Big Grizzly Fuels Reduction and Forest Health Project, Eldorado National Forest, Placer County, CA, 10529-10533 [E9-5019]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices
Dated: March 5, 2009.
Robert C. Keeney,
Acting Associate Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. E9–5122 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service, intends
to grant to Innovative Foods, Inc. of
South San Francisco, California, an
exclusive license to U.S. Patent
Application Serial No. 10/917,797,
‘‘Novel Infrared Dry Blanching (IDB),
Infrared Blanching, and Infrared Drying
Technologies for Food Processing’’, filed
on August 13, 2004.
DATES: Comments must be received
April 10, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA,
ARS, Office of Technology Transfer,
5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4–1174,
Beltsville, Maryland 20705–5131.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June
Blalock of the Office of Technology
Transfer at the Beltsville address given
above; telephone: 301–504–5989.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Federal Government’s patent rights in
this invention are assigned to the United
States of America, as represented by the
Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the
public interest to so license this
invention as Innovative Foods, Inc. of
South San Francisco, California has
submitted a complete and sufficient
application for a license. The
prospective exclusive license will be
royalty-bearing and will comply with
the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C.
209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective
exclusive license may be granted unless,
within thirty (30) days from the date of
this published Notice, the Agricultural
Research Service receives written
evidence and argument which
establishes that the grant of the license
would not be consistent with the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37
CFR 404.7.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Mar 10, 2009
Jkt 217001
Solicitation of Input From Stakeholders
Regarding the Healthy Urban Food
Enterprise Development Center
Program
Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Request for stakeholder input;
correction.
Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive
License
BILLING CODE 3410–03–P
Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service
AGENCY:
Agricultural Research Service
Richard J. Brenner,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9–5235 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SUMMARY: The Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension
Service published a document in the
Federal Register on March 3, 2009,
concerning request for stakeholder input
regarding the Healthy Urban Food
Enterprise Development Center
Program. The document contained an
incorrect e-mail address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Tuckermanty, 202–205–0241.
Correction
In the Federal Register of March 3,
2009, in FR Doc E9–4384, on page 9212,
in the second and third columns, correct
the ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT captions to read:
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by CSREES–2008–0005, by
any of the following methods: Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail:
etuckermanty@csrees.usda.gov. Include
CSREES–2008–0005 in the subject line
of the message.
Fax: (202) 401–1782.
Mail: Paper, disk or CD–ROM
submissions should be submitted to: Liz
Tuckermanty; Competitive Program (CP)
Unit; Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service; U.S.
Department of Agriculture; Mail Stop
2201; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.;
Washington, DC 20250–2201.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Liz
Tuckermanty; Competitive Programs
(CP) Unit; Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service; U.S.
Department of Agriculture; Room 2340;
Waterfront Centre; 800 9th Street, SW.;
Washington, DC 20024.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the title ‘‘The Center’’ and
CSREES–2008–0005. All comments
received will be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Liz Tuckermanty, (202) 205–0241
(phone), (202) 401–1782 (fax), or
etuckermanty@csrees.usda.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10529
Dated: March 5, 2009.
Colien Hefferan,
Administrator, Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service.
[FR Doc. E9–5118 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Big Grizzly Fuels Reduction and Forest
Health Project, Eldorado National
Forest, Placer County, CA
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service,
Eldorado National Forest will prepare
an environmental impact statement
(EIS) for a proposal to treat
approximately 6,200 acres of National
Forest System land for fuels reduction
and forest health objectives. The project
area is situated on the Georgetown
Ranger District approximately 15 airmiles northeast of Georgetown, CA in
the vicinity of Nevada Point Ridge,
Devils Peak and Bear Springs. The
intent of this project is to reduce
potential fire hazard within the project
area, to provide for increased resilience
when a wildfire occurs within the
project area, to provide for improved
forest health, and to increase the rate of
development of old forest
characteristics. The Proposed Action
consists of commercial and
precommercial tree thinning with
follow-up tractor piling or mastication;
mastication of select, existing
plantations with a follow-up treatment
of herbicides to reduce brush
competition and fuel buildup; the
planting of conifers in expanded canopy
gaps with a follow-up treatment of
herbicide; and prescribed burning.
Silvicultural treatments for each stand
were chosen for their ability to meet the
stated purpose and need. The focus of
each treatment is based on the desired
quality of each treatment area after
management rather than the quantity or
quality of the products removed from
each area. In fact, some treatments
would not remove forest products.
Approximately 15 miles of native
surface road reconstruction and 1 mile
of new road construction are proposed
in order to facilitate the treatment
activities. The land allocations within
the treatment areas, as identified in the
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment
Final Supplemental EIS (SNFPA FSEIS),
are general forest, spotted owl home
range core areas, old-forest, and riparian
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
10530
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
conservation areas adjacent to
perennial, seasonal, and ephemeral
streams.
The purpose of the project is: (1) To
change existing forest surface, ladder
and crown fuel profiles in order to
reduce potential wildfire intensity and
behavior to mitigate the consequences of
large, potentially damaging wildfires on
selected forested areas; (2) to improve
stand vigor and resistance to disease
and insect mortality; (3) maintain and/
or establish a composition of tree
species and size classes that are closer
to the historic levels for the area, and
correspondingly sustainable into the
future; and (4) to treat hazard fuels in a
cost-effective manner to maximize
program effectiveness.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope
of the analysis must be received within
30 days of the publication of this Notice
of Intent in the Federal Register. The
draft environmental impact statement is
expected in May 2009 and the final
environmental impact statement is
expected in October 2009.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
Ramiro Villalvazo, Forest Supervisor,
Eldorado National Forest, 7600
Wentworth Springs Rd., Georgetown,
CA 95634 Attention: Big Grizzly Fuels
Reduction and Forest Health Project.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dana Walsh, Project Leader, Georgetown
Ranger District, 7600 Wentworth
Springs Rd, Georgetown, CA 95634, or
by telephone at 530–333–4312.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose and Need for Action
(1) The primary purpose of the project
is to change existing forest surface,
ladder and crown fuel profiles in order
to reduce potential wildfire intensity
and behavior to mitigate the
consequences of large, potentially
damaging wildfires on selected forested
areas.
