Shasta-Trinity National Forest, California; Moosehead Vegetation and Road Management Project, 3547-3548 [E9-920]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3547-3548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-920]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Shasta-Trinity National Forest, California; Moosehead Vegetation 
and Road Management Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Shasta-Trinity National Forest proposes to thin forest 
stands and reduce fuel loads on approximately 2,300 acres of National 
Forest System Lands. Overstocked forest stands would be thinned by 
removing primarily understory and midstory trees to achieve desired 
stocking. Trees to be removed would generally be smaller in size than 
trees that would be retained. Some dominant and codominant trees may be 
removed to attain desired stocking. Forest stand treatments would be 
accomplished primarily through commercial harvest. Harvest operations 
would yield sawtimber (logs) and biomass (chips) products. After 
commercial harvest, fuels would be reduced by treating brush and small 
diameter trees in the forest understory. Road reconstruction, closure 
and decommissioning are also proposed. Approximately 22 miles of road 
would be reconstructed to improve drainage and reduce erosion. The 
existing open road network would be reduced by decommissioning \1/4\ 
mile of road and closing approximately 10 miles of road.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
no later than 30 days after the publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. The draft environmental impact statement is expected 
in July 2009 and the final environmental impact statement is expected 
in November 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: District Ranger Priscila S. 
Franco, Mt. Shasta Ranger Station, 204 W. Alma St., Mt. Shasta, 
California 96067. Send e-mail comments to: comments-pacificsouthwest-
shasta-trinity-mtshasta-mccloud@fs.fed.us.
    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names 
and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record 
for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be 
accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide 
the respondent with standing to appeal the subsequent decision.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Natvig, P.O. Box 688, Hot 
Springs, SD 57747, telephone (605) 745-3253, e-mail jnatvig@fs.fed.us.
    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose of the proposed action is to protect and enhance 
conditions in late successional forest ecosystems. The majority of the 
project area falls within lands identified by the Shasta-Trinity Land 
and Resource Management Plan as Late Successional Reserve (LSR), 
Managed Late Successional Area (MLSA) and Riparian Reserve. Protection 
includes reducing the risk of large-scale disturbance such as stand-
replacing wildfires and epidemic forest insect and disease outbreaks. 
Fire exclusion over the last 100 years has created dense forest 
conditions which have a negative impact on tree vigor and forest 
health. Overstocked stands are stressed by competition for limited 
resources and are at risk to high levels of insect-caused mortality, 
especially during periods of drought. The closed canopy, mixed-conifer 
stands are densely stocked with pole-sized trees in the midstory and 
understory and pockets of dead and down wood. The combination of 
deadwood, understory and midstory ladder fuels creates fuel conditions 
that in the event of fire, could result in high fire intensities 
spreading fire from the understory into the crowns of overstory conifer 
trees. The stands are at risk of loss from stand-replacing wildfire 
during weather periods that support extreme fire behavior. Treatments 
that decrease surface, ladder and canopy fuels will make the area more 
resistant to stand-replacing wildfires.
    A California-Oregon Transmission Project high voltage powerline 
crosses the project area. Interruption or loss of service associated 
with this powerline has the potential to impact a large number of 
electric users. Vegetation and fuel conditions in close proximity to 
the powerline should be treated so ground forces can control a wildfire 
under most fire weather conditions.
    Hardwoods and meadows are important components of an ecosystem; 
however, hardwoods and meadows

[[Page 3548]]

make up only a small portion of the project area (less than one 
percent). Wildfires that maintained early successional hardwoods and 
meadows have not occurred, or have been rare events since fire 
suppression efforts began in the early 1900s. Conifers gradually become 
established in both meadows and aspen stands. Hardwoods are desired as 
a stand component in LSRs/MLSAs. Therefore, actions are needed to 
maintain these sites as aspen or meadow.
    Proper drainage of system roads is needed to minimize surface 
erosion. Culverts must also be fully functional and of proper size to 
facilitate area drainage to prevent erosion causing water flow over 
road surfaces. Reconstruction of system roads is needed to improve road 
drainage and replace culverts.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action would reduce forest stocking and fuels on 
approximately 2,300 acres. In addition, 10 acres of meadow and aspen 
would be restored. Riparian Reserves would be treated in limited areas 
to improve or protect late-successional forest habitat. Project actions 
within Riparian Reserves would meet the objectives of the Aquatic 
Conservation Strategy in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and 
Resource Management Plan. Overstocked early and mid-successional stands 
would be thinned to promote the development of late-successional stand 
characteristics and reduce the risk of stand loss due to epidemic 
insect-caused mortality. Thinning treatments would retain 10 percent or 
more of the stand in un-thinned patches and up to 15 percent of the 
stand would be in heavily thinned patches or openings up to \1/4\ acre 
in size for stand diversity. Canopy, ladder and surface fuels would be 
reduced through thinning and treatment of surface fuels and brush.
    Open-road density will be decreased by decommissioning 
approximately \1/4\ mile of Forest System road and closing 10 miles of 
Forest System roads with gates, barricades, or earth berms. Erosion of 
existing roads would be reduced by improving road drainage, replacing 
culverts and surfacing roads with rock.
    Forest stand treatments would be accomplished primarily through 
commercial harvest, yielding sawtimber and chip products. Trees would 
be felled, removed and processed with mechanized equipment. Harvested 
trees would be transported from the stump to central landing areas 
adjacent to roads where they would be limbed and processed into 
sawtimber logs or chips.

Responsible Official

    J. Sharon Heywood, Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity National 
Forest.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The Forest Supervisor will decide whether to implement the proposed 
action, take an alternative action that meets the purpose and need or 
take no action.

Scoping Process and Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides 
the development of the environmental impact statement. The project is 
included in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest's quarterly schedule of 
proposed actions (SOPA). Information on the proposed action will be 
posted on the forest Web site, https://www.fs.fed.us/r5/shastatrinity/
projects and advertised in both the Redding Record Searchlight and the 
Mount Shasta Herald. Comments submitted during this scoping process 
should be in writing and should be specific to the proposed action. 
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.
    It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times 
and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of 
the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be 
provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly 
articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. The submission of 
timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer's ability to 
participate in subsequent administrative appeal or judicial review.
    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.
    At this stage, it is important to note several court rulings 
related to public participation in the environmental review process. 
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 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. In addressing these points 
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.
    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.

J. Sharon Heywood,
Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity National Forest.
 [FR Doc. E9-920 Filed 1-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M