[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 194 (Thursday, October 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51830-51831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24145]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Shasta-Trinity National Forest, CA; Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Statement for the Gemmill Thin Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: On April 16, 2009, J. Sharon Heywood, Forest Supervisor for 
the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, issued a Record of Decision (ROD) 
for the Gemmill Thin Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(FEIS). The decision to implement Alternative 1 (proposed action) as 
described in the FEIS and ROD was appealed by the Klamath Siskiyou 
Wildlands Center and the Conservation Congress on behalf of Citizens 
for Better Forestry and the Klamath Forest Alliance. On July 23, 2009, 
Appeal Deciding Officer/Deputy Regional Forester, Beth Pendleton, 
reversed the decision due to the lack of a reasonable range of 
alternatives analyzed in the FEIS. The Shasta-Trinity National Forest 
will prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SETS) for 
the Gemmill Thin Project to provide analysis of additional alternatives 
to the proposed action.

DATES: The draft SETS is expected to be issued in November 2009 and the 
final SETS is expected in March 2010.

ADDRESSES: Shasta-Trinity National Forest, 3644 Avtech Parkway, 
Redding, CA 96002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobbie DiMonte Miller, Natural 
Resource Planner, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, 3644 Avtech Parkway, 
Redding, CA 96002, telephone (530) 226-2425, e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forest Service is proposing to prepare a 
supplement to the final environmental impact statement for the Gemmill 
Thin Project in accordance with FSH 1909.15--Chapter 10--Section 18.1 
and Section 18.2.
    This ``SEIS will address and respond specifically to the Appeal 
Reviewing Officer's Findings and Recommendations'' found in the Appeal 
Deciding Officer's letter dated July 23, 2009, which states: ``Appeal 
Reviewing Officer (ARO), Tina Terrell, Forest Supervisor of the Sequoia 
National Forest found that Forest Supervisor Sharon Heywood's decision 
was an appropriate and reasonable response to direction in the 
Northwest Forest Plan and the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and 
Resource Management Plan. The Forest Supervisor provided information 
supporting the logic and rationale in selecting the proposed 
alternative and the associated activities. Documentation provided by 
the Forest Supervisor demonstrated compliance with the Forest Land and 
Resource Management Plan in light of the appeal issues. However, the 
Forest Supervisor failed to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives 
in the FEIS. ARO Tina Terrell recommended reversing the Forest 
Supervisor's decision. I agree with the ARO's analysis as presented in 
the recommendation letter. All appeal issues raised have been 
considered. I reverse the Forest Supervisor's decision to implement 
Alternative 1 due to the lack of a reasonable range of alternatives 
analyzed in the FEIS.''
    The original notice of intent for this project was published in the 
Federal Register December 12, 2005, and again June 1, 2007. The notice 
of availability of the Gemmill Thin Project draft environmental impact 
statement was published in the Federal Register on November 11, 2008, 
and the notice of availability of the FEIS was published in the Federal 
Register on May 1, 2009. The April 2009 ROD for the Gemmill Thin 
Project FEIS and other relevant documentation can be found on the 
Forest Web site at: http://www.fs.fed.us/

[[Page 51831]]

r5/shastatrinity/projects/sfmuprojects.shtml.

Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose and need for the project remains as described in 
Chapter 1, pages through 11, of the FEIS. The draft SEIS will provide 
additional analysis and supplemental information specific to the 
development of a reasonable range of alternatives.
    As noted in the FEIS (page 4) under Purpose and Need: The need for 
action was determined by comparing existing conditions in the field 
with the desired future condition as described in the Forest Plan 
(pages 4-165 through 4-168) for the Wildwood Management Area. Existing 
conditions were identified from extensive field review, computer 
modeling of fuels reduction treatments and wildfire behavior/effects 
and interdisciplinary planning. The interdisciplinary team identified 
several resource conditions where desired conditions described in the 
Forest Plan differ from the existing condition. The following existing 
conditions, with associated management goals, describe the purpose and 
need and are the basis for the proposed action:
     Excessive fuel accumulations and fuel ladders. There is a 
need to reduce the risk of losing existing and developing late-
successional habitat due to wildfire and a need to use fire as a tool 
to maintain lower fuel loading.
     Insufficient amount of late-successional habitat. There is 
a need to encourage or accelerate the development of contiguous late-
successional and old growth habitat.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action would reduce fuels in the wildland urban 
interface and intermix areas adjacent to the rural community of 
Wildwood, California, and support the development of contiguous high 
quality old-growth habitat in the Chanchellula Late-Successional 
Reserve.
    The proposed action, summarized below, encompasses a total of 1,618 
acres.
     Thinning from below on approximately 1,279 acres of mixed 
conifer forest, which includes 300 acres of thinning within Riparian 
Reserve land allocation.
     Thinning from below on approximately 268 acres of mixed 
conifer forest to reconstruct a 30-year-old ridgetop shaded fuelbreak.
     Thinning 20-year-old plantations including mastication 
and/or biomass removal on approximately 44 acres.
     Fuels hazard reduction on approximately 27 acres of mid-
slope fuel buffers adjacent to private land. Remove and pile by hand 
all snags [oacute]19 inches in diameter and dead ground fuels for 
burning.
     Logging systems include: Tractor--1266 acres, cable--142 
acres, helicopter--139 acres.
    The proposed action includes additional post-harvest fuel reduction 
in thinning and fuels break units which will be accomplished by hand 
piling and burning, mastication, and/or biomass removal. Connected 
road-related activities include approximately 23.6 miles of road 
reconstruction, 1.7 miles of temporary road and 12.1 miles of road 
decommissioning post-project. There would be no new system road 
construction.

Lead and Cooperating Agencies

    Lead Agency: USDA, Forest Service.

Responsible Official

    J. Sharon Heywood, Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity National 
Forest, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The Responsible Official will review the supplemental information 
and determine if modifications should be made to the decision presented 
in the April 16, 2009 ROD.

Scoping Process

    Scoping is not required for supplements to environmental impact 
statements (40 CFR 1502.9(c)4).

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review

    A draft SETS will be prepared for review and comment. A legal 
notice will be published in the newspaper of record. A notice of 
availability will be published in the Federal Register to inform the 
public that the draft SETS is available for review. The draft SETS will 
be distributed to all holders of the April 2009 FEIS and ROD for the 
project, including those parties that appealed the April 2009 decision. 
The comment period on the draft SEIS will be 45 days from the 
publication date of the notice of availability in the Federal Register.
    Timely submittal of comments on the draft SEIS ensures they can be 
meaningfully considered and responded to in the final SEIS. To assist 
the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns 
on the project, comments on the draft SETS should be as specific as 
possible. Comments should refer to specific pages or chapters of the 
draft SEIS. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft SETS or 
the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the 
statement. In addressing these points, 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.
    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 (per 40 CFR 1501.7 and 
1508.22).

    Dated: September 30, 2009.
J. Sharon Heywood,
Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity National Forest.
[FR Doc. E9-24145 Filed 10-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M