[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72136-72138]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-30689]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Plumas and Lassen National Forests; California; Administrative 
Study 4202-02-01

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, Plumas and Lassen National Forests, 
in cooperation with the Pacific Southwest Research Station will prepare 
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to complete an 
administrative study on approximately 493,000 acres of National Forest 
System lands. The official title of the proposed administrative study 
is ``Fire and Fuels Management, Landscape Dynamics, and Fish and 
Wildlife Resources: Study Design for Integrated Research on the Plumas 
and Lassen National Forests.''
    Direction to undertake this administrative study is in the Regional 
Forester's Record of Decision (January 12, 2001) for the Sierra Nevada 
Forest Plan Amendment. In his decision, the Regional Forester directed 
the Forest Service and the Pacific Southwest Research Station to 
cooperatively design and implement a study to examine the relationship 
between management-caused changes in vegetation and their effects on 
spotted owl habitat and spotted owl population dynamics. The Regional 
Forester also directed that this study include group selection 
provisions of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group pilot project.
    To meet the Regional Forester's direction, the administrative study 
is designed to address four principal questions:
    1. Are specific combinations of defensible fuel profile zones 
(DFPZs) and subsequent area fuel treatments effective in reducing the 
extent and severity of wildlands fires? What are practical 
considerations and costs of constructing, maintaining, and using (for 
fire suppression) alternative combinations of fuel treatments? Are 
hypothesized fire management gains from these fuel treatment 
combinations (in the form of reduced property and resource losses, 
increased resource benefits from wildland fires, and increased 
suppression efficiencies) commensurate with the costs and potential 
adverse ecological impacts of the treatments?
    2. Is small group selection effective in promoting regeneration of 
shade-intolerant tree species; establishing desirable forest age, 
species, and size distributions at landscape scales; and providing 
sustainable levels of timber harvest?
    3. How does the combination of DFPZs, area treatments, group 
selection, riparian protection standards, and species-specific 
protection measures--collectively defined as a management regime--
affect landscape dynamics such as forest structure, composition, and 
succession at multiple scales of space and time?
    4. How will key species, such as California spotted owls and their 
prey, respond to changes in vegetation composition, structure, and 
distribution induced by different forest management regimes? How is 
change manifested at the individual or local population level and 
larger population scales?

DATES: Comments in response to this Notice of Intent concerning the 
scope of the analysis should be received in writing on or before 
February 3, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Forest Supervisor, Plumas National 
Forest, P.O. Box 11500, Quincy, CA 95971.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Matthews, Interdisciplinary 
Team Leader, Plumas National Forest, telephone (530) 283-5549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Proposed Action

    The proposed study encompasses eleven treatment units ranging in 
size from 45,000 to 79,000 acres (average size is 55,700 acres). The 
total area encompassed by the eleven treatment units is approximately 
613,000 acres (493,000 acres of National Forest and 120,000 acres of 
other ownership). Two of the treatment units are located on the Lassen 
National Forest and nine on the Plumas National Forest.
    The eleven treatment units (TUs) are divided into three treatment 
regimes (TRs) designed to reflect different levels of vegetative and 
fuels management and to create a range of forest conditions over the 
long term. TR-A proposes the least amount of activity and consists of 3 
TUs (total of 191,000 acres); TR-B proposes the next highest amount and 
intensity of management activity and consists 4 TUs (total of 198,000 
acres); and, TR-C proposes the greatest amount and intensity of 
management activity and consists of 4 TUs (total of 224,000 acres).
    Specifically, TR-A includes approximately 13,854 acres of proposed 
defensible fuels profile zones (DFPZ) and 30,175 acres of strategically 
placed area treatments (SPLAT) designed to reduce fuel levels across 
the landscape. An estimated 11 miles of system road

