[Federal Register: November 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 211)]
[Notices]
[Page 66347-66348]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02no05-44]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Lassen National Forest, Hat Creek Ranger District, CA, North 49
Project Forest Health Recovery Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service proposes to develop a network of defensible
fuel profile zones (DFPZ's) and wildland urban interface zones (WUIs),
conduct area thinning, reduce surface fuels, establish group selection
harvest units, and restore remnant aspen stands on the Hat Creek Ranger
District in the Lassen National Forest. Treatments within DFPZs would
include 9,975 acres of forest and plantation thinning followed by
underburning and/or mechanical fuels reduction. Approximately 2,060
acres would be underburned only. Treatments outside of DFPZs would
include 3,660 acres of forest and plantation thinning followed by
underburning and/or mechanical fuels reduction to develop three WUIs. A
modified thinning prescription would be applied in some areas to
maintain wildlife habitat and structural diversity. An additional 95
acres of brushfield treatments would also be completed outside of
DFPZs. Group selection treatments would be implemented on 1,186 acres
across the project area and 49 acres of aspen would be restored.
Approximately 1.4 miles of new system roads and 0.7 miles of temporary
non-system roads would be constructed. Approximately 3.9 miles of roads
would be decommissioned. The project would be implemented through a
combination of commercial timber sales, service contracts, and force
account crews. These management activities were developed to implement
and be consistent with the Lassen National Forest (LNF) Land and
Resource Management Plan (LRMP, 1993), as amended by the Herger-
Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act FEIS, FSEIS, and
ROD's (1999, 2003), and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment FEIS
(2001) and FSEIS/ROD (2004).
Decision to be made: The decision to be made is whether to
implement the proposed action as described above, to meet the purpose
and need for action through some other combination of activities, or to
take no action at this time.
Scoping process: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis
should be received in writing within 15 days of the date of publication
of this Notice of Intent in the Federal Register.
The project was initially listed in the Forest's February 2004
quarterly edition of the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). Scoping
letters were sent in March 2004 to those who responded to the SOPA and
other identified interested and affected individuals and government
agencies. In the SOPA, the mode of environmental documentation was
predicted as an environmental assessment.
At this time, the environmental analysis will be documented in an
environmental impact statement. Since only minor changes are being made
to the proposed action that was previously scoped, the scoping period
at this time is brief. Those who responded during the March 2004
scoping period will be contacted again. In addition, scoping letters
previously received by the Forest Service from the first scoping period
will continue to be used for this process. A public scoping meeting is
not anticipated at this time.
The scoping process will be used to identify issues regarding the
proposed action. An issue is defined as a point of dispute, debate, or
disagreement related to a specific proposed action based on its
anticipated effects. Significant issues brought to our attention are
used during an environmental analysis to develop alternatives to the
proposed action. Some issues raised in scoping may be
[[Page 66348]]
considered non-significant because they are: (1) Beyond the scope of
the proposed action and its purpose and need; (2) already decided by
law, regulation, or the Land and Resource Management Plan; (3)
irrelevant to the decision to be made; or (4) conjectural and not
supported by scientific or factual evidence.
Alternatives: Alternatives proposed to date are the Proposed Action
as describe above and the No Action.
Identification of permits or licenses required: No permits or
licenses have been identified to implement the proposed action.
Lead, joint lead, and cooperating agencies: The USDA Forest Service
is the lead agency for this proposal; there are no cooperating
agencies.
Estimated dates for filing: The expected filing date with the
Environmental Protection Agency for the draft EIS March 6, 2006. The
expected filing date for the final EIS is July 24, 2006.
Person to which comments may be mailed: Comments may be submitted
to: District Ranger, Hat Creek Ranger District, at P.O. Box 220, Fall
River Mills, CA, 96028 or (530) 336-5758 (fax) during normal business
hours. The Hat Creek Ranger District business hours are from 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Electronic comments, in acceptable
plain text (.txt), rich text (.rtf), or Word (.doc) formats, may be
submitted to: comments-pacificsouthwest-lassen-hatcreek@fs.fed.us using
Subject: North 49 Forest Health Recovery Project.
Reviewer's obligation to comment: The comment period on the draft
EIS will be 49 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency
publishes the notice of availability of the draft EIS 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 statements must structure their participation in the
environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and
alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont
Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also
environmental objections that could be raised at the draft
environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until
after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be
waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d
1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490
F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings,
it is very important that those interested in this proposed action
participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that
substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest
Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to
them in the final environmental impact statement.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft
environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is
also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the
draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft
environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives
formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer
to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing
the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at
40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Stawiarski, Interdisciplinary
Team Leader, may be contacted by phone at (530) 336-5521 for more
information about the proposed action and the environmental impact
statement or at the Hat Creek Ranger District, P.O. Box 220, Fall River
Mills, CA 96028.
Responsible official and mailing address: Laurie Tippin, Forest
Supervisor, 2550 S. Riverside Drive, Susanville, CA 96130.
Dated: October 27, 2005.
Elizabeth Norton,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Lassen National Forest.
[FR Doc. 05-21798 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5410-99-M