There is a need to change potential
fire behavior during weather conditions
that produce wildfire behavior with
extreme fire intensity and severity
across a large portion of the landscape.
The fuels conditions within the project
area make the area prone to the risk of
a stand-replacing catastrophic wildfire.
The risk of losing key ecosystem
components in this area is high.
Treatments are needed that would be
effective in terms reducing potential
wildfire damage to intrinsic, forest
related resources. Within the vicinity of
the Big Grizzly project, lightning,
dispersed recreation use, off-highway
vehicle use, and traffic on the Eleven
Pines and Nevada Point Ridge Roads are
potential sources of wildfire ignition.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Mar 10, 2009
Jkt 217001
The effects of the Eldorado National
Forest’s Cleveland Fire (23,000 acres),
Icehouse Fire (18,000 acres), Wrights
Fire (8,000 acres), Star Fire (17,000
acres) Fred Fire (7,700 acres), Power
Fire (16,800 acres), and numerous other
large, wetland fires in California and
across the western United States
emphasize the desirability and the
urgency of managing forest stands to
reduce the likelihood of catastrophic
wildfire. In the absence of fuel
reductions it is likely that wildfire
would determine the future landscape,
threatening lives and property.
Forests in this area were historically
subject to frequent low intensity fires
that resulted in open, fire-resistant
stands of trees. Multiple decades of fire
exclusion, grazing by domestic
livestock, previous stand replacing
wildfire, mining, and historic logging
practices, including selective logging of
large pines and lack of follow-up slash
treatment, have contributed to altered
fire regimes, heavy fuel loadings, and
changed vegetation composition and
structure. As a result, the number, size,
and intensity of wildfires have been
altered from their historical range.
By itself prescribed fire would be
difficult to apply in the majority of the
project area due to the fuel
accumulation, changes in stand
structure, and operation limitations in
its use. Mechanical treatments can be
effective tools to modify stand structure
and influence subsequent fire severity
and extent. In many stands mechanical
thinning followed by prescribed fire is
necessary to achieve forest resilience
much faster than with prescribed fire
alone.
Fire behavior is strongly influenced
by stand structure as it relates to live
and dead fuel loading and ladder fuels.
Reducing crown density and both
ladder fuels and surface fuels is
essential to effectively change fire
behavior. Reducing surface fuels and
ladder fuels reduces the likelihood of
crown scorch and crown ignition. The
theoretical basis for changing fuel
structure to reduce fire hazard is well
established.
The theoretical benefits of fuel
manipulation are supported by real
world reviews of wildfires and their
interaction with fuel treatment areas.
Fuel treatments similar to those
proposed on this project have also been
demonstrated to be effective in recent
research conducted on post-fire
vegetation on the Angora and Cone Fires
completed by the U.S. Forest Service.
Results from a recent study on the
effectiveness of pre-fire fuel treatments
for several wildfires that burned in 2003
and 2004, including the Power Fire on
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the Eldorado National Forest further
validate the use of a combination of
canopy thinning and surface fuel
treatments. Studies have demonstrated
that the treatment of surface fuels alone
is generally effective in altering fire
severity; however, treatments that
included canopy thinning followed by
surface fuel treatment were found to be
the most effective at reducing canopy
scorch and tree mortality. Additionally,
the effectiveness of treatments that
reduced both canopy and surface fuels
were found to increase with weather
severity, i.e., the more extreme the fire
conditions, the more valuable fuels
treatments proved to be.
Reviews have pointed out that
thinning treatments that are followed by
reduction of surface fuels can
significantly limit fire spread under
wildfire conditions. Current research
demonstrates the potential of fuel
treatments to reduce large fire growth.
Fuel treatments are most effective when
the spatial arrangement of the treatment
units is considered and planned for. The
Big Grizzly project has been developed
on the basis of anticipated treatment
effectiveness and spatial arrangement of
proposed treatment areas. Treatments
within Strategically Placed Landscape
Treatment Areas (SPLATs) can increase
the effectiveness of fire suppression
efforts, and substantially decrease the
risk to life and property. This project
would directly reduce the threat of
catastrophic wildfire to multiple
resources within and adjacent to the
project area. In addition to
implementing a spatial design for the
project that might be optimal for
reducing fire spread, the Big Grizzly
Project has also been developed based
on the historical ecological processes
and landscape patterns within the
project area.
Treatments are not intended to
specifically facilitate fire suppression
efforts. The focus of fuels treatments is
to improve the ability of treated stands
to withstand the adverse effects of
future fires. However, safe and effective
initial attack by hand crews and engine
modules, the initial attack forces of the
Georgetown Ranger District, is
imperative due to current wildfire
policy for the project area and air
quality restrictions within the state
which require continued fire
suppression.
