[Federal Register: October 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 195)]
[Notices]
[Page 59428-59429]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10oc06-27]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plantation Fuel Reduction, Eldorado National Forest, El Dorado
County, CA
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest will
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a proposal to treat
approximately 4,637 acres of selected plantations on the Georgetown and
Pacific Ranger Districts. The proposal will involve mechanical
precommercial thinning and control of competitive vegetation using
mechanical and chemical treatments.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received
by November 3, 2006. The draft environmental impact statement is
expected in January 2007 and the final environmental impact statement
is expected May 2007.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Tim Dabney, District Ranger,
Georgetown Ranger District, 7600 Wentworth Springs Road, Georgetown, CA
95634, Attention: Plantation Fuel Reduction Project.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Howard, Project Leader, Georgetown
Ranger Station, 7600 Wentworth Springs Road, Georgetown, CA 95634, or
by telephone at 530-333-4312 or by e-mail at thoward@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose and Need for Action
It is the purpose of the Plantation Fuel Reduction Project to begin
the process of enhancing forest health, vigor, growth, resilience to
fire, and sustainability of the desired vegetation of the plantations,
and thereby improve, maintain, and perpetuate the other dependent
resources as directed in the Eldorado Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan (LRMP) as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan
Amendment, 2004 (SNFPA).
The specific purpose and need of the Proposed Action is to: Reduce
present and future fuel loads; alter the vegetative structure in
plantations to reduce the risk of loss to wildland fire by maintaining
flame lengths below six feet (four feet in defense and threat zones);
reduce rate of spread and increase the fire line production rates;
maintain the effectiveness of fuel treatments for more than five years;
improve forest health, and, maintain valuable wildlife habitat and to
create conditions that accelerate the development of old forest
characteristics.
Proposed Action
The Georgetown and Pacific Ranger Districts propose precommercial
thinning and control of competitive vegetation using mechanical and
chemical treatments of vegetation on approximately 4,637 acres of
selected conifer plantations about 20 air miles north and east of
Placerville, California on the Eldorado National Forest in El Dorado
County. The legal description is: T.11N., R.11E.; T.11N., R.13E;
T.11N.; R.14E; T.11N., R.15E; T.12N., R.11E.; T12N., R.13E.; T.12N.,
R14E.; T.12N., R.15E.; T13N., R.11E.; T.13N., R.12E.; T.13N., R.13E.;
T.13N., R.14E.; T.13N., R.15E.; T.14N., R.12E.; T.14N., R.13E.; and,
T.14N., R.14E. The project proposal would involve the following timber
stand improvement activities: (1) Mechanical mastication treatment of
approximately 3,039 acres using low ground pressure equipment to flail
or ``masticate'' undesirable vegetation and conifers. Follow-up
chemical treatment with ground-based application of herbicides (2,738
acres of foliar treatment using a 3% glyphosate solution and 301 acres
of foliar treatment using a 1.5% triclopyr solution) within one year
following the completion of mechanical mastication activities. (2) Hand
cut treatment of approximately 136 acres using hand tools. Follow-up
chemical treatment with ground-based application of herbicides (136
acres of foliar treatment using a 3% glyphosate solution) within one
year following the completion of hand cutting activities. (3) Chemical
treatment of approximately 1,462 acres (1,193 acres of foliar treatment
using a 3% glyphosate solution and 269 acres of foliar treatment using
a 1.5% triclopyr solution). Follow-up chemical treatment (1,193 acres
of foliar treatment using a 3% glyphosate solution and 269 acres of
foliar treatment using a 1.5% triclopyr solution), if necessary, three
to five years after the initial treatment.
The proposed project activities would begin in 2007 and with the
goal of being completed by 2015, dependent upon funding.
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
The lead agency will be the U.S.D.A. Forest Service.
Responsible Official
Tim Dabney, Georgetown District Ranger is the responsible Official.
As the responsible official he will document the decision and reasons
for the decision in the Record of Decision. That decision will be
subject to Forest Service appeal regulations (36 CFR Part 215).
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The decision to be made is whether to adopt and implement the
proposed action, an alternative to the proposed action, or take no
action to conduct fuel reduction and timber stand improvement
treatments in plantations.
Scoping Process
Public participation will be especially important at several points
during the analysis. The Forest Service will be seeking information,
comments, and assistance from the Federal, State, and local agencies
and other individuals or organizations who may be interested in or
affected by the proposed action. To facilitate public participation,
information about the proposed action will be mailed to all who express
interest in the proposed action and notification of the public scoping
period will be published in the Mountain Democrat, Placerville, CA.
Comments submitted during the 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: (1) Identifying
the potential issues; (2) Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth;
(3) Eliminating nonsignificant issues or those previously covered by a
relevant previous environmental analysis; (4) Exploring additional
alternatives; and, (5) Identifying potential environmental effects of
the proposed action and alternatives.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides
the development of the environmental impact statement.
[[Page 59429]]
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 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 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.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, Section 21)
Dated: September 29, 2006.
Timothy A. Dabney,
Georgetown District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 06-8557 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M