight Fire perimeter;
harvest dead merchantable trees before
the economic value is lost to natural
deterioration; and reforest specific areas
within the Moonlight Fire and Antelope
Complex perimeters.
Hazard trees need to be removed in a
timely, efficient, and cost-effective
manner so that access to affected areas
can be restored and normal National
Forest operations can resume. The wood
quality, volume, and value of dead trees
deteriorate rapidly. Given the rate of
deterioration of the dead trees within
the project area, there is an immediate
need to recover the economic value. The
National Forest Management Act
(NFMA) sets policy to maintain
appropriate forest cover in accordance
with Forest plans and requires best
effort to reforest within 5 years after
harvest. As it relates to wildfires, it is
Agency policy to consider post-fire
salvage harvest the functional
equivalent of a regeneration harvest and
to make a best effort to recover forested
conditions within 5 years after harvest.
Proposed Action
The proposed action would harvest
dead and/or dying conifer trees on
approximately 14,755 acres (10,366
acres of dead trees and 4,389 acres of
dead and dying roadside hazard trees)
using the following methods: Ground
based, skyline, and helicopter. Dead
trees greater than 14 inches diameter at
breast height (dbh) would be whole tree
harvested on the ground-based areas.
Approximately 8,536 acres would have
trees less than 14 inches dbh removed
as biomass material. 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 percent. On the skyline and
helicopter areas, trees greater than 16
inches dbh would be harvested. Limbs
and tops in skyline, helicopter, and
ground-based units (not removed as
biomass) would be lopped and scattered
to a depth less than 18 inches in height.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:35 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
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
(RHCAs). Equipment restriction zone
widths within RHCAs 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, within
salvage unitson approximately ten
percent of the project area. Harvest
activities would not occur within the
snag retention areas except for
operability (safety) reasons.
Approximately 19 miles of temporary
roads would be constructed.
Approximately 30 acres of helicopter
landings (fourteen) 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,
temporary roads and landings would be
subsoiled, reforested, and closed.
Approximately 16,006 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.
Possible Alternatives
In addition to the proposed action,
four other alternatives would be
analyzed, a no action alternative
(alternative B), a ground-based only
action alternative (alternative C), an
action alternative consistent with the
2001 SNFPA ROD (alternative D), and a
roadside hazard only action alternative
(alternative E).
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
The USDA, Forest Service is the lead
agency for this proposal.
Responsible Official
Alice B. Canton, 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 first draft EJS for Moonlight and
Wheeler Fires Recovery and Restoration
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73905
Project and for the categorical exclusion
Moonlight Safety and Roadside Hazard
Tree Removal 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 December 12, 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 revised draft EIS will be prepared
for comment. The comment period on
the revised 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 EJS stage,
but that 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 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 EIS.
To assist the Forest Service in
identifying and considering issues and
concerns on the proposed action,
comments on the revised draft EIS
should be as specific as possible. It is
also helpful if comments refer to
specific pages or chapters of the revised
draft EIS. Comments may also address
the adequacy of the revised 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
E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM
04DEN1
73906
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Notices
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: November 24, 2008.
Alice B. Carlton,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E8–28558 Filed 12–3–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Notice of Intent To Request Revision
and Extension of a Currently Approved
Information Collection
National Agricultural Statistics
Service.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces the intention of the
National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS) to request revision and
extension of a currently approved
information collection, the Agricultural
Labor Survey. Revision to burden hours
may be needed due to changes in the
size of the target population, sampling
design, and/or questionnaire length.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be
received by February 2, 2009 to be
assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number 0535–0109,
by any of the following methods:
• E-mail: ombofficer@nass.usda.gov.
Include docket number above in the
subject line of the message.
• Fax: (202) 720–6396.
• Mail: Mail any paper, disk, or CD–
ROM submissions to: David Hancock,
NASS Clearance Officer, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Room 5336
South Building, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–
2024.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Hand
deliver to: David Hancock, NASS
Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building,
1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph T. Reilly, Associate
Administrator, National Agricultural
Statistics Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, (202) 720–4333 or Kevin
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:35 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
Barnes, Chief, Environmental,
Economics, and Demographics Branch,
National Agricultural Statistics Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202)
720–6146.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Agricultural Labor Survey.
