[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15966-15968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-5954]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Shasta Trinity National Forest, South Fork Management Unit, 
California Salt Timber Harvest and Fuels Hazard Reduction Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Hayfork District of the Shasta Trinity National Forest is 
proposing to use vegetation treatments to improve forest health, reduce 
risks from fire and provide forest products on approximately 1,658 
acres within the upper Salt Creek watershed on the South Fork 
Management Unit of the Shasta Trinity National Forest. Prescribed 
treatments are expected to produce approximately 4.8 million board feet 
or 10,600 hundred cubic feet (ccf) of merchantable sawtimber, and an 
estimated 4,710 bone dry tons of biomass. The Forest Service will 
analyze these vegetation treatments within the constraints of the 
Shasta Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1995.
    The proposed Salt project is in Trinity County, 10 air miles south 
of Hayfork, California and 3 air miles east of Post Mountain, 
California. The project area is within the Hayfork Adaptive Management 
Area (AMA), and Management Area 19, Indian Valley/Rattlesnake, of the 
Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS 1995, p. 4-64 & 
65). Treatment areas in T29N, R11W sections 4-9, T29N, R12W sections 1, 
2 and 12, T30N, R11W sections 31 and 32, and T30N, R12W sections 25, 
26, 35, and 36 M.D.M.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
by April 22, 2008 or 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, 
whichever is later. The draft environmental impact statement is 
expected in August, 2008 and the final environmental impact statement 
is expected January, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments to Sandy Mack, TEAMS USFS 
Enterprise Unit, 1801 N. First, Hamilton, MT 59840-3114. Comments may 
also be submitted by e-mail to: comments-pacificsouthwest-shasta-trinity-yo11abollahayfork@fs.fed.us with ``Salt Project'' as the 
subject.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandy Mack, Project Team Leader, TEAMS 
USFS Enterprise Unit, 1801 N. First, Hamilton, MT 59840. Phone (406) 
375-2638.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose and need for the Salt project is fourfold: Improve 
forest health and resiliency, reduce hazardous fuels conditions and the 
potential impacts from wildfire to the National Forest and neighboring 
land, provide timber products, and decommission roads no longer needed 
for management. Competition for limited water, nutrients and sun in 
many highly stocked stands in the Salt project area has reduced the 
vigor, growth and resiliency of the mixed conifer species. Thinning is 
needed to improve tree resiliency to disturbance factors such as 
drought, insects, disease, and fires. Conversely, there are some stands 
in the suitable timber base that are understocked and

[[Page 15967]]

are not growing well because of decadence. These stands are not meeting 
the growth and yield potential for those sites, and will not unless 
regeneration occurs. Reducing fuels and stocking levels through 
thinning and regeneration harvests requires the removal of trees, some 
of which have commercial value. Fuel loadings and excessive ladder 
fuels have created the potential for crown fire initiation and spread, 
resulting in fires that can pose a threat to National Forest System 
lands as well as private land near the Salt project area. Decreasing 
fuels in the Salt project area is needed to help reduce this threat of 
wildfire to forest resources and local communities. The Trinity County 
Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Trinity County Fire Council 2005, 
p. 61, 62) discusses the need for pre-fire fuel treatment in and around 
three dispersed residential communities that are all within 3 miles of 
the Salt project area (Post Mountain--1 mile west, Peanut--3 miles 
north, and Wildwood--3 miles east). Salt is the sixth in a series of 
watershed scale projects occurring in a south to north pattern. This 
project strategically connects fuels treatments from other projects to 
reduce the ability for crown fire transition and spread that can be a 
threat to these communities.
    Roads can be a major source of sedimentation. Watersheds can be 
improved and future road maintenance costs reduced by removing this 
potential sediment source when road access is no longer needed for 
management activities.
    The purpose and need for the Salt project are consistent with 
Management Plan Goals 3, 10, 11, 
34, 35, 36, 39, and 40 
Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS 1995, p. 4-5 and 
4-6).

