[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 234 (Thursday, December 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73904-73906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-28558]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Plumas National Forest; CA; Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery 
and Restoration Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Revised notice of intent to prepare a revised draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

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

    Introduction: A notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the 
Moonlight Fire Recovery and Restoration Project was published in the 
Federal Register on Monday, January 7, 2008 (Vol. 73, No.4, pp. 1201-
1202). After scoping the Moonlight Fire and Wheeler Fire Recovery and 
Restoration Projects separately in December 2007, the Forest Service, 
Plumas National Forest, has merged the two projects together. In 
December 2007, the Mt. Hough Ranger District of the Plumas National 
Forest began the process to determine the scope (the depth and breadth) 
of the environmental analysis. At that time, it was anticipated that 
the Moonlight Fire Recovery and Restoration Project analysis would be 
documented in an EIS and the Wheeler Fire Recovery and Restoration 
Project analysis would be documented in an Environmental Assessment. 
From comments received, it was determined to document the analysis for 
both projects in one EIS. The new project name is Moonlight and Wheeler 
Fires Recovery and Restoration Project. A second notice of intent to 
prepare an ElS for the Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery and 
Restoration Project was published in the Federal Register on Thursday, 
May 22, 2008 (Vol. 73, No. 100, pp. 29735-29736).
    The Moonlight Safety and Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project was a 
separate project identified to remove hazardous trees with structural 
defects likely to cause failure in all or part of the tree, which may 
fall and hit the road prism within the next three years. Moonlight 
Safety and Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project was being analyzed 
utilizing a categorical exclusion (category 4) and overlapped with a 
portion of the Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery and Restoration 
Project. From comments received, it was determined to document the 
analysis for both projects in one EIS. A revised draft EIS will be 
prepared as the purpose and need of this project will change, and the 
project name will remain Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery and 
Restoration Project.
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, Plumas National Forest will prepare 
a revised EIS on a proposal to harvest dead trees on approximately 
10,366 acres within the Moonlight Fire and Antelope Complex (includes 
Wheeler Fire) perimeters. The proposal also includes harvesting dead 
and dying hazard trees on 4,389 acres along National Forest System 
(NFS) roads in the Moonlight Fire perimeter. The Moonlight Fire and 
Antelope Complex burned about 88,000 acres between July and September 
2007 on the Plumas National Forest.

DATES: The revised draft EIS is expected in February 2009. The revised 
final EIS is expected in April 2009. A decision is expected in May 
2009.

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. and 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 and Wheeler Fires Recovery and 
Restoration Project'' on the subject line of your e-mail. Comments 
submitted electronically must be in Rich Text Format (.rtf), plain text 
format (.txt), or Word format (.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. The project is located in all or portions of: Sections 13, 23-
27, 34-35, T28N, R1OE; sections 13-14, 17-19, 23-24, 29-34, T28N, R11E; 
sections 19-20, 29-32, T28N, R12E; sections 1-2, 13-14, 23-25, T27N, 
R1OE; sections 2-11, 13-15, 17, 19-22, 25, 35-36, T27N, Ri 1E; sections 
5, 8, 17-20, 29-32, T27N, RI2E; sections 1-5, 9-12, 14-16, 21-23, and 
26-27, T26N, R12E; sections 23-29 and 31-36, T27N, R12E; and sections 
19, 20,

[[Page 73905]]

and 30, T27N, R13E; Mount Diablo Meridian.

Purpose and Need for Action

    The purposes of the project are: (1) To remove hazardous trees with 
structural defects likely to cause failure in all or part of the tree, 
which may fall and hit the road prism within the next three years; (2) 
to recover the value of the dead trees before natural deterioration 
occurs in the treatment areas; and (3) to re-establish forested 
conditions. The project would harvest dead and dying hazard trees that 
pose a safety hazard to the public along 120 miles of NFS roads within 
the Moonlight Fire perimeter; harvest dead merchantable trees before 
the economic value is lost to natural deterioration; and reforest 
specific areas within the Moonlight Fire and Antelope Complex 
perimeters.
    Hazard trees need to be removed in a timely, efficient, and cost-
effective manner so that access to affected areas can be restored and 
normal National Forest operations can resume. The wood quality, volume, 
and value of dead trees deteriorate rapidly. Given the rate of 
deterioration of the dead trees within the project area, there is an 
immediate need to recover the economic value. The National Forest 
Management Act (NFMA) sets policy to maintain appropriate forest cover 
in accordance with Forest plans and requires best effort to reforest 
within 5 years after harvest. As it relates to wildfires, it is Agency 
policy to consider post-fire salvage harvest the functional equivalent 
of a regeneration harvest and to make a best effort to recover forested 
conditions within 5 years after harvest.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action would harvest dead and/or dying conifer trees 
on approximately 14,755 acres (10,366 acres of dead trees and 4,389 
acres of dead and dying roadside hazard trees) using the following 
methods: Ground based, skyline, and helicopter. Dead trees greater than 
14 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) would be whole tree harvested 
on the ground-based areas. Approximately 8,536 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 
skyline, helicopter, and ground-based units (not removed as biomass) 
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. Dead conifers would be 
harvested from Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs). Equipment 
restriction zone widths within RHCAs 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, which are approximately ten 
acres in size, within salvage unitson approximately ten percent of the 
project area. Harvest activities would not occur within the snag 
retention areas except for operability (safety) reasons. Approximately 
19 miles of temporary roads would be constructed. Approximately 30 
acres of helicopter landings (fourteen) 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, 
temporary roads and landings would be subsoiled, reforested, and 
closed. Approximately 16,006 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.

Possible Alternatives

    In addition to the proposed action, four other alternatives would 
be analyzed, a no action alternative (alternative B), a ground-based 
only action alternative (alternative C), an action alternative 
consistent with the 2001 SNFPA ROD (alternative D), and a roadside 
hazard only action alternative (alternative E).

Lead and Cooperating Agencies

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

Responsible Official

    Alice B. Canton, Plumas National Forest Supervisor, PO Box 11500, 
Quincy, CA 95971.

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

    Scoping is conducted to determine the significant issues that will 
be addressed during the environmental analysis. Comments that were 
received for the first draft EJS for Moonlight and Wheeler Fires 
Recovery and Restoration Project and for the categorical exclusion 
Moonlight Safety and Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project will be 
considered in the combined analysis. Additional comments on the 
Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery and Restoration Project will also 
be considered. Scoping comments will be most helpful if received by 
December 12, 2008.

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 revised draft EIS will be prepared for comment. The comment 
period on the revised draft EIS 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 EISs 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 
EJS stage, but that are not raised until after completion of the final 
EIS, 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 EIS.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the revised draft EIS 
should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer 
to specific pages or chapters of the revised draft EIS. Comments may 
also address the adequacy of the revised draft EIS 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

[[Page 73906]]

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: November 24, 2008.
Alice B. Carlton,
Forest Supervisor.
 [FR Doc. E8-28558 Filed 12-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M