[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 97 (Monday, May 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28794-28795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11063]


 ========================================================================
 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. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Notices  

[[Page 28794]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Lassen National Forest, Almanor Ranger District, CA, Creeks II 
Forest Restoration Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service proposes to address fuels and firefighter 
safety, forest health issues, and focus on the specific concerns of 
wildlife habitat and habitat connectivity by developing a network of 
defensible fuel profile zones (DFPZ's), establish group selection 
harvest units, and conduct area thinnings on the Almanor Ranger 
District in the Lassen National Forest. These management activities 
were developed to implement and be consistent with the Lassen National 
Forest (LNF) Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP, 1993), as amended 
by the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act FEIS, 
FSEIS, and RODs (1999, 2003), and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 
Amendment FEIS, FSEIS, and RODs (2001, 2004).

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing within 30 days of the date of publication of this Notice of 
Intent in the Federal Register. The expected filing date with the 
Environmental Protection Agency for the draft EIS is October 8, 2008. 
The expected filing date for the final EIS is February 11, 2009.

ADDRESSES: 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 II 
Forest Restoration Project.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Vazquez, District Ranger, or John 
Zarlengo, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, may be contacted by phone at 
(530) 258-2141 for more information about the proposed action and the 
environmental impact statement or at the Almanor Ranger District, P.O. 
Box 767, Chester, CA 96020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    A proposal to address forest health conditions throughout the 
Creeks Forest Health Recovery Project (Creeks) area of the Lassen 
National Forest (LNF) was placed on the LNF Schedule of Proposed 
Actions in February 2004. The project was sent to the public for 
scoping in 2004 and the Responsible Official, Forest Supervisor Laurie 
Tippin, signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Creeks Forest 
Health Recovery Project in September 2005. A lawsuit was filed and in 
August 2006, the Decision was remanded to Forest Supervisor Tippin. On 
May 30, 2007, the Forest Supervisor agreed to cancel the original 
Creeks project. A Cancellation of the Notice of Intent to prepare a 
Supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement for this project was 
published in the Federal Register on June 14, 2007. A new project was 
placed on the LNF Schedule of Proposed Actions on July 1, 2007, and a 
public meeting to discuss the project was held on February 28, 2008. A 
new purpose and need statement was developed and a new proposed action 
was crafted to address the specific concerns of wildlife habitat and 
habitat connectivity, taking action to improve the overall forest 
health, and reducing the risk of large, intense wildfires highlighted 
within the original Creeks analysis area. The new project is known as 
the Creeks II Forest Restoration Project (Creeks II).

Purpose and Need for Action

    Conditions fostered by past fire suppression, a climate favorable 
for conifer regeneration and growth, and past management activities 
have contributed to current dense stands conditions in the Creeks II 
project area. Existing high stand densities in the Creeks II project 
area place the large tree component of late-seral stands at increased 
risk of mortality from insects and disease, especially during times of 
prolonged drought. Dense stand conditions also increase the likelihood 
that wildfire will move into the forest canopy and result in a high-
intensity fire that destroys large areas of forest. The existing 
habitat considered suitable for both California spotted owl and 
American marten is composed of densely forested stands and is at 
increased risk of loss to wildfire.
    Modification of the fire regime has also affected the health of the 
area's aspen communities. In the Sierra Nevada, aspen communities are 
rare on the landscape, increasing their value in a vastly conifer 
dominated ecosystem. There is also a need in the Creeks II project area 
to protect aquatic habitats and their adjacent areas, specifically to 
recruit large trees, improve vegetative diversity, and reduce ladder 
fuels in riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs).

Proposed Action

    Creeks II proposes to utilize site-specific prescriptions to meet 
the objectives of maintaining and developing long-term sustainable 
late-seral attributes that provide habitat connectivity and vegetation 
heterogeneity across the landscape; reducing conifer density to better 
withstand the rigors of extended periods of low soil moisture; reducing 
the potential for large, intense wildfire; providing firefighters a 
safe area from which to attack fire; reducing stand density to lower 
individual large tree mortality during fires; promoting desired future 
conditions for vegetation diversity in aspen stands; moving toward 
desired conditions for water quality by reducing sediment delivery from 
area roads; and, improving vegetative conditions in RHCAs to protect 
aquatic habitats and adjacent areas. Work in the project area includes 
DFPZs (4,092 acres), group selection harvest units (708 acres), aspen 
enhancement (688 acres), area thinning (3,003 acres), and work in 
riparian habitat conservation areas (400 acres) to total an estimated 
8,891 acres of treatment and would be spread over a 33,000 acre project 
area. Included in this proposal are the use of National

[[Page 28795]]

Forest system roads, the use of temporary roads, and the 
decommissioning of some system and temporary roads. The project would 
be implemented through a combination of commercial timber sales, 
service contracts, and agency crews.

Alternatives

    Alternatives proposed to date are the Proposed Action as described 
above and the No Action.
    Responsible Official and Mailing Address: Kathleen Morse, Forest 
Supervisor, 2550 S. Riverside Drive, Susanville, CA 96130 is the 
responsible official.
    Nature of 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

    The environmental analysis will be documented in an environmental 
impact statement. This notice of intent initiates the scoping process 
which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. 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 an environmental analysis to develop alternatives to the 
proposed action. Some issues 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.

Reviewer's Obligation to Comment

    On December 27, 2007, the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group 
(HFQLG) Forest Recovery Act was amended by H.R. 2764 to utilize the 
analysis and appeal process identified under H.R. 1904, known as the 
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA). Provisions 104-106 of 
the HFRA apply to HFQLG projects with a fuels reduction component. The 
Creeks II Forest Restoration Project is authorized under the HFRA and 
is subject to the use of notice, comment, and objection process as 
described under 36 CFR 218. 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. To be 
eligible to object to an EIS, an individual or organization must submit 
specific written comments related to a project during the comment 
period for the draft EIS. A 30-day objection period prior to a decision 
being made will be provided for this project, rather than an appeal 
process after decision. Objections will receive administrative review 
and will be responded to within 30 days and before a decision is made.
    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 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.

Jack T. Walton,
Acting Lassen National Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E8-11063 Filed 5-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M