Selected plantations currently exhibit
a buildup of woody brush species such
as green leaf manzanita, deerbrush,
whitethorn, and bitter cherry. The
existing conditions of the plantations
include an average brush component 4–
10 feet in height with brush cover levels
of 30 to 100%. Currently, flame lengths
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices
from a wildland fire burning under the
90th percentile weather conditions
could easily make the transition from
surface fire into the crowns of the trees,
causing high mortality within
plantations and continued fire spread
into the surrounding forest stands.
The National Fire Plan and the
Cohesive Strategy, developed after the
severe wildfire season in 2000, provides
direction to the Forest Service to reduce
the amount of fuel in fire-prone forests
to protect people and sustain resources.
Additionally, the Record of Decision
(ROD) for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan
Amendment (SNFPA) sets priorities for
management activities that would
restore natural ecosystem processes
while minimizing the threat fire poses
to lives, structures, and resources
through site specific prescriptions
designed to modify fire intensity and
spread in treated areas.
(2) The second fundamental purpose
of this project is to also improve stand
vigor and resistance to disease and
insect mortality.
There is a need to improve the health
of trees within the project area by
removing unhealthy trees and reducing
stand density. Over-dense stands are
experiencing inter-tree competition for
resources and are at risk for high levels
of mortality in the near future. Some
stands within the project area are
already experiencing high levels of
mortality due to disease and insect
activity. Although some of the stands in
the project have been thinned and
salvage logged in the past, the
predominantly white fir stands are
expected to continue to decrease in
health and vigor over time due to
insects, annosus root rot, and other
disease pathogens. These stands will
continue moving farther from their
desired future condition as high levels
of mortality decrease canopy cover,
stocking, and growth at a stand level.
The project area is currently at risk
due to insect and disease related
mortality. Increased densities of trees,
higher levels of disease and insect
attack, and an accumulation of ground
and ladder fuels within stands indicate
unhealthy conditions. Denser stands,
such as those that have developed in the
project area, demand more water and
other limited resources. As a result,
over-dense stands are less resistant to
insect and disease-related attack,
especially during periods of extended
drought, which then increases the
potential for extreme fire behavior in the
area. Large areas of the landscape are
dominated by shade-tolerant, droughtand/or fire-intolerant species (white fir,
incense-cedar, and Douglas-fir). The
structure of the current forested
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Mar 10, 2009
Jkt 217001
landscape represents an unstable,
unsustainable, and therefore
undesirable departure from the historic
landscape for this area.
The SNFPA directs that prescriptions
for treatment areas address identified
needs to increase stand resistance to
mortality from insect and disease by
thinning densely stocked stands to
reduce competition and improve tree
vigor. Forest health specialists have
reviewed treatment areas and have
confirmed that insect and disease
pathogen activities within stands have
increased the risk of mortality due to
high stand density and current species
composition.
(3) A purpose of this project is also to
maintain and/or establish a composition
of tree species and size classes that are
closer to the historic conditions for the
area and correspondingly sustainable
into the future.
There is a need to apply the necessary
silvicultural and fuels reduction
treatments to accelerate the
development of key habitat and old
forest characteristics, increase stand
heterogeneity, restore pine, and to
promote hardwoods. The project area is
characteristic of much of the mixedconifer zone of the Sierra Nevada with
few or no stands remaining that can be
described as natural. To various degrees
the forest has been changed from one
dominated by large, old, widely spaced
trees to one with dense, fairly even-aged
stands with most of the larger trees
between 80 and 100 years old. This is
an unstable, unsustainable forest that is
susceptible to drought-induced
mortality, bark beetle infestation, and
severe wildfire.
Many of the stands within the Big
Grizzly project area have been type
converted from pine to white fir through
natural mortality and the selective
logging of pine. Rather than attempt to
restore the stands to a specific point in
history, there is a need to restore a forest
structure that is more resilient to
drought, insect and disease pathogens,
and wildfire. As discussed above, as a
result of the current species
composition and risk from fire, insect
and disease pathogens, these stands are
not sustainable. Proposed treatments
would promote shade intolerant pines
and hardwoods while decreasing the
amount of shade tolerant white fir and
incense cedar, thereby moving stands
closer to a more sustainable species
composition.
Reduced competition would enable
trees to grow larger more quickly,
thereby providing greater numbers of
large trees and snags for the future.
Treatment would also reduce the risk of
fire related mortality to large trees that
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10531
are currently within the units,
maintaining the valuable structure they
provide within the stand.
There is a need to control spacing and
species composition in the plantations
to accelerate the development of old
forest characteristics. While the
plantations do not currently have the
structure that would allow them to
function as old forest habitat, since they
consist primarily of young ponderosa
pine, they provide important reservoirs
of pine within the landscape. Thinning
in plantations and natural stands would
facilitate tree growth allowing stands to
more rapidly develop large trees, and
increase the probability that these
stands would survive into the future.
These stands could then be managed to
ensure the development of additional
components of structure for old forest
dependent species.
(4) A purpose of the project is to treat
hazard fuels in a cost-effective manner
to maximize program effectiveness.
There is a need for this project to be
cost effective so that the maximum
benefit can be achieved through the
work performed. The SNFPA provides
direction to design area treatments that
are economically efficient where
consistent with desired conditions,
using wood by-products from overdense stands to offset the cost of fuels
treatments. The removal of commercial
sized trees would partially offset the
substantial costs associated with the
expensive investment components of
this project, including the treatment of
surface fuels, cutting and removal of the
non-commercial ladder fuels,
mastication and herbicide treatments.