OMB Control Number: 0535–0109.
Expiration Date of Approval: April 30,
2009.
Type of Request: Intent to Seek
Approval to Revise and Extend an
Information Collection.
Abstract: The primary objective of the
National Agricultural Statistics Service
is to prepare and issue State and
national estimates of crop and livestock
production, disposition, and prices. The
Agricultural Labor Survey provides
statistics on the number of agricultural
workers, hours worked, and wage rates.
Number of workers and hours worked
are used to estimate agricultural
productivity; wage rates are used in the
administration of the ‘‘H–2A’’ Program
and for setting Adverse Effect Wage
Rates. Survey data are also used to carry
out provisions of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act. The current expiration
date for this docket is April 30, 2009.
NASS intends to request that the
Agricultural Labor Survey be approved
for another 3 years.
Authority: These data will be
collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C.
2204(a). Individually identifiable data
collected under this authority are
governed by Section 1770 of the Food
Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276,
which requires USDA to afford strict
confidentiality to non-aggregated data
provided by respondents. This notice is
submitted in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104–13) and Office of Management
and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part
1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995).
Estimate of Burden: This information
collection comprises four individual
surveys, two of which are conducted
annually and two which are conducted
quarterly, for an estimated total of
72,000 responses. The public reporting
burden for this information collection is
estimated to average 15 minutes per
response.
Respondents: Farms and businesses.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
12,300.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on
Respondents: 12,500 hours.
Copies of this information collection
and related instructions can be obtained
without charge from David Hancock,
NASS Clearance Officer, at (202) 690–
2388.
Comments: Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the proposed collection of
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate
of the burden of the proposed collection
of information including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, through
the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, technological, or
other forms of information technology
collection techniques.
All responses to this notice will
become a matter of public record and be
summarized in the request for OMB
approval.
Signed at Washington, DC, November 19,
2008.
Joseph T. Reilly,
Associate Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8–28758 Filed 12–3–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–20–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Notice of Intent To Request Revision
and Extension of a Currently Approved
Information Collection
National Agricultural Statistics
Service, USDA.
AGENCY:
Notice and request for
comments.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces the intention of the
National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS) to request revision and
extension of a currently approved
information collection, the Mink
Survey. Revision to burden hours may
be needed due to changes in the size of
the target population, and/or
questionnaire length. The target
population will be pulled from positive
data reported on the 2007 Census of
Agriculture, once it is finalized. The
questionnaire that NASS is planning to
use is the same as what was used in
previous years. Any changes to the
questionnaire would result from
requests by industry data users.
Comments on this notice must be
received by February 2, 2009 to be
assured of consideration.
DATES:
You may submit comments,
identified by docket number 0535–0212,
by any of the following methods:
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM
04DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 234 (Thursday, December 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73904-73906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-28558]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plumas National Forest; CA; Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery
and Restoration Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Revised notice of intent to prepare a revised draft
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. A second notice of intent to
prepare an ElS for the Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery and
Restoration Project was published in the Federal Register on Thursday,
May 22, 2008 (Vol. 73, No. 100, pp. 29735-29736).
The Moonlight Safety and Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project was a
separate project identified to remove hazardous trees with structural
defects likely to cause failure in all or part of the tree, which may
fall and hit the road prism within the next three years. Moonlight
Safety and Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project was being analyzed
utilizing a categorical exclusion (category 4) and overlapped with a
portion of the Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery and Restoration
Project. From comments received, it was determined to document the
analysis for both projects in one EIS. A revised draft EIS will be
prepared as the purpose and need of this project will change, and the
project name will remain Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery and
Restoration Project.
