[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 164 (Thursday, August 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49907-49909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16898]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Plumas National Forest; Beckwourth Ranger District, California; 
Freeman Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

[[Page 49908]]


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

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

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest will prepare 
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to reduce hazardous fuels, 
improve forest health, improve bald eagle habitat, cost effectively 
support the local communities, improve aspen stands, provide access 
needed to meet other project objectives and reduce transportation 
system impacts on the west side of Lake Davis near Portola, CA.

DATES: Although comments will be accepted throughout any phase of this 
project, it would be most helpful if comments on the scope of the 
analysis were received within 30 days of the date of publication of 
this notice of intent in the Federal Register. The draft EIS is 
expected in April 2006 and the final EIS is expected in August 2006.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Robert Mac Whorter, Plumas National 
Forest, PO Box 11500, Quincy, CA 95971; fax: (530) 283-7746. Comments 
may be: (1) Mailed to the Responsible Official; (2) hand-delivered 
between the hours of 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m. weekdays Pacific time; (3) faxed 
to (530) 283-7746; or (4) electronically mailed to: [email protected]. Comments submitted electronically 
must be in Rich Text Format (.rtf).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sabrina Stadler, Interdisciplinary 
Team Leader, Plumas National Forest, Beckwourth Ranger District, P.O. 
Box 7, Blairsden, CA 96103, (530) 836-2575.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Project Location

    The project area is located north of Portola and west of Lake 
Davis, in the Beckwourth Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest. 
It is within all or parts of T23N, R12E; T23N, R13E; T24N, R12E; T24N, 
R13E.

Purpose and Need for Action

    The effects of several vegetation management projects will be 
analyzed in this EIS. The need for and purpose of the project has six 
elements: to reduce hazardous fuels in the wildland/urban interface 
(WUI) and to create a strategic network of linear fuel treatments 
across the landscape referred to as defensible fuel profile zones 
(DFPZs); to improve forest health; to improve bald eagle habitat; to 
implement the project in a cost effective manner and contribute to 
local community economic stability; to improve aspen stands; to provide 
the access needed to meet other project objectives and reduce 
transportation system impacts.
    In its effort to reduce excessive fuel, the Forest Service intends 
to work with the Plumas County Fire Safe Council to reduce hazardous 
fuels around local communities, as well as to develop a strategic 
network of linear fuel treatments across the landscape. This will 
reduce the potential for large-scale, high-intensity fire where 
wildfire behavior would be modified to allow for safer, more effective 
fire suppression.
    Many stands in the project are infected with small pockets of 
insects and disease. The insects include both bark beetles 
(Dendroctonus brevicomus, D. valens) and pine engravers (Ips spp.). The 
diseases include mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.), white pine blister rust 
(Cronartium ribicola) and annosus root rot (Heterobasidion annosum).
    Stands in the Lake Davis Bald Eagle Habitat Management Area (BEHMA) 
in the Freeman project area are overstocked, largely unable to recruit 
nesting structure, and at risk of loss from wildlife and disease/insect 
infestation.
    In addition to reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire and 
improving forest health, this project would provide products that 
contribute to community stability in the most cost-effective manner 
possible, considering other resource objectives, by creating employment 
and income that contribute to local economic activity.
    Aspen stands in the project area are low in productivity and 
health, and most are not successfully regenerating. Field evaluation 
indicates that, regardless of the relative contribution of these 
various factors, at present, competition by conifers is a major factor 
in aspen decline. Aspen stand improvement work will maintain or improve 
diverse and productive native plant communities in the riparian zone, 
as well as to support populations of well-distributed native plant, 
vertebrate and invertebrate populations that contribute to the 
viability of riparian plant communities.
    The proposed road relocation and decommissioning work is needed to 
achieve desired riparian conditions and to reduce the total area of 
compacted soil.