Proposed Action
To move stands toward the Desired
Future Condition for the various land
allocations as described in the Record of
Decision for the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for the
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment
dated 1/21/2004, the Proposed Action
includes a combination of fuels
reduction and forest health
improvement actions. Silvicultural
treatments for each stand were chosen
for their ability to meet the stated
purpose and need. The focus of each
treatment is based on the desired quality
of each treatment area after management
rather than the quantity or quality of the
products removed from each area. In
fact, some treatment would not remove
forest products.
• Approximately 3,200 acres are
proposed to be treated using understory
thinning involving the cutting and
removal of both commercial and noncommercial size trees. Follow-up
mastication or tractor piling and pile
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
10532
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices
burning would occur shortly after the
thinning is completed. Follow up
prescribed burning would occur
approximately 2–7 years after the pile
burning is completed.
• Approximately 900 additional acres
are proposed for stand improvement
cutting for forest health through the
removal of suppressed and dying trees.
In order to facilitate the restoration of
pine species to stands, the creation of
gaps of up to 3 acres in size is proposed
within these 900 acres of stand
treatments. Gap establishment would be
accomplished through the harvesting of
white fir trees and conifer trees of other
species that are within; and
immediately adjacent to selected,
existing canopy gaps that are currently
greater than 1/2 acre in size and that are
expanding due to root rot. Healthy pine
trees would be specifically retained
within the selected gaps. The selected
gaps would have the slash tractor piled
and then the gaps would be planted
with ponderosa pine, sugar pine and
Douglas-fir at a 12x12 foot spacing. At
the time of planting, the planted
seedlings would be released from
competing vegetation by hand scalping.
A follow-up ground based application of
herbicide would occur within the gaps
within 1–5 years to control competing
vegetation. Gaps would be established
on 10–30% of the acres in any given
stand. Planting of pine within these
gaps would move the stands toward
their desired future, thereby moving the
stand structure and composition to a
more resilient condition.
• Units 3 18–1, 320–43, 320–67, and
320–7 1, approximately 900 acres,
would require a non-significant forest
plan amendment because the proposed
activities would reduce the canopy
cover below 40 percent. The
amendment is necessary to meet forest
health objectives of minimizing the
impact of Heterobasidion annosum, the
most important disease found in the
project area.
• The proposal also includes
precommercial thinning and
mastication of approximately 120 acres
of <50-year old plantations, mastication
with follow-up ground based
application of herbicide on
approximately 1,100 acres of 15–30 year
old plantations, and mastication with
follow-up ground based application of
herbicide on approximately 75 acres of
47 year old plantation currently located
within the project area. These
treatments would reduce future fuel
loading, alter the vegetative structure to
reduce the risk of loss to wildland fire,
improve forest health by reducing
susceptibility to insect and disease
pathogens, and create conditions that
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Mar 10, 2009
Jkt 217001
accelerate the development of old forest
characteristics.
• Prescribed burning as the only
treatment is proposed on approximately
800 acres of the project area to reduce
the amount of ground fuels between
thinning units thereby making the
proposed thinning treatments more
effective.
• Approximately 1 mile of road
construction and approximately 15
miles of road reconstruction is
estimated to be necessary to facilitate
accessibility to perform proposed fuel
and forest health treatments.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The decision to be made is whether to
adopt and implement the proposed
action, an alternative to the proposed
action, or take no action to improve
forest health, and to reduce fuels.
Other alternatives would be
developed if significant issues are
identified during the scoping process for
the environmental impact statement. All
alternatives will need to respond to the
specific condition of providing benefits
equal to or better than the current
condition.
Scoping Process
Public participation will be especially
important at several points during the
analysis. The Forest Service will be
seeking information, comments, and
assistance from Federal, State, and local
agencies and other individuals or
organizations that may be interested in
or affected by the proposed action. To
facilitate public participation,
information about the proposed action
will be mailed to all who express
interest in the Proposed Action.
Comments submitted during the
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.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the
scoping process which guides the
development of the environmental
impact statement.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
NIRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also,
environmental objections that could be
raised at the draft environmental impact
statement stage, but that axe 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.)
Ramiro Villalvazo, Forest Supervisor,
Eldorado National Forest is the
responsible official. As the responsible
official he will document the decision
and reasons for the decision in the
Record of Decision. That decision will
be subject to Forest Service appeal
regulations (36 CFR part 215).
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices
Dated: January 27, 2009.
Ramiro Villalvazo,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E9–5019 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am]
toll-free request line at 1–866–705–5711
or online at https://fedgov.dnb.com/
webform. Submit completed paper
applications to the Rural Development
State Office in the State in which the
applicant’s principal office is located.
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Development Rural Energy
Coordinators
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Note: Telephone numbers listed are not
toll-free.
Notice of Solicitation of Applications
(NOSA) for Inviting Applications for
Energy Audits and Renewable Energy
Development Assistance Under the
Rural Energy for America Program
Rural Business-Cooperative
Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Mar 10, 2009
Jkt 217001
Quinton Harris, USDA Rural Development,
Sterling Centre, Suite 601, 4121
Carmichael Road, Montgomery, AL 36106–
3683, (334) 279–3623,
Quinton.Harris@al.usda.gov.
Alaska
This notice announces the
request for grant applications from units
of State, tribal or local government,
land-grant colleges, universities, or
other institutions of higher education
(including 1994 Land Grant (Tribal
Colleges) and 1890 Land Grant Colleges
and Historically Black Universities),
rural electric cooperatives, and public
power entities to provide energy audits
and renewable energy development
assistance for agricultural producers and
rural small businesses. The Agency
intends to publish a proposed rule for
future submissions that will amend the
Rural Energy for America portion of the
Rural Development Grants regulation,
published October 15, 2008 [73 FR
61198], at 7 CFR part 5002, for energy
audits and renewable energy
development assistance projects in
calendar year 2009.
