[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 157 (Monday, August 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41366-41368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19371]


 ========================================================================
 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. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / 
Notices  

[[Page 41366]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Plumas National Forest; California; Flea Project (Renamed Concow 
Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project)

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

    Introduction: A notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the Flea 
Project, designed to fulfill the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group 
Forest Recovery Act of 1988, was published in the Federal Register on 
Thursday, August 30, 2007 (Vol. 72, No. 168, pp. 50096-50098). In June, 
2008, a series of lightning strikes ignited numerous forest fires, 
which over several months merged, burning through the central and 
eastern portions of the Flea Project Area. This complex of fires, 
subsequently referred to as the Butte Lightning Complex, dramatically 
changed the landscape for the long-term. In September 2008, the Feather 
River Ranger District, of the Plumas National Forest, began the process 
to determine the scope (the depth and breadth) of the 2008 wildfire 
disturbance on the environment. At that time, the draft Flea Project 
EIS was being prepared. In December 2008, after field reconnaissance 
was completed, the Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, determined 
to divide the Flea Project Area into two individual management units 
and projects. The westerly, unburned portion and the fire-damaged, 
central portion of the Flea Project Area, located alongside communities 
in the Wildland Urban Interface, to be documented in one EIS. A draft 
EIS will be prepared with a revised purpose and need; renamed the 
Concow Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project (the ``Concow Project''). The 
easterly portion of the Flea Project Area, affected by predominantly 
low severity wildfire, is to be deferred.
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, Plumas National Forest will prepare 
a draft EIS on a proposal to establish, develop and maintain an 
irregularly shaped network up to \1/2\ mile wide Defensible Fuels 
Profile Zones (DFPZs) on approximately 1,500 acres of National Forest 
System Land within the Wildland Urban Interface. The DFPZs would be 
located both within and west of the 2008 Butte Lightning Complex Fire 
perimeter, and are designed to improve the capacity of effective, 
traditional approaches to fire suppression and fire-fighting readiness, 
consistent with community and private land fuel break efforts. The 
Concow Project would establish Defensible Fuels Profile Zones to 
connect existing and proposed federal and private land fuel breaks, and 
parallel important residential evacuation routes and primary fire 
suppression access routes for greater community safety.
    Within the 8,170 acre Concow Project Area, the 2008 Butte Lightning 
Complex burned about 6,190 acres. Defensible Fuels Profile Zones 
located west of the 2008 fire perimeter, in unburned areas, would be 
established and maintained by reducing hazardous fuels through a 
combination of silvicultural treatments; thinning-from-below and radial 
release, with overlapping mastication, chipping, lop and scatter, hand-
cutting, hand-piling and pile burning and prescribed underburning 
treatments. Defensible Fuels Profile Zones located within the 2008 fire 
perimeter would be developed in burned areas. Initial and maintenance 
treatments in the burned areas include the removal of dead and dying 
trees contributing to ladder fuels, with overlapping mastication, 
chipping, lop and scatter, hand-cutting, hand-piling and pile burning 
and prescribed underburning of surface fuels treatments, followed by 
spot tree planting.

DATES: The draft EJS is expected in August 2009. The final EIS is 
expected in October 2009. A decision is expected in November 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Carol Spinos, Interdisciplinary 
Team Leader, Feather River Ranger District, 875 Mitchell Avenue, 
Oroville, CA 95965. 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) 532-1210; or (4) electronically mailed to: [email protected]. Please indicate the name 
``Concow Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project'' on the subject line of 
your email. Comments submitted electronically must be in Rich Text 
Format (.rtf), plain text format (.txt), or Word format (.doc).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Spinos, Interdisciplinary Team 
Leader, Feather River Ranger District, 875 Mitchell Avenue, Oroville, 
CA 95965. Telephone: (530) 534-6500 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). The HFQLG was legislatively extended from 2009 to 2012, 
per the Consolidated Appropriations Act (HR 2754), as amended by the 
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment FSEIS and ROD (2004). In December 
2007, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2764), stated 
that the 2003-adopted Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA: Pub. L. 
108-148) applies to HFQLG projects. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act 
(HFRA) of 2003 (16 U.S.C. at 1611-6591) emphasizes public collaboration 
processes for developing and implementing hazardous fuel reduction 
projects on certain types of ``at-risk'' National Forest System Land, 
and also provides other authorities and direction to help restore 
healthy forests. The proposed project is located in Butte County, 
California, within the Feather River Ranger District of the Plumas 
National Forest. The project is located in all or portions of: Sections 
2, 12, 24, T23N, R3E; 6, 18, 30, 32, 34, 36, T23N, R4E; 2, 12, 14, 22, 
T22N, R4E; Mount Diablo Meridian.

