[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 22, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2853-2854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-1444]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
 or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
 and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
 delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
 statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
 appearing in this section.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 22, 2002 / 
Notices  

[[Page 2853]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Lassen National Forest; California; Treatment Unit-1 Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service intends to prepare an environmental impact 
statement 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 and group selection harvests on the Almanor Ranger 
District on the Lassen National Forest. These land management 
activities would also be included in an administrative study to 
evaluate the effects that they may have on the California spotted owl. 
The construction of defensible fuel profile zones, and group selection 
harvests, are two management activities that are part of a five-year 
pilot project to test and demonstrate the effectiveness of certain 
resource management activities designed to meet ecologic, economic, and 
fuel reduction objectives described in the Herger-Feinstein Quincy 
Library Group Forest Recovery Act of October 21, 1998. The Record of 
Decision (January 12, 2001) for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 
Final Environmental Impact Statement directed the Pacific Southwest 
Research Station in collaboration with Region 5 monitoring personnel 
and the staffs of the National Forests in the Sierra Nevada to 
establish the Administrative Study. Treatment Unit-1 is one of eleven 
proposed administrative study areas.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing on, or before February 19, 2002.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dominic Cesmat, Interdisciplinary Team 
Leader, telephone: (530) 258-2141.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Proposed Action

    To accomplish the purpose of the administrative study, resource 
management activities included in the proposed Treatment Unit-1 Project 
are defensible fuel profile zone (DFPZ) construction, group selection 
harvests, the construction and maintenance of National Forest system 
roads, and the construction of temporary roads. The construction and 
maintenance of roads are needed to provide access to treatment areas. 
Road decommissioning of some system roads and all temporary roads would 
also be employed.
    The analysis area is located in the Butte Creek, Jonesville, 
Philbrook, and Soda Ridge Management Areas (MA 37, 44, 46, and 45 
respectively) on the Almanor Ranger District of the Lassen National 
Forest, and in the North Fork and Rich Management Areas (MA 19 and 20 
respectively) on the Plumas National Forest. The analysis area contains 
approximately 58,300 acres of National Forest System land and 
approximately 11,300 acres of private land.
    The proposed project is located in Butte, Plumas, and Tehama 
Counties, California. On the Almanor Range District of the Lassen 
National Forest, the project is located in all or portions of: Sections 
1-3, 10-15, T.25N., R.4E.; Sections 2-10, 15-18, 20, 21, T.25N., R.5E.; 
Sections 1-4, 10-14, 24, 25, 35, 36, T.26N., R.4E.; Sections 1-23, 26-
35, T.26N., R.5E.; Sections 1-11, 14-18, 20-27, 36, T.26N., R.6E.; 
Sections 6, 30, 31, T.26N., R.7E.; Sections 33-36, T.27N., R.4E.; 
Sections 10-36, T.27N., R.5E.; Sections 7, 14-36, T.27N., R.6E.; and 
Sections 30, 31, T.27N., R.7E., MDM. On the Mount Hough Ranger District 
of the Plumas National Forest, the project is located in all or 
portions of: Section 36, T.26N., R.6E.; and Section 31, T.26N., R.7E., 
MDM.
    The Treatment Unit-1 Project area contains two of the five sub 
networks established to implement a DFPZ network on the Almanor Ranger 
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 would include thinning timbered stands, hand or 
machine piling of excessive forest fuels, and prescribed fire. The 
Treatment Unit-1 Project proposes to construct 11,400 acres of DFPZs.
    Group selection harvests would be implemented to promote diversity 
in stand age and structure. Group selection would be implemented on an 
estimated 2,600 acres within the Treatment Unit-1 Project area.
    The proposed action includes constructing and maintaining National 
Forest system roads and constructing temporary roads to provide access 
to treatment areas. Road decommissioning of some system roads and all 
temporary roads would also be employed. Some existing roads would be 
used to access treatment areas before decommissioning. Approximately up 
to eight water sources would be developed. These road treatments would 
include (road miles are approximate): (a) New road construction (24 
miles); (b) road maintenance (13 miles); (c) temporary road 
construction (4 miles); and (d) road decommissioning (13 miles).

Decision To Be Made

    The decision to be made is whether to: (1) Implement the proposed 
action; (2) to meet the purpose and need for action through some other 
combination of activities; or (3) take no action at this time.
    The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact 
Statement Record of Decision provides for variances from the standards 
and guidelines in the Land and Resource Management Plan to test 
hypotheses in a scientifically structured manner as long as they were a 
part of

[[Page 2854]]

a formal adaptive management research project or administrative study, 
done in conjunction with the Pacific Southwest Research Station. The 
proposed actions as outlined for this project are in conjunction with 
the Lassen/Plumas Administrative Study and are therefore permissible 
without further plan amendment. These variances are needed to present 
additional contrast necessary for the Study, to increase the chance of 
invoking a range of response, and to describe a land base suitable for 
group selection. Variances include adjusting diameter and canopy cover 
limits as identified in the Study and to adjust HFQLG area available 
for group selection as identified in the Study.

Responsible Official and Lead Agency

    The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal. 
Forest Supervisor Ed Cole is the responsible official.

Tentative or Preliminary Issues and Possible Alternatives

    Comments from the public and other agencies will be used in 
preparation of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). 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 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 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

    The need for several road easements, both permanent and temporary, 
has 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 the spring or 
summer of 2002. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days 
from the date 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 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 Regulation of implementing the 
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 
CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

    Dated: January 10, 2002.
Edward C. Cole,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 02-1444 Filed 1-18-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M