Proposed Action

    The Salt project would treat approximately 1,658 acres to improve 
forest health, reduce risks from fire and provide forest products, 
including:
     984 acres of Intermediate Thinning from below, 31 units.
     14 acres of Hand Fuel Treatment, 1 unit.
     499 acres of Pre-commercial Thinning (plantations), 60 
units.
     103 acres of Intermediate Thinning (shaded fuel break), 1 
unit.
     58 acres of Regeneration Harvest with Green Tree 
Retention, 4 units.
    These treatments are expected to produce approximately 4.8 million 
board feet (10,600 ccf) of merchantable saw timber and 4,710 tons (bone 
dry) of biomass. Timber prices are at a 15-year low. For this reason 
appropriated dollars and service contracts may be required to complete 
all the treatments planned.
    Additionally, the proposed action would decommission approximately 
8 miles of road no longer needed for management activities to improve 
watershed conditions. Approximately 3.4 miles proposed for 
decommissioning are ``unclassified'' roads, meaning they are abandoned 
or illegally developed roads. The remaining 4.6 miles are classified 
roads, meaning they are currently maintained and tracked as Forest 
Service System roads.
    The Proposed Action was developed with design features to minimize 
or eliminate impacts from the vegetation treatments. Some of the design 
features include:
     Maintenance and reconstruction of 18 miles of roads that 
will be used to haul timber to reduce potential sedimentation.
     Snags and downed logs greater than 19 inches in diameter 
at breast height would be left on site for wildlife habitat. Snags 
felled for safety reasons will be left on site as downed logs.
     Five tons of logs per acre will be retained with a 
preference to have 4 to 6 logs per acre at the largest available 
diameter.
     All hardwoods that have a reasonable chance of surviving 
and thriving after stand treatments will be retained.
     Numerous detailed specifications and restrictions will be 
fully explained in the environmental impact statement and implemented 
to assure thinning within the intermittent and ephemeral riparian 
reserves meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives.
     Limited Operating Periods would be applied to avoid direct 
adverse impacts to spotted owls if territories are occupied.
     Ground disturbing activity will not occur during wet 
weather conditions.
    Responsible Official: The Responsible Official for this project is 
Donna Harmon, South Fork Management Unit District Ranger, Shasta-
Trinity National Forest, P.O. Box 159, Hayfork, CA 96041.
    Nature of Decision To Be Made: The District Ranger will decide 
whether to implement the proposed action, take an alternative action 
that meets the purpose and need, or take no action.
    Scoping Process--Public Comment: In October of 2006 we anticipated 
an environmental assessment would be prepared for this project and 
requested input from the public through direct mailings and notice 
published in the Trinity Journal--a local newspaper. The proposed 
project was also listed quarterly in the Schedule of Proposed 
Environmental Actions (SOPA), a Shasta-Trinity National Forest 
publication. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was consulted 
regarding the proposed action and members of the interdisciplinary 
planning team met with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA 
Fisheries) and California Regional Water Quality Control Board (North 
Coast Region) to review the proposed action. Three public comments were 
received. Based on the initial scoping of the project including 
interdisciplinary team review, field work, public input and agency 
consultations, the District has modified the proposal and will prepare 
an environmental impact statement. A scoping letter for a proposed 
Environmental Impact Statement was mailed March 19, 2008, to twenty 
individuals and organizations. In addition, the notice was published in 
the Trinity Journal--a local newspaper. The proposed project is again 
listed in the Schedule of Proposed Environmental Actions, a Shasta-
Trinity National Forest publication. Although comments are welcome 
throughout the planning process, providing your comments by April 22, 
2008 will allow time for us to consider your input during alternative 
development and analysis. Information on the proposed action will also 
be posted on the forest Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/shastatrinity/projects.

Preliminary Issues

    Issues identified during initial scoping include economics, how 
long treatments will be effective, cumulative effects from past 
management, fish habitat, non-critical spotted owl habitat, wildlife 
species viability.

Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides 
the development of the environmental impact statement. Comments 
submitted during this 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 commenter has with 
the proposal. The scoping process 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.
    (e) Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed 
action and alternatives.

[[Page 15968]]

    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 reviewers' 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: March 19, 2008.
Donna F. Harmon,
South Fork Management Unit District Ranger, Shasta-Trinity National 
Forest.
 [FR Doc. E8-5954 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M