Purpose and Need for Action

    The purposes of the project are: (1) Reduce risk to rural 
communities from high intensity wildfires; (2) establish and maintain 
Defensive Fuel Profile Zones, linking federal & private land, to 
further collaborative fire prevention &

[[Page 41367]]

suppression efforts to improve the capability to control and contain 
wildfire; (3) restore recently fire-damaged forests to promote forest 
health and wildlife habitat diversity; and (4) contribute to the 
stability and economic health of local communities. The presence of 
overcrowded forests and fire-damaged vegetation would sustain high 
intensity fire behavior, in the event of ignition. High concentrations 
of forest, woody, standing and ground hazardous fuels, particularly 
adjacent to homes, challenge fire suppression tactics aimed at 
controlling and containing wildfire. Hazardous fuels need to be removed 
landlords rearranged to reduce threats to communities at a high risk to 
destructive wildfire. The 2008 wildfire disturbance has shifted species 
composition in burned areas, simplifying vegetative structure and 
reducing age-class diversity. Post-fire re-growth in oak-dominated 
ecosystems are becoming increasely overcrowded, choking migratory 
routes, for various wildlife species. Wildfire also destroyed 
plantations, which are now under-stocked. The project would reduce tree 
densities in overcrowded forests outside the 2008 Butte Lightning 
Complex Fire perimeter, to reduce hazardous ladder fuels within \1/2\ 
mile of the core Wildland Urban Interface. Roadside hazard trees that 
pose a safety hazard to the public along access routes would also be 
removed.

Proposed Action

    In the unburned areas, the proposed action would develop DFPZs by 
reducing canopy cover to approximately 40 to 50 percent in the 
California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) system Size Class 4 
stands (trees 11-24 inches diameter at breast height [dbh]) and Size 
Class 5 stands (greater than 24 inches dbh), where canopy cover 
presently exceeds that amount. Conifers ranging from 9.0 to 29.9 inches 
dbh would be removed as necessary and processed as sawlogs. Harvested 
hardwoods less than 6 inches dbh, and conifers 3.0 to 8.9 inches dbh 
are considered biomass and would be piled and burned or removed from 
units and processed at appropriate facilities. All trees 30 inches dbh 
or larger would be retained, unless removal is required for operability 
(e.g., new skid trails, landings, or temporary roads). Residual spacing 
of conifers would be a mosaic of even and clumpy spacing depending on 
the characteristics of each stand prior to implementation. CWHR Size 
Class 3 stands (averaging 6-11 inches dbh) and plantations would not 
have any canopy cover restrictions and would be thinned to residual 
spacing of approximately 18 to 22 feet (25 percent), depending on 
average residual tree size and forest health conditions, to allow 
retention of the healthiest, largest, and tallest conifers and black 
oaks. Radial thinning or release will occur around large diameter black 
oak and the healthiest growing sugar pine, or ponderosa pine >24 inches 
in diameter on a per acre basis. Radial thinning would correlate to 
tree DBH. All mechanized thinning and biomass removal in DFPZ units 
would be conducted with feller buncher equipment. Shrubs would be 
masticated, as would trees less than 9 inches dbh unless needed for 
proper canopy cover and spacing. Hand cutting and pile burning would be 
used to reduce fuels in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and 
other areas where mechanical equipment is not allowed. Equipment 
restriction zone widths within RHCAs would range from 25-150 feet, 
depending on environmental conditions.
    In burned areas, snags would be retained in snag retention areas. 
In treatment areas, snag retention will average 2-4 snags per acre. 
Outside of fuels reduction areas, comprising over 60% of the Concow 
Project Area, all snags will be retained. Dead trees with commercial 
value greater than 20 inches in diameter in excess of wildlife needs 
will be removed utilizing helicopter and/or ground based logging 
systems. In units with limited accessibility, trees up to 19.9 inches 
will be masticated. Dead non-merchantable trees 12 to 19.9 inches will 
be removed and disposed of by chipping, incineration or removal as fire 
wood. Fire-injured trees may be removed in order to meet post-fire 
fuels and operational objectives. Shrubs would be masticated, as would 
trees up to 12 inches in diameter. Black oak stump sprouts will be left 
untreated at an approximate spacing of 18-25 feet, with mastication in 
between. Approximately 30 acres would be required for landing 
activities. No new road construction would be required. About 200 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. In both burned and unburned areas, 
manual cutting of: (1) Shrubs; (2) trees 1 to 9 inches dbh; and/or (3) 
thinning aggregations of 1 to 9 inches dbh conifers or plantation trees 
would occur. Follow-up DFPZ maintenance may occur in year 4 or 5 and 9 
or 10 post initial treatments.

Possible Alternatives

    In addition to the proposed action, two other alternatives would be 
analyzed, a no action alternative (alternative A), and an action 
alternative consistent with the 2001 SNFPA ROD (alternative C).

Lead and Cooperating Agencies

    The USDA, Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal. The 
USDI, Bureau of Land Management is a cooperating agency for the purpose 
of this EIS.

Responsible Official

    Karen L. Hayden, Plumas National Forest, Feather River District 
Ranger, 875 Mitchell Avenue, Oroville CA 95965.

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 during Scoping for the Flea Project will be considered in the 
combined analysis. Scoping comments will be most helpful if received by 
September 1, 2009. A presentation of the Concow Project is scheduled 
for August 1, 2008 at the Community Wildfire Workshop to be held at the 
Yankee Hill Grange located at 4122 Big Bend Road, Yankee Hill, 
California 95965.

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 EIS will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the 
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,

[[Page 41368]]

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). 
Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS 
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 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 draft EIS should 
be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to 
specific pages or chapters of the draft EIS. Comments may also address 
the adequacy of the 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 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: July 8, 2009.
Karen L. Hayden,
Feather River District Ranger.
[FR Doc. E9-19371 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE M