[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70946-70947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9567]


 ========================================================================
 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. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / 
Notices  

[[Page 70946]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Lassen National Forest, Almanor Ranger District, California, 
Creeks Forest Health Recovery Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a supplement to the environmental 
impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: In response to Federal District Judge Damrell's August 16, 
2006 order regarding the Creeks Forest Health Recovery Project 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD), I am 
preparing a Supplement to the September 2005 Final EIS. Consistent with 
the Court's findings, this supplement will address the following points 
from the court order: ``(1) The Forest Service violated NEPA by failing 
to analyze an adequate range of alternatives, particularly alternatives 
involving less intensive logging. (2) The Forest Service violated NEPA 
by failing to take a hard look at the Creeks Forest Health Recovery 
Project's impact on the American marten and the California spotted owl. 
(3) The Forest Service violated NFMA by failing to insure viable, well-
distributed populations of the American marten and the California 
spotted owl. (4) The Forest Service violated NFMA by approving the 
Project without appropriate or sufficient population and habitat data 
for the American marten, the pileated woodpecker, and the black bear.''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 9, 2005, Forest Supervisor, 
Laurie Tippin signed a ROD and released the final EIS for the Creeks 
Project. This EIS and ROD were challenged in federal district court by 
the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign, Sierra Club, and the 
Lassen Forest Preservation Group. The plaintiffs raised several issues 
including whether the ROD violated NEPA and NFMA. On August 16, 2006, 
United States Eastern District Court of California Judge Damrell issued 
his order granting plaintiff's motion with respect to sufficiency of 
the range of alternatives analyzed, impacts to and viability of the 
American marten and the California spotted owl and population and 
habitat data for the American marten, the pileated woodpecker and the 
black bear. The judge's order affirmed the Forest Service's motion 
regarding all other issues raised by plaintiffs. After review of the 
court's findings, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, 
Forest Service policy and a review of the FEIS/ROD and administrative 
record, I have decided that the court order and the public can best be 
served by preparing a Supplement to the FEIS.
    Alternatives: Alternatives considered in the Creeks Forest Health 
Recovery Project FEIS (September 2005) include Alternative 1--Proposed 
Action, Alternative 2--No Action, Alternative 14--the Selected 
Alternative from the Creeks Forest Health Recovery Project Record of 
Decision (September 2005), and eleven other Alternatives. Alternative 
14--the Selected Alternative was developed in response to the 
significant issue, which is the maintenance of habitat connectivity 
between areas of suitable habitat for the California spotted owl and 
American marten. Alternative 14 would implement 9,190 acres of fuel 
treatments including 5,905 acres of defensible fuel profile zones 
(DFPZs) and 3,285 acres of individual tree selection (ITS) or area 
thinning, which would be accomplished by treating surface, ladder and 
canopy fuels utilizing a combination of commercial timber sales, 
service contracts, and force account crews. Alternative 14 would also 
implement 1,186 acres of group selection (GS) and improvements to the 
existing transportation system including construction of 1.9 miles of 
new system road, 3.7 miles of new temporary roads, and the upgrade of 
5.0 miles of existing non-system road to temporary roads will occur. 
Other improvements include the reduction of sedimentation from over 80% 
of the 179 locations where existing roads cross streams (crossings) by 
improving the road surface at the crossing locations.
    Decision to be Made: The purpose and need from the Creeks Forest 
Health Recovery Project remain unchanged from the September 2005 FEIS. 
I will use the public response plus interdisciplinary team analysis to 
decide whether to revise, amend or reaffirm the original Creeks Forest 
Health Recovery Project Record of Decision.
    Scoping Process: The project was initially listed in the Forest's 
February 2004 quarterly edition of the Schedule of Proposed Actions 
(SOPA). Scoping letters were sent in June 2004 to those who responded 
to the SOPA and other identified interested and affected individuals 
and government agencies. A second scoping process was initiated in 
February of 2005 when it was determined that the environmental analysis 
would be documented in an environmental impact statement. Scoping is 
not required for supplements to environmental impact statements (40 CFR 
1502.9(c)4(4)). A public scoping meeting for this Supplement is not 
anticipated at this time. Scoping letters received by the Forest 
Service from prior scoping periods will be used for this process.
    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 SEIS is April 2007. The 
expected filing date for the final SEIS is September 2007.
    Person to Which Comments May be Mailed: Comments may be submitted 
to Alfred Vazquez, District Ranger, Almanor Ranger District, at P.O. 
Box 767, Chester, CA 96020 or (530) 258-5194 (fax) during normal 
business hours. The Almanor 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: Creeks Forest Health Recovery Project.
    Reviewer's Obligation to Comment: The comment period on the draft 
SEIS

[[Page 70947]]

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Vazquez, District Ranger, or Robin 
Bryant, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, may be contacted by phone at 
(530) 258-2141 for more information about the supplemental 
environmental impact statement or at the Almanor Ranger District, P.O. 
Box 767, Chester, CA 96020.
    Responsible Official and Mailing Address: Laurie Tippin, Forest 
Supervisor, 2550 Riverside Drive, Susanville, CA 96130, is the 
responsible official for the Record of Decision.

    Dated: December 1, 2006.
Jeff Withroe,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Lassen National Forest.
[FR Doc. 06-9567 Filed 12-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5410-99-M