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, Plumas National Forest will prepare
a revised EIS on a proposal to harvest dead trees on approximately
10,366 acres within the Moonlight Fire and Antelope Complex (includes
Wheeler Fire) perimeters. The proposal also includes harvesting dead
and dying hazard trees on 4,389 acres along National Forest System
(NFS) roads in the Moonlight Fire perimeter. The Moonlight Fire and
Antelope Complex burned about 88,000 acres between July and September
2007 on the Plumas National Forest.
DATES: The revised draft EIS is expected in February 2009. The revised
final EIS is expected in April 2009. A decision is expected in May
2009.
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. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays Pacific Time; (3) faxed to (530)
283-1821; or (4) electronically mailed to: comments-
pacificsouthwestplumas-mthough@fs.fed.us.
Please indicate the name ``Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery and
Restoration Project'' on the subject line of your e-mail. 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, Ri 1E; sections
5, 8, 17-20, 29-32, T27N, RI2E; 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,
[[Page 73905]]
and 30, T27N, R13E; Mount Diablo Meridian.
Purpose and Need for Action
The purposes of the project are: (1) To remove hazardous trees with
structural defects likely to cause failure in all or part of the tree,
which may fall and hit the road prism within the next three years; (2)
to recover the value of the dead trees before natural deterioration
occurs in the treatment areas; and (3) to re-establish forested
conditions. The project would harvest dead and dying hazard trees that
pose a safety hazard to the public along 120 miles of NFS roads within
the Moonlight Fire perimeter; harvest dead merchantable trees before
the economic value is lost to natural deterioration; and reforest
specific areas within the Moonlight Fire and Antelope Complex
perimeters.
Hazard trees need to be removed in a timely, efficient, and cost-
effective manner so that access to affected areas can be restored and
normal National Forest operations can resume. The wood quality, volume,
and value of dead trees deteriorate rapidly. Given the rate of
deterioration of the dead trees within the project area, there is an
immediate need to recover the economic value. The National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) sets policy to maintain appropriate forest cover
in accordance with Forest plans and requires best effort to reforest
within 5 years after harvest. As it relates to wildfires, it is Agency
policy to consider post-fire salvage harvest the functional equivalent
of a regeneration harvest and to make a best effort to recover forested
conditions within 5 years after harvest.
Proposed Action
The proposed action would harvest dead and/or dying conifer trees
on approximately 14,755 acres (10,366 acres of dead trees and 4,389
acres of dead and dying roadside hazard trees) using the following
methods: Ground based, skyline, and helicopter. Dead trees greater than
14 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) would be whole tree harvested
on the ground-based areas. Approximately 8,536 acres would have trees
less than 14 inches dbh removed as biomass material. 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 percent. On the skyline and helicopter areas, trees
greater than 16 inches dbh would be harvested. Limbs and tops in
skyline, helicopter, and ground-based units (not removed as biomass)
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 (RHCAs). Equipment
restriction zone widths within RHCAs 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, within salvage unitson approximately ten percent of the
project area. Harvest activities would not occur within the snag
retention areas except for operability (safety) reasons. Approximately
19 miles of temporary roads would be constructed. Approximately 30
acres of helicopter landings (fourteen) 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,
temporary roads and landings would be subsoiled, reforested, and
closed. Approximately 16,006 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.
Possible Alternatives
In addition to the proposed action, four other alternatives would
be analyzed, a no action alternative (alternative B), a ground-based
only action alternative (alternative C), an action alternative
consistent with the 2001 SNFPA ROD (alternative D), and a roadside
hazard only action alternative (alternative E).
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
The USDA, Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal.
Responsible Official
Alice B. Canton, 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 first draft EJS for Moonlight and Wheeler Fires
Recovery and Restoration Project and for the categorical exclusion
Moonlight Safety and Roadside Hazard Tree Removal 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
December 12, 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 revised draft EIS will be prepared for comment. The comment
period on the revised 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
EJS stage, but that 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 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 revised draft EIS
should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer
to specific pages or chapters of the revised draft EIS. Comments may
also address the adequacy of the revised 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
[[Page 73906]]
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: November 24, 2008.
Alice B. Carlton,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E8-28558 Filed 12-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