DATES: Applications for grants must be
submitted on paper or electronically no
later than 4:30 p.m., local time on June
9, 2009. Neither complete nor
incomplete applications received after
this date and time will be considered,
regardless of the postmark on the
application.
The comment period for information
collection under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 continues
through May 11, 2009. Comments on the
paper work burden must be received by
this date to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Application materials may
be obtained by contacting one of Rural
Development’s Rural Energy
Coordinators or by downloading
through https://www.grants.gov.
Submit electronic applications at
https://www.grants.gov, following the
instructions found on this Web site. To
use Grants.gov, all applicants must have
a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal
Numbering System (DUNS) number,
which can be obtained at no cost via a
SUMMARY:
Alabama
10533
Guam (See Hawaii)
Hawaii/Guam/Republic of Palau/Federated
States of Micronesia/Republic of the Marshall
Islands/America Samoa/Commonwealth of
the Northern Marianas Islands-CNMI
Tim O’Connell, USDA Rural Development,
Federal Building, Room 311, 154
Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720, (808)
933–8313, Tim.Oconnell@hi.usda.gov.
Idaho
Brian Buch, USDA Rural Development, 9173
W. Barnes Drive, Suite A1, Boise, ID 83709,
(208) 378–5623, Brian.Buch@id.usda.gov.
Illinois
Molly Hammond, USDA Rural Development,
2118 West Park Court, Suite A, Champaign,
IL 61821, (217) 403–6210,
Molly.Hammond@il.usda.gov.
Dean Stewart, USDA Rural Development, 800
West Evergreen, Suite 201, Palmer, AK
99645–6539, (907) 761–7722,
dean.stewart@ak.usda.gov.
Indiana
American Samoa (See Hawaii)
Iowa
Arizona
Alan Watt, USDA Rural Development, 230
North First Avenue, Suite 206, Phoenix,
AZ 85003–1706, (602) 280–8769,
Alan.Watt@az.usda.gov.
Arkansas
Tim Smith, USDA Rural Development, 700
West Capitol Avenue, Room 3416, Little
Rock, AR 72201–3225, (501) 301–3280,
Tim.Smith@ar.usda.gov.
California
Philip Brown, USDA Rural Development, 430
G Street, #4169, Davis, CA 95616, (530)
792–5811, Philip.brown@ca.usda.gov.
Colorado
April Dahlager, USDA Rural Development,
655 Parfet Street, Room E–100, Lakewood,
CO 80215, (720) 544–2909,
april.dahlager@co.usda.gov.
Jerry Hay, USDA Rural Development, 2411 N.
1250 W., Deputy, IN 47230, (812) 873–
1100, Jerry.Hay@in.usda.gov.
Teresa Bomhoff, USDA Rural Development,
873 Federal Building, 210 Walnut Street,
Des Moines, IA 50309, (515) 284–4447,
teresa.bomhoff@ia.usda.gov.
Kansas
David Kramer, USDA Rural Development,
1303 SW First American Place, Suite 100,
Topeka, KS 66604–4040, (785) 271–2744,
david.kramer@ks.usda.gov.
Kentucky
Scott Maas, USDA Rural Development, 771
Corporate Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, KY
40503, (859) 224–7435,
scott.maas@ky.usda.gov.
Louisiana
Kevin Boone, USDA Rural Development, 905
Jefferson Street, Suite 320, Lafayette, LA
70501, (337) 262–6601, Ext. 133,
Kevin.Boone@la.usda.gov.
Maine
Connecticut (See Massachusetts)
John F. Sheehan, USDA Rural Development,
967 Illinois Avenue, Suite 4, P.O. Box 405,
Bangor, ME 04402–0405, (207) 990–9168,
john.sheehan@me.usda.gov.
Delaware/Maryland
Maryland (See Delaware)
Bruce Weaver, USDA Rural Development,
1221 College Park Drive, Suite 200, Dover,
DE 19904, (302) 857–3626,
Bruce.Weaver@de.usda.gov.
Massachusetts/Rhode Island/Connecticut
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands—CNMI (See Hawaii)
Federated States of Micronesia (See Hawaii)
Charles W. Dubuc, USDA Rural
Development, 451 West Street, Suite 2,
Amherst, MA 01002, (401) 826–0842 X
306, Charles.Dubuc@ma.usda.gov.
Michigan
Florida/Virgin Islands
Joe Mueller, USDA Rural Development, 4440
NW. 25th Place, Gainesville, FL 32606,
(352) 338–3482, joe.mueller@fl.usda.gov.
Traci J. Smith, USDA Rural Development,
3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 200, East
Lansing, MI 48823, (517) 324–5157,
Traci.Smith@mi.usda.gov.
Georgia
Minnesota
J. Craig Scroggs, USDA Rural Development,
111 E. Spring St., Suite B, Monroe, GA
30655, Phone 770–267–1413 ext. 113,
craig.scroggs@ga.usda.gov.
