[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1201-1202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6301]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Plumas National Forest; California; Moonlight Fire Recovery and 
Restoration Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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) on a proposal to harvest fire-
killed trees on approximately 14,000 acres in the Moonlight Fire area. 
The Moonlight Fire burned about 65,000 acres in September 2007 on the 
Plumas National Forest.

DATES: The draft environmental impact statement is expected in June 
2008 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in 
September 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Rich Bednarski, Interdisciplinary 
Team Leader, Mt. Hough Ranger District, 39696 Highway 70, Quincy, CA 
95971. Comments may be: (1) Mailed; (2) hand delivered between the 
hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. weekdays Pacific Time; (3) faxed to (530) 
283-1821; or (4) electronically mailed to: [email protected]. Please indicate the name ``Moonlight Fire 
Recovery and Restoration Project'' on the subject line of your email. 
Comments submitted electronically must be in Rich Text Format (.rtf) or 
Word (.doc).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich Bednarski, Interdisciplinary Team 
Leader, Mt. Hough Ranger District, 39696 Highway 70, Quincy, CA 95971. 
Telephone: (530) 283-7641 or electronic address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action is designed to meet the 
standards and guidelines for land management activities in the Plumas 
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1988), as amended by 
the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Final Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) 
(1999, 2003), and as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 
FSEIS and ROD (2004).
    The proposed project is located in Plumas County, California, 
within the Mt. Hough Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest. It 
is located in all or portions of Sections 13, 23-27, 34-35, T28N, R10E; 
all or portions of Sections 13-14, 17-19, 23-24, 29-34, T28N, R11E; all 
or portions of Sections 19-20, 29-32, T28N, R12E; all or portions of 
Sections 1-2, 13-14, 23-25, T27N, R10E; all or portions of Section 2-
11, 13-15, 17, 19-22, 25, 35-36, T27N, R11E; and all or portions of 
Sections 5, 8, 17-20, 29-32, T27N, R12E.

Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose of the project would be to contribute to the stability 
and economic health of rural communities. The project would provide for 
local economic benefit by creating jobs from the sale of dead 
merchantable trees, as well as contribute to local and regional areas 
with net revenues and receipts. The wood quality, volume, and value of 
dead trees deteriorate rapidly. The value of trees would cover the cost 
of their removal and possibly other activities associated with the 
project.
    As a result of the Moonlight Fire, thousands of acres burned with 
high vegetation burn severity resulting in deforested condition. As a 
result, shrub species will dominate these areas for decades and 
experience a delay in returning to a forested condition. The early 
establishment of conifers through reforestation will expedite forest 
regeneration.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action would harvest fire-killed conifer trees on 
approximately 14,000 acres using the following methods: Ground based, 
skyline, and helicopter. Trees greater than 14 inches diameter at 
breast height (dbh) would be whole tree harvested on the ground-based 
areas. Trees less than 14 inches dbh would be removed as biomass 
material on the ground-based areas. About 600 acres would have trees 
less than 14 inches dbh removed as biomass material. Ground-based 
equipment would be restricted to slopes less than 35 percent, except on 
decomposed granitic soils where equipment would be restricted to slopes 
less than 25 percent. On the skyline and helicopter areas, trees 
greater than 16 inches dbh would be harvested. Limbs and tops in the 
skyline and helicopter areas would be lopped and scattered to a depth 
less than 18 inches in height. Skyline yarding would require one end 
suspension, with full suspension over intermittent or perennial 
streams. Fire-killed conifers would be harvested from Riparian Habitat 
Conservation Areas. Equipment restriction zone widths within Riparian 
Habitat Conservation Areas would be established based on the stream 
type and steepness of the slope adjacent to the streams. Snags would be 
retained in snag retention areas, that are approximately ten acres in 
size, on approximately ten percent of the project area. Salvage harvest 
would not occur within the snag retention areas except for operability 
(safety) reasons. Approximately 25 miles of temporary roads would be 
constructed. Approximately 20 acres (nine landings) of helicopter 
landings would be constructed. Excess fuels on landings would be piled, 
a fireline constructed around the piles, and the piles burned. 
Following completion of the project, the temporary roads and landings 
would be subsoiled, reforested, and closed. Approximately 14,000 acres 
would be reforested with conifer seedlings in widely spaced clusters to 
emulate a naturally established forest. The areas would be reforested 
with a mixture of native species.
    The Moonlight Fire impacted twenty California spotted owl Protected 
Activity Centers (PACs). According to the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 
Amendment FSEIS and ROD (2004), page 37, after a stand-replacing event, 
the habitat conditions are evaluated within a 1.5 mile radius around 
the activity center to identify opportunities for re-mapping the PAC. 
If there is insufficient suitable habitat for designating a PAC within 
the 1.5 mile radius, the PAC may be removed from the network.

Possible Alternatives

    In addition to the proposed action, a no action alternative would 
be analyzed. Additional alternatives may be developed and analyzed 
throughout the environmental analysis.

Lead and Cooperating Agencies

    The USDA, Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal.

Responsible Official

    Alice B. Carlton, Plumas National Forest Supervisor, P.O. Box 
11500, Quincy, CA 95971.

[[Page 1202]]

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The decision to be made is whether to: (1) Implement the proposed 
action; (2) meet the purpose and need for action through some other 
combination of activities; or, (3) take no action at this time.

Scoping Process

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides 
the development of the environmental impact statement. Scoping comments 
will be most helpful if received by January 4, 2008. Scoping is 
conducted to determine the significant issues that will be addressed 
during the environmental analysis.

Permits or Licenses Required

    An Air Pollution Permit and a Smoke Management Plan are required by 
local agencies. 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 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.
    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: December 21, 2007.
Maria T. Garcia,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 07-6301 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M