 Proposed Action

    The project area consists of 14,967 acres of the PNF managed by the 
Beckwourth Ranger District. The proposed action will treat 5,792 acres, 
approximately 39 percent of the project area by: reducing hazardous 
fuels; improving forest health, improving bald eagle habitat, cost 
effectively supporting the local communities; improving aspen stands; 
and providing the access needed to meet other project objectives and 
reducing transportation system impacts.
    Fuel reduction treatments will occur over 3,066 acres of the DFPZ 
and WUI. Treatments are specifically designed to cause advancing 
wildfire to drop to the ground and burn with reduced intensity and will 
involve several methods (i.e., grapple pile, handthin, mastication, 
mechanical thinning, underburn only).
    Forest health improvement will involve the use of group selection 
to remove insect and disease infected pockets within the stands. Group 
selection will be on 175 acres, ranging from 0.5-2 acres in size. The 
health of plantations and young conifer stands will also be addressed, 
through area thinning, mastication and grapple piling.
    Over half of the eagle habitat within the project area would 
receive some kind of treatment, consisting of mechanical thinning, hand 
thinning, underburn only, group selection and mechanical aspen 
treatments, covering 1,964 acres. Treatments would focus on removing 
diseased pockets of trees and increasing the quantity of nesting 
habitat by thinning stands to accelerate growth.
    Aspen stands would be treated to remove conifers to enhance aspen 
health and growth. Aspen would be released from conifer competition in 
40 units totaling approximately 645 acres, ranging in size between 1-85 
acres. Conifers to be removed are within the existing aspen stand 
(i.e., those trees actively suppressing aspen community productivity 
and function) or trees bordering a stand, which directly affect the 
health of the stand. All conifers up to 29.9'' dbh would also be 
removed within a variable-width treatment zone extending up to 150' 
beyond the outer boundary of the aspen stands.
    The Forest proposes to improve transportation system needed to 
access the vegetation/fuels treatment units and to mitigate existing 
adverse effects on heritage resources, soils, and water quality. These 
improvements to the transportation system will include: building 
approximately 17 short segments of temporary roads (decommissioned upon 
completion), totaling 2-miles, needed to implement planned activities; 
decommissioning approximately 12.5-miles of existing system roads and 
1.9-miles of non-system roads; closing 0.7-miles of system roads; 
relocating 0.2-mile of system road and 0.7-mile of system road would be 
reduced to single-track, in order to provide for recreational 
opportunities near Lake Davis.

[[Page 49909]]

    Hazard trees would be removed from along Maintenance Level 3, 4 and 
5 roads (generally, surfaced roads) and high-use Maintenance Level 2 
roads (generally native-surface roads). Identification of hazard trees 
would follow guidelines in the Plumas National Forest Roadside/Facility 
Hazard Tree Abatement Action Plan (2003).
    Lead Agency: The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this 
proposal.
    Responsible Official: Plumas National Acting Forest Supervisor, 
Robert G. MacWhorter is the responsible official; Plumas National 
Forest, P.O. Box 11500, Quincy, CA 95971.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The responsible official will decide whether to implement this 
project as proposed, implement the project based on an alternative to 
this proposal that is formulated to resolve identified issues or not 
implement this project at this time. The responsible official will be 
the Plumas National Forest Forest Supervisor.

Scoping Process

    Public questions and comments regarding this proposal are an 
integral part of this environmental analysis process. Comments will be 
used to identify issues and disqualification alternatives to the 
proposed action. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and 
considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments should 
be as specific as possible.
    A copy of the proposed action and/or a summary of the proposed 
action will be mailed to adjacent landowners, as well as to those 
people and organizations that have indicated a specific interest in the 
Freeman project, to Native American entities, and Federal, State and 
local agencies. The public will be notified of any meetings regarding 
this proposed by mailings and press releases sent to the local 
newspaper and media. There are no meetings planned at this time.
    Permits or Licenses Required: An Air Pollution Permit and a Smoke 
Management Plan are required by local agencies.

Comment

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides 
the development of the EIS. Our desire is to receive substantive 
comments on the merits of the proposed action, as well as comments that 
address errors, misinformation, or information that has been omitted. 
Substantive comments are defined as comments within the scope of the 
proposal, that have a direct relationship to the proposal, and that 
include supporting reasons for the responsible official's 
consideration.
    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. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 
553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised as 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 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)

    Dated: August 19, 2005.
Kathleen L. Gay,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05-16898 Filed 8-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M