[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71088-71090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30017]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Lassen National Forest, California; Mineral Forest Recovery 
Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service intends to prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) to analyze and disclose the environmental effects of 
implementing resource management activities that include fuelbreak 
construction consisting of a strategic system of defensible fuel 
profile zones (DFPZs), group selection harvests, and riparian 
restoration projects on the Almanor Ranger District in the Lassen 
National Forest. These activities are part

[[Page 71089]]

of a 5-year pilot project to test and demonstrate the effectiveness of 
certain resource management activities designed to meet ecologic, 
economic, and fuel reduction objectives on the Lassen National Forest 
as well as on the Plumas National Forest and on the Sierraville Ranger 
District of the Tahoe National Forest. This notice applies only to the 
Lassen National Forest; however, all three National Forests were named 
in the Record of Decision (ROD, August 1999) for the Herger-Feinstein 
Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Forest Recovery Act Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (FEIS). The ROD amended the management direction in 
the Land and Resource Management Plans for these three National 
Forests. The need for the ROD and FEIS was generated from the Herger-
Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Forest Recovery Act (Act) of 
October 21, 1998.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing on or before December 29, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Susan Jeheber-Matthews, Almanor 
District Ranger, P.O. Box 767, Chester, CA, 96020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Lou Mini, Interdisciplinary Team 
Leader or Judy Welles, Interdisciplinary Team Silviculturist, 
telephone: (530) 258-2141.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Proposed Action

    To accomplish the purpose of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library 
Group (HFQLG) Forest Recovery Act, resource management activities 
included in the proposed Mineral Forest Recovery project and DFPZ 
construction, group selection harvests, and riparian restoration 
projects. The proposed project is located in Tehama County, California, 
within the Almanor Ranger District of the Lassen National Forest in all 
or portions of Sections 1-3, T.28N., R.3E., Sections 1-4, 9-15, 22-26, 
33-36, T.29N., R.3E., Sections 3, 4, 6-10, 15-21, 28, 29, 31-33, 
T.29N., R.4E., Sections 26, 27, 34-36, T.30N., R.3E., and Section 31, 
T.30N., R.4E., MDM.
    The Mineral Forest Recovery Project area is one of five sub 
networks established to implement a DFPZ network on the District. The 
purpose of DFPZs in this area is to reduce the number of acres that 
would be burned by high-intensity stand-replacing fires. DFPZs are 
needed in this area in order to improve suppression efficiency by 
creating an environment where wildfires would burn at lower intensities 
and where fire fighting production rates would be increased. DFPZs are 
strategically located strips of land on which forest fuels, both living 
and dead, have been modified in order to reduce the potential for a 
sustained crown fire and to allow fire suppression personnel a safer 
location from which to take action against a wildfire. Fuels treatment 
strategies would focus on the alteration or reduction of surface fuels, 
ladder fuels, and canopy closure in order to effectively alter fire 
behavior and severity. Treatment methods will include thinning timbered 
stands, hand or machine piling of excessive forest fuels, and 
prescribed fire. The Mineral Forest Recovery Project proposes to 
construct 3,700 acres of DFPZ's in the Mineral project area including 
an estimated 2,700 acres that would be thinned.
    Group selection harvests would be implemented to promote diversity 
in stand age and structure. Root disease centers of dwarf mistletoe 
infected areas would be targeted for group selection, as well as those 
stands that are even-aged in structure. Some understocked areas would 
also be regenerated using the group selection prescription. Group 
selection would be implemented on an estimated 550 acres within the 
Mineral Forest Recovery Project area. Fuels treatment would occur on 
460 acres within group selections.
    New construction of permanent and temporary roads would be needed 
to economically access stands requiring treatment for DFPZ and group 
selection harvest. Within the project area, 5.9 miles of permanent new 
road construction and 5.6 miles of temporary road construction would be 
implemented for this purpose. New construction of permanent roads would 
be added to the Forest transportation system. Temporary roads would be 
obliterated upon completion of use.
    Riparian restoration projects would include erosion control 
treatment on existing landings and skidtrails, and on eroding 
streambanks that are contributing sediment to the streams. Treatment of 
existing roads would be implemented as part of an overall riparian 
restoration strategy to reduce impacts caused by roads. Impacts include 
erosion and increased runoff from inadequately or poorly drained roads, 
especially those located close to streams and with poorly designed 
drainage structures and stream crossings. Road treatments would include 
road relocation (1.6 miles of new construction, all of which is 
included in the new construction mentioned above), reconstruction (9.8 
miles of existing roads for DFPZ and group selection access), and 
decommissioning (12.2 miles). Reconstruction activities would also 
include improvement or relocation of three existing in-channel water 
sources.

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.

Responsible Official and Lead Agency

    The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal. 
District Ranger Susan Jeheber-Matthews is the responsible official.

Tentative or Preliminary Issues and Possible Alternatives

    An anticipated public issue with the Mineral Forest Recovery 
Project is the proposal to implement resource management activities 
within suitable California spotted owl habitat. In order to fully test 
the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act on the 
Almanor Ranger District (e.g., implement contiguous DFPZs on the 
landscape), it is necessary to analyze and implement the resource 
management activities outlined in the Act within suitable habitat for 
the California spotted owl. The Mineral Forest Recovery Project 
proposed action includes projects within suitable habitat.
    The Record of Decision for the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library 
Group Forest Recovery Act FEIS stated that California spotted owl 
habitat would be avoided at the site-specific project level until a new 
California spotted owl habitat management strategy is released. The 
decision to implement resource management activities within suitable 
owl habitat in the Mineral Forest Recovery Project area will be based 
upon one or more of the following three actions:
    (1) A decision is made on the Sierra Nevada Conservation Framework 
(that would amend the Lassen NF Land and Resource Management Plan) that 
defines a new owl strategy and allows the implementation of resource 
management activities as outlined in the Act, or;
    (2) A new California spotted owl viability assessment is completed 
providing direction encompassing the species' range and the Lassen NF 
Land and Resource Management Plan is amended to include the new owl 
strategy, or;
    (3) A site-specific California spotted owl strategy would be 
developed and implemented for this project resulting in

[[Page 71090]]

a non-significant amendment to the Lassen NF Forest Plan.
    Alternatives currently being considered for the Mineral Forest 
Recovery Project include: (a) No action; (b) the proposed action as 
outlined above, and; (c) an alternative, based on the proposed action, 
that does not enter into suitable California spotted owl habitat.

 Public Involvement

    Comments from the public and other agencies will be used in 
preparation of the draft EIS. The scoping process will be used to 
identify questions and issues regarding the proposed action. An issue 
is defined as a point of dispute, debate, or disagreement relating 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 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.
    While public participation in this analysis is welcome at any time, 
comments received within 30 days of the publication of this notice will 
be especially useful in the preparation of the draft EIS.

Identification of Permits or Licenses Required

    No permits or licenses have been identified to implement the 
proposed action.

Estimated Dates for Filing

    The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency and available for public review in March 2001. The 
comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date of the 
Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability of 
the draft EIS in the Federal Register.

The Reviewers Obligation To Comment

    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 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 meaningful 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 Regulation of implementing the 
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 
CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

    Dated: November 16, 2000.
Edward C. Cole,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 00-30017 Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M