[[Page 72137]]

and 18 miles of temporary road would be constructed. Group selection is 
not proposed within TR-A. All activities proposed within TR-A would 
comply with current forest plan direction as amended by the Sierra 
Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.
    TR-B includes approximately 15,970 acres of DFPZ and 39,185 acres 
of SPLATs. In addition, TR-B includes approximately 3,833 acres of 
group selection designed as \1/2\-acre to 2-acre openings. An estimated 
37 miles of system road and 19 miles of temporary road would be 
constructed. TR-B also proposes approximately 23 miles of road to be 
decommissioned.
    TR-C includes approximately 19,055 acres of DFPZ and 46,439 acres 
of SPLATs. In addition, TR-C includes approximately 7,945 acres of 
group selection designed as \1/2\-acre to 2-acre openings. An estimated 
42 miles of system road and 34 miles of temporary road would be 
constructed. TR-C also proposes approximately 15 miles of road to be 
decommissioned.
    Both TR-B and TR-C include a project-specific, non-significant 
forest plan amendment for the proposed deviation from current diameter 
and canopy cover standards. These deviations are necessary to provide 
the contrast and minimum spread of effects between the various 
management regimes and to increase the chance of invoking a range of 
resource responses necessary to meet the research objectives.
    The proposed DFPZs and SPLATs are designed to harvest trees up to 
30 inches diameter-at-breast-height (DBH). Group selection within TR-B 
and TR-C proposes to harvest trees up to 32 inches DBH in seven 
treatment units and up to 34 inches DBH in one treatment unit. These 
diameters deviate from current, amended forest plan direction which 
allows for harvest of trees up to 12 inches (20 inches for operability) 
in old-forest emphasis areas and 20 inches in general forest areas.
    TR-B and TR-C also deviate from the current, amended forest plan 
standard that governs canopy cover. Current direction for areas where 
existing canopy cover exceeds 50% is that it not be reduced below 50%; 
also, where existing canopy is between 40% and 50%, no reduction is 
allowed. Under TR-B and TR-C, canopy cover would be reduced to a level 
less than 50% within the DFPZs and SPLATs. However, canopy cover would 
not be reduced below 40% across the treated landscape.
    Implementation is proposed to occur within a six-year period. Group 
selection and DFPZs would be implemented in the first three to four 
years with SPLATs implemented during the last 3 years. Monitoring of 
the effects of all activities would occur during each of the 
implementation years and beyond for an estimated 10 to 20-year period.

Decision To Be Made

    The decision to be made is whether to: (1) implement the proposed 
action, including the project-specific, non-significant forest plan 
amendment; (2) meet the purpose and need for action through some other 
combinations of activities; or (3) take no action at this time.

Lead Agency And Responsible Officials

    The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal. 
Responsible officials are James M. Pe[ntilde]a (Forest Supervisor, 
Plumas National Forest, P.O. Box 11500, Quincy, CA 95971) and Edward C. 
Cole (Forest Supervisor, Lassen National Forest, 2550 Riverside Drive, 
Susanville, CA 96130).

Tentative or Preliminary Issues and Possible Alternatives

    Alternatives being considered at this time include: (1) The 
proposed Action and (2) No Action. Other alternatives may be developed 
based on significant issues identified during the scoping process for 
this EIS. All alternatives would be expected to respond to the specific 
purpose and need and research objectives of the proposed administrative 
study.
    The scoping process for this analysis 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; 
and, (e) identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed 
action and alternatives. As part of the current scoping process, the 
Forest Service is 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.
    Public participation is especially important at several points 
throughout the analysis. To facilitate public participation, 
information about the proposed action is listed in the Plumas National 
Forest and the Lassen National Forest Quarterly Schedule of Proposed 
Actions. An information packet will be mailed to all who have expressed 
interest in the proposed action. Notification of the public scoping 
period will be published in the Feather River Bulletin, Quincy, CA, the 
Sacramento Bee, Sacramento, CA, and the Lassen County Times, 
Susanville, CA.
    Comments received 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 
individual has with the proposal. An issue is defined as a point of 
discussion, debate, or dispute regarding the proposed action or its 
environmental effects.

Identification of Permits or Licenses Required

    An Air Pollution Permit and a Smoke Management Plan are required by 
local agencies 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 2003. 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. At that time, copies of the 
draft EIS will be distributed to interested and affected agencies, 
organizations, and members of the public for review and comment. It is 
very important that those interested in the management of the Plumas 
and Lassen National Forests participate at that time. The record of 
decision and final EIS are expected to be published in early June, 
2003.

The Reviewer's 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 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 EIS stage, 
but are not raised until after completion of the final EIS, 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 the 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

[[Page 72138]]

when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final 
EIS.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS 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 EIS 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 
Regulation of implementing the procedural provisions of the National 
Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 
1909.15, Section 21)

    Dated: November 27, 2002.
James M. Pe[ntilde]a,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 02-30689 Filed 12-3-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M