[Federal Register: August 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 46236-46238]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08au08-22]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Shasta-Trinity National Forest, California; Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for the Pilgrim Vegetation Management
Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to supplement an Environmental Impact
Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Shasta-Trinity National Forest will prepare a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SETS) for the Pilgrim Vegetation
Management Project to present additional information consistent with
the court ruling Conservation Congress v. Forest Service, Case No. 07-
0264 (E.D. Cal., May 13, 2008). This action will require modification
of the current Project Level Management Indicator Assemblage Report for
the Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project dated February 15, 2007.
DATES: The draft SETS is expected to be issued in September 2008 and
the final SETS expected in November 2008.
ADDRESSES: Shasta-McCloud Management Unit, 204 W. Alma St., Mt. Shasta,
California 96067.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deimis Poehlmann, Planning Officer,
Shasta-McCloud Management Unit, McCloud Ranger Station, P.O. Box 1620,
McCloud, California 96057, telephone (530) 926-9656 or via e-mail at
dpoehlmann@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forest Service is proposing to prepare a
supplement to the final environmental impact statement for the Pilgrim
Vegetation Management Project in
[[Page 46237]]
accordance with FSH 1909.15--Chapter 10--Section 18.1 and Section 18.2.
The Record of Decision (ROD), Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and other relevant
documentation can be found on the Shasta McCloud Management Unit
website at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/shastatrinity/projects/smmu-projects.shtml.
The original Notice of Intent for this project was published in the
Federal Register February 14, 2005. The Notice of Availability of the
Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact
Statement was published in the Federal Register on June 23, 2006. In
June 1, 2007, a ROD was issued. This decision was appealed on August 5,
2007 and August 6, 2007. The Appeal Deciding Officer upheld the
decision on September 18, 2007. A motion for summary judgment was filed
by Conservation Congress and Klamath Forest Alliance in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California on March
17, 2008.
In the recent court ruling concerning the ROD for the Pilgrim
Vegetation Management Project, Conservation Congress v. Forest Service,
Case No. 07-0264 (E.D. Cal., May 13, 2008), the court ruled the Forest
Service did not fully comply with its monitoring obligations for
certain species as outlined in the forest plan, and remanded the matter
to the agency for further action consistent with the order. This SEIS
will address and respond to the specific issues identified in the court
ruling.
Purpose and Need for Action
The draft SEIS will not change the purpose and need for the Pilgrim
Vegetation Management Project as described in Chapter 1, pages 1
through 15, of the FEIS. The draft SEIS will provide additional
analysis and supplemental information specific to the issues identifed
in the court ruling, Conservation Congress v. Forest Service, Case No.
07-0264 (E.D. Cal., May 13, 2008), and document the analysis and
changes made within the Project Level Management Indicator Assemblage
Report (Appendix L) and within the FEIS as necessary.
Proposed Action
The proposed action and alternatives will remain the same as
described in Chapter 2, pages 17 through 33, of the FEIS. In summary,
the FEIS considers four alternatives in detail. Alternative 4 is the no
action alternative. Alternative 1, the Preferred Alternative, would
restore forest health and ecosystem functions by commercial thinning
and sanitation harvest on approximately 3100 acres of overstocked
coniferous stands, sanitation and salvage harvest on approximately 10
acres of knobcone pine, and regeneration of approximately 415 acres of
diseased and insect infested stands--15% green tree retention will not
be met on approximately 255 of these acres because there are not enough
disease-free trees to meet this standard. All regeneration units will
be replanted with healthy conifer seedlings. Alternative 1 would also
release approximately 20 acres of aspen by removing competing conifers,
restore approximately 275 acres of dry meadows by removal of
encroaching conifer trees, underburn approximately 200 acres of natural
and activity fuels, mechanically pile and burn approximately 700 acres
of activity fuels, close approximately 10 miles of roads to reduce
maintenance costs, decommission approximately 2 miles of roads not
needed for future management, reconstruct one road-stream crossing, and
construct approximately 0.3 miles of new road needed for present and
future management. Alternative 2 is the same as Alternative 1 except
that on approximately 535 acres of proposed thinning/sanitation, canopy
closure would be maintained at 60% on average. Alternative 3 is the
same as Alternative 1 except that on approximately 415 acres of
regeneration harvest, 15% of the area would be retained in trees that
are generally the largest and/or oldest trees in the stands even though
they are diseased.
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 any modifications should be made to the June 1, 2007
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 comment. A legal notice will be
published in the newspaper of record and a Notice of Availability will
be published in the Federal Register to inform the public that
supplemental information is available for review and comment. The draft
SETS will be distributed to all parties that received the 2007 FETS and
ROD and to those parties that filed an appeal of the 2007 decision. The
comment period on the draft SEIS will be 45 days from the date the
Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in
the Federal Register.
The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers
notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the
environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft SETS 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 SETS stage but are not
raised until after completion of the final SETS may be 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. Timely submittal of comments and objections
to the Forest Service ensures they can be meaningfully considered and
responded to in the final SETS.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft SETS should
be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to
specific pages or chapters of the draft supplement. Comments may also
address the adequacy of the draft SEIS or the merits of the
alternatives fonnulated 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.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, Section 21)
[[Page 46238]]
Dated: July 29, 2008.
J. Sharon Heywood,
Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity National Forest.
[FR Doc. E8-17994 Filed 8-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M