Lisa L. Noty, USDA Rural Development, 1400
West Main Street, Albert Lea, MN 56007,
(507) 373–7960 Ext. 120,
lisa.noty@mn.usda.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10529-10533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5019]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Big Grizzly Fuels Reduction and Forest Health Project, Eldorado
National Forest, Placer County, CA
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest will
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a proposal to treat
approximately 6,200 acres of National Forest System land for fuels
reduction and forest health objectives. The project area is situated on
the Georgetown Ranger District approximately 15 air-miles northeast of
Georgetown, CA in the vicinity of Nevada Point Ridge, Devils Peak and
Bear Springs. The intent of this project is to reduce potential fire
hazard within the project area, to provide for increased resilience
when a wildfire occurs within the project area, to provide for improved
forest health, and to increase the rate of development of old forest
characteristics. The Proposed Action consists of commercial and
precommercial tree thinning with follow-up tractor piling or
mastication; mastication of select, existing plantations with a follow-
up treatment of herbicides to reduce brush competition and fuel
buildup; the planting of conifers in expanded canopy gaps with a
follow-up treatment of herbicide; and prescribed burning. Silvicultural
treatments for each stand were chosen for their ability to meet the
stated purpose and need. The focus of each treatment is based on the
desired quality of each treatment area after management rather than the
quantity or quality of the products removed from each area. In fact,
some treatments would not remove forest products. Approximately 15
miles of native surface road reconstruction and 1 mile of new road
construction are proposed in order to facilitate the treatment
activities. The land allocations within the treatment areas, as
identified in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final
Supplemental EIS (SNFPA FSEIS), are general forest, spotted owl home
range core areas, old-forest, and riparian
[[Page 10530]]
conservation areas adjacent to perennial, seasonal, and ephemeral
streams.
The purpose of the project is: (1) To change existing forest
surface, ladder and crown fuel profiles in order to reduce potential
wildfire intensity and behavior to mitigate the consequences of large,
potentially damaging wildfires on selected forested areas; (2) to
improve stand vigor and resistance to disease and insect mortality; (3)
maintain and/or establish a composition of tree species and size
classes that are closer to the historic levels for the area, and
correspondingly sustainable into the future; and (4) to treat hazard
fuels in a cost-effective manner to maximize program effectiveness.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received
within 30 days of the publication of this Notice of Intent in the
Federal Register. The draft environmental impact statement is expected
in May 2009 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in
October 2009.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Ramiro Villalvazo, Forest
Supervisor, Eldorado National Forest, 7600 Wentworth Springs Rd.,
Georgetown, CA 95634 Attention: Big Grizzly Fuels Reduction and Forest
Health Project.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Walsh, Project Leader, Georgetown
Ranger District, 7600 Wentworth Springs Rd, Georgetown, CA 95634, or by
telephone at 530-333-4312.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose and Need for Action
(1) The primary purpose of the project is to change existing forest
surface, ladder and crown fuel profiles in order to reduce potential
wildfire intensity and behavior to mitigate the consequences of large,
potentially damaging wildfires on selected forested areas.
There is a need to change potential fire behavior during weather
conditions that produce wildfire behavior with extreme fire intensity
and severity across a large portion of the landscape. The fuels
conditions within the project area make the area prone to the risk of a
stand-replacing catastrophic wildfire. The risk of losing key ecosystem
components in this area is high. Treatments are needed that would be
effective in terms reducing potential wildfire damage to intrinsic,
forest related resources. Within the vicinity of the Big Grizzly
project, lightning, dispersed recreation use, off-highway vehicle use,
and traffic on the Eleven Pines and Nevada Point Ridge Roads are
potential sources of wildfire ignition.
The effects of the Eldorado National Forest's Cleveland Fire
(23,000 acres), Icehouse Fire (18,000 acres), Wrights Fire (8,000
acres), Star Fire (17,000 acres) Fred Fire (7,700 acres), Power Fire
(16,800 acres), and numerous other large, wetland fires in California
and across the western United States emphasize the desirability and the
urgency of managing forest stands to reduce the likelihood of
catastrophic wildfire. In the absence of fuel reductions it is likely
that wildfire would determine the future landscape, threatening lives
and property.
Forests in this area were historically subject to frequent low
intensity fires that resulted in open, fire-resistant stands of trees.
Multiple decades of fire exclusion, grazing by domestic livestock,
previous stand replacing wildfire, mining, and historic logging
practices, including selective logging of large pines and lack of
follow-up slash treatment, have contributed to altered fire regimes,
heavy fuel loadings, and changed vegetation composition and structure.
As a result, the number, size, and intensity of wildfires have been
altered from their historical range.
By itself prescribed fire would be difficult to apply in the
majority of the project area due to the fuel accumulation, changes in
stand structure, and operation limitations in its use. Mechanical
treatments can be effective tools to modify stand structure and
influence subsequent fire severity and extent. In many stands
mechanical thinning followed by prescribed fire is necessary to achieve
forest resilience much faster than with prescribed fire alone.
Fire behavior is strongly influenced by stand structure as it
relates to live and dead fuel loading and ladder fuels. Reducing crown
density and both ladder fuels and surface fuels is essential to
effectively change fire behavior. Reducing surface fuels and ladder
fuels reduces the likelihood of crown scorch and crown ignition. The
theoretical basis for changing fuel structure to reduce fire hazard is
well established.
The theoretical benefits of fuel manipulation are supported by real
world reviews of wildfires and their interaction with fuel treatment
areas. Fuel treatments similar to those proposed on this project have
also been demonstrated to be effective in recent research conducted on
post-fire vegetation on the Angora and Cone Fires completed by the U.S.
