[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 29, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71459-71460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23426]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Stanislaus National Forest, Mi-Wok Ranger District, California, 
Great Hunt Reforestation and Release Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Stanislaus National Forest is in the process of preparing 
an environmental analysis for the Great Hunt Reforestation and Release 
Project. This project is being planned on National Forest lands 
encompassing portions of the Groveland, Mi-Wok and Summit Ranger 
Districts. The proposal to be analyzed consists of conducting site 
preparation, planting, and plantation release treatments using a 
combination of methods on approximately 2330 acres. Treatments will 
include backpack application of the herbicide glyphosate on 
approximately 545 acres; mechanically shredding or hand cutting 
competing vegetation on 1,655 acres with follow-up glyphosate 
applications on 1,530 acres; and burning and hand cutting competing 
vegetation with follow up glyphosate applications on 30 acres. 
Treatments are designed to assure adequate survival and growth of 
planted conifers by reducing competing vegetation.
    The goals tied to this project in the Stanislaus National Forest 
Plan Direction 2005 (STF FPD) are to increase the frequency of large 
trees, improve the continuity and distribution of old forests, and 
restore forest species composition and structure following large scale, 
stand-replacing disturbance events (STF FPD page 9). The areas under 
consideration for management activities are old timber harvest units, 
as well as areas burned by the following wildfires: Granite Fire, 1973; 
River Fire, 1987; Cotton Fire, 1990; Ruby Fire, 1992; and Creek Fire, 
1994. In areas identified for site preparation and planting, natural 
regeneration of conifer seedlings following the harvest or fire 
disturbance events is inadequate due to

[[Page 71460]]

rapid and vigorous growth of competing vegetation and the lack of a 
seed source in some areas (STF FPD page 146, Standard and Guideline 15-
J: ``Reforest all openings in available, capable, and suitable lands 
for timber production created by timber harvest, wind, fire, or insect 
and disease pests (36 CFR 219.27(b)(2))''). These areas are not on 
track to meet the goals of the STF FPD. As such, the benefits of a 
forested environment, and all the associated benefits of forest 
structure have not occurred.
    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 July and October 
2005 quarterly edition of the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). 
Scoping letters were sent in September 1, 2005 to those who responded 
to the SOPA and to other identified interested and affected individuals 
and government agencies. In the SOPA, the mode of environmental 
documentation was predicted as an environmental assessment.
    It has now been determined that the environmental analysis will be 
documented in an environmental impact statement. Since there are no 
changes being made to the proposed action that was previously scoped, 
the scoping period at this point is brief. 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 environmental analysis to develop alternatives to the 
proposed action. Some issued 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.
    Alternatives: Alternatives proposed to date are the Proposed Action 
as described 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 is March 1, 2006. The 
expected filing date for the final EIS is July 1, 2006.
    Person to Whom Comments May Be Mailed: Comments may be submitted 
to: District Ranger, Mi-Wok Ranger District, P.O. Box 100, Mi-Wuk 
Village, CA 95346 or (209) 586-0643 (fax) during normal business hours. 
The Mi-Wok 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: 
[email protected] using Subject: Great Hunt Reforestation and Release 
Project.
    Reviewer's Obligation to Comment: 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 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 with 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.
    Further Information: Marty Gmelin, Interdisciplinary Team Leader 
may be contacted by phone at (209) 586-3234 ex. 629 for more 
information about the proposed action and the environmental impact 
statement or at the Mi-Wok Ranger District, P.O. Box 100, Mi-Wuk 
Village, CA 95348.
    Responsible Official and Mailing Address: Tom Quinn, Forest 
Supervisor, 19777 Greenly Road, Sonora, CA 95370.

    Dated: November 22, 2005
Tom Quinn,
Forest Supervisor, Stanislaus National Forest.
[FR Doc. 05-23426 Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5410-99- M