Forest Service. Results from a recent study on the effectiveness of
pre-fire fuel treatments for several wildfires that burned in 2003 and
2004, including the Power Fire on the Eldorado National Forest further
validate the use of a combination of canopy thinning and surface fuel
treatments. Studies have demonstrated that the treatment of surface
fuels alone is generally effective in altering fire severity; however,
treatments that included canopy thinning followed by surface fuel
treatment were found to be the most effective at reducing canopy scorch
and tree mortality. Additionally, the effectiveness of treatments that
reduced both canopy and surface fuels were found to increase with
weather severity, i.e., the more extreme the fire conditions, the more
valuable fuels treatments proved to be.
Reviews have pointed out that thinning treatments that are followed
by reduction of surface fuels can significantly limit fire spread under
wildfire conditions. Current research demonstrates the potential of
fuel treatments to reduce large fire growth. Fuel treatments are most
effective when the spatial arrangement of the treatment units is
considered and planned for. The Big Grizzly project has been developed
on the basis of anticipated treatment effectiveness and spatial
arrangement of proposed treatment areas. Treatments within
Strategically Placed Landscape Treatment Areas (SPLATs) can increase
the effectiveness of fire suppression efforts, and substantially
decrease the risk to life and property. This project would directly
reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire to multiple resources within
and adjacent to the project area. In addition to implementing a spatial
design for the project that might be optimal for reducing fire spread,
the Big Grizzly Project has also been developed based on the historical
ecological processes and landscape patterns within the project area.
Treatments are not intended to specifically facilitate fire
suppression efforts. The focus of fuels treatments is to improve the
ability of treated stands to withstand the adverse effects of future
fires. However, safe and effective initial attack by hand crews and
engine modules, the initial attack forces of the Georgetown Ranger
District, is imperative due to current wildfire policy for the project
area and air quality restrictions within the state which require
continued fire suppression.
Selected plantations currently exhibit a buildup of woody brush
species such as green leaf manzanita, deerbrush, whitethorn, and bitter
cherry. The existing conditions of the plantations include an average
brush component 4-10 feet in height with brush cover levels of 30 to
100%. Currently, flame lengths
[[Page 10531]]
from a wildland fire burning under the 90th percentile weather
conditions could easily make the transition from surface fire into the
crowns of the trees, causing high mortality within plantations and
continued fire spread into the surrounding forest stands.
The National Fire Plan and the Cohesive Strategy, developed after
the severe wildfire season in 2000, provides direction to the Forest
Service to reduce the amount of fuel in fire-prone forests to protect
people and sustain resources. Additionally, the Record of Decision
(ROD) for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) sets
priorities for management activities that would restore natural
ecosystem processes while minimizing the threat fire poses to lives,
structures, and resources through site specific prescriptions designed
to modify fire intensity and spread in treated areas.
(2) The second fundamental purpose of this project is to also
improve stand vigor and resistance to disease and insect mortality.
There is a need to improve the health of trees within the project
area by removing unhealthy trees and reducing stand density. Over-dense
stands are experiencing inter-tree competition for resources and are at
risk for high levels of mortality in the near future. Some stands
within the project area are already experiencing high levels of
mortality due to disease and insect activity. Although some of the
stands in the project have been thinned and salvage logged in the past,
the predominantly white fir stands are expected to continue to decrease
in health and vigor over time due to insects, annosus root rot, and
other disease pathogens. These stands will continue moving farther from
their desired future condition as high levels of mortality decrease
canopy cover, stocking, and growth at a stand level.
The project area is currently at risk due to insect and disease
related mortality. Increased densities of trees, higher levels of
disease and insect attack, and an accumulation of ground and ladder
fuels within stands indicate unhealthy conditions. Denser stands, such
as those that have developed in the project area, demand more water and
other limited resources. As a result, over-dense stands are less
resistant to insect and disease-related attack, especially during
periods of extended drought, which then increases the potential for
extreme fire behavior in the area. Large areas of the landscape are
dominated by shade-tolerant, drought-and/or fire-intolerant species
(white fir, incense-cedar, and Douglas-fir). The structure of the
current forested landscape represents an unstable, unsustainable, and
therefore undesirable departure from the historic landscape for this
area.
The SNFPA directs that prescriptions for treatment areas address
identified needs to increase stand resistance to mortality from insect
and disease by thinning densely stocked stands to reduce competition
and improve tree vigor. Forest health specialists have reviewed
treatment areas and have confirmed that insect and disease pathogen
activities within stands have increased the risk of mortality due to
high stand density and current species composition.
(3) A purpose of this project is also to maintain and/or establish
a composition of tree species and size classes that are closer to the
historic conditions for the area and correspondingly sustainable into
the future.
There is a need to apply the necessary silvicultural and fuels
reduction treatments to accelerate the development of key habitat and
old forest characteristics, increase stand heterogeneity, restore pine,
and to promote hardwoods. The project area is characteristic of much of
the mixed-conifer zone of the Sierra Nevada with few or no stands
remaining that can be described as natural. To various degrees the
forest has been changed from one dominated by large, old, widely spaced
trees to one with dense, fairly even-aged stands with most of the
larger trees between 80 and 100 years old. This is an unstable,
unsustainable forest that is susceptible to drought-induced mortality,
bark beetle infestation, and severe wildfire.
Many of the stands within the Big Grizzly project area have been
type converted from pine to white fir through natural mortality and the
selective logging of pine. Rather than attempt to restore the stands to
a specific point in history, there is a need to restore a forest
structure that is more resilient to drought, insect and disease
pathogens, and wildfire. As discussed above, as a result of the current
species composition and risk from fire, insect and disease pathogens,
these stands are not sustainable. Proposed treatments would promote
shade intolerant pines and hardwoods while decreasing the amount of
shade tolerant white fir and incense cedar, thereby moving stands
closer to a more sustainable species composition.
Reduced competition would enable trees to grow larger more quickly,
thereby providing greater numbers of large trees and snags for the
future. Treatment would also reduce the risk of fire related mortality
to large trees that are currently within the units, maintaining the
valuable structure they provide within the stand.
There is a need to control spacing and species composition in the
plantations to accelerate the development of old forest
characteristics. While the plantations do not currently have the
structure that would allow them to function as old forest habitat,
since they consist primarily of young ponderosa pine, they provide
important reservoirs of pine within the landscape. Thinning in
plantations and natural stands would facilitate tree growth allowing
stands to more rapidly develop large trees, and increase the
probability that these stands would survive into the future. These
stands could then be managed to ensure the development of additional
components of structure for old forest dependent species.
(4) A purpose of the project is to treat hazard fuels in a cost-
effective manner to maximize program effectiveness.
There is a need for this project to be cost effective so that the
maximum benefit can be achieved through the work performed. The SNFPA
provides direction to design area treatments that are economically
efficient where consistent with desired conditions, using wood by-
products from over-dense stands to offset the cost of fuels treatments.
The removal of commercial sized trees would partially offset the
substantial costs associated with the expensive investment components
of this project, including the treatment of surface fuels, cutting and
removal of the non-commercial ladder fuels, mastication and herbicide
treatments.
Proposed Action
To move stands toward the Desired Future Condition for the various
land allocations as described in the Record of Decision for the Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Sierra Nevada
Forest Plan Amendment dated 1/21/2004, the Proposed Action includes a
combination of fuels reduction and forest health improvement actions.
Silvicultural treatments for each stand were chosen for their ability
to meet the stated purpose and need. The focus of each treatment is
based on the desired quality of each treatment area after management
rather than the quantity or quality of the products removed from each
area. In fact, some treatment would not remove forest products.
Approximately 3,200 acres are proposed to be treated using
understory thinning involving the cutting and removal of both
commercial and non-commercial size trees. Follow-up mastication or
tractor piling and pile
[[Page 10532]]
burning would occur shortly after the thinning is completed. Follow up
prescribed burning would occur approximately 2-7 years after the pile
burning is completed.
Approximately 900 additional acres are proposed for stand
improvement cutting for forest health through the removal of suppressed
and dying trees. In order to facilitate the restoration of pine species
to stands, the creation of gaps of up to 3 acres in size is proposed
within these 900 acres of stand treatments. Gap establishment would be
accomplished through the harvesting of white fir trees and conifer
trees of other species that are within; and immediately adjacent to
selected, existing canopy gaps that are currently greater than 1/2 acre
in size and that are expanding due to root rot. Healthy pine trees
would be specifically retained within the selected gaps. The selected
gaps would have the slash tractor piled and then the gaps would be
planted with ponderosa pine, sugar pine and Douglas-fir at a 12x12 foot
spacing. At the time of planting, the planted seedlings would be
released from competing vegetation by hand scalping. A follow-up ground
based application of herbicide would occur within the gaps within 1-5
years to control competing vegetation. Gaps would be established on 10-
30% of the acres in any given stand. Planting of pine within these gaps
would move the stands toward their desired future, thereby moving the
stand structure and composition to a more resilient condition.
Units 3 18-1, 320-43, 320-67, and 320-7 1, approximately
900 acres, would require a non-significant forest plan amendment
because the proposed activities would reduce the canopy cover below 40
percent. The amendment is necessary to meet forest health objectives of
minimizing the impact of Heterobasidion annosum, the most important
disease found in the project area.
The proposal also includes precommercial thinning and
mastication of approximately 120 acres of <50-year old plantations,
mastication with follow-up ground based application of herbicide on
approximately 1,100 acres of 15-30 year old plantations, and
mastication with follow-up ground based application of herbicide on
approximately 75 acres of 47 year old plantation currently located
within the project area. These treatments would reduce future fuel
loading, alter the vegetative structure to reduce the risk of loss to
wildland fire, improve forest health by reducing susceptibility to
insect and disease pathogens, and create conditions that accelerate the
development of old forest characteristics.
Prescribed burning as the only treatment is proposed on
approximately 800 acres of the project area to reduce the amount of
ground fuels between thinning units thereby making the proposed
thinning treatments more effective.
Approximately 1 mile of road construction and
approximately 15 miles of road reconstruction is estimated to be
necessary to facilitate accessibility to perform proposed fuel and
forest health treatments.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The decision to be made is whether to adopt and implement the
proposed action, an alternative to the proposed action, or take no
action to improve forest health, and to reduce fuels.
Other alternatives would be developed if significant issues are
identified during the scoping process for the environmental impact
statement. All alternatives will need to respond to the specific
condition of providing benefits equal to or better than the current
condition.
Scoping Process
Public participation will be especially important at several points
during the analysis. The Forest Service will be seeking information,
comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies and
other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or
affected by the proposed action. To facilitate public participation,
information about the proposed action will be mailed to all who express
interest in the Proposed Action.
Comments submitted during the 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.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides
the development of the environmental impact statement.
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. NIRDC, 435 U.S. 519,
553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the
draft environmental impact statement stage, but that axe 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.)
Ramiro Villalvazo, Forest Supervisor, Eldorado National Forest is
the responsible official. As the responsible official he will document
the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision.
That decision will be subject to Forest Service appeal regulations (36
CFR part 215).
[[Page 10533]]
Dated: January 27, 2009.
Ramiro Villalvazo,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E9-5019 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M