[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 224 (Friday, November 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64452-64458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-31022]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Project EIS
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Regions 4 and 5
will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to amend eleven
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans and the Regional
Guides for the Intermountain and Pacific Southwest Regions in response
to changed circumstances and new information resulting from the report
of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, the Sierra Nevada Science
Review, and the Summary of Existing Management Direction. The Land and
Resource Management Plans to be amended encompass the Humboldt-Toiyabe,
Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, Sequoia,
and Inyo National Forests, and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit.
DATES: The public is asked to provide any additional information they
believe the Forest Service may still not have at this time, and to
submit any issues (points of concern, debate, dispute or disagreement)
regarding potential effects of the proposed action or alternatives by
January 9, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Steve Clauson, EIS Team Leader,
USDA Forest Service, Sierra Nevada Framework Project, Room 419, 801
``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Contact Steve Clauson, EIS Team Leader, USDA Forest Service, Sierra
Nevada Framework Project, Room 419, 801 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA
95814. Phone number--916-492-7554.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the Pacific Southwest Region, Region 5 of the Forest Service, a
Sierra Nevada-wide planning effort was initiated in 1992 to protect the
California spotted owl (CASPO). This planning responded to Forest
Service research on the status and viability of the California spotted
owl (CASPO Technical Report, 1992). The CASPO report recommended
interim management guidelines be adopted to protect California spotted
owl populations while a more comprehensive management plan was
developed. An environmental assessment to implement interim guidelines
was prepared and a Decision Notice approving implementation of interim
guidelines was signed on January 13, 1993. To develop a comprehensive
management plan, the Forest Service prepared a draft environmental
impact statement (EIS) for the comprehensive management of California
spotted owl in 1995. A revised draft EIS was scheduled for release in
1996, however new scientific information came to light and work was
suspended pending the report of a Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) that
was chartered to review the revised draft EIS. The work of the FAC was
influenced by the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP), which
produced four volumes of scientific assessments including several
papers exploring possible management strategies, and made available
large databases and maps for the Sierra Nevada.
The Federal Advisory Committee concluded that the revised draft EIS
was inadequate in its current form as either an owl or ecosystem
management EIS (``Final Report of the California Spotted Owl Federal
Advisory Committee'', USDA, December 1997). The FAC report identified
specific critical shortcomings and offered recommendations to address
inconsistencies with scientific information, flaws in some key elements
of the analysis process, and the need for a more collaborative planning
process. The Forest Service has redirected the EIS effort in response
to the FAC report and other information.
On July 24, 1998, a team of scientists from the USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, produced the Sierra Nevada
Science Review (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research
Station, July 24, 1998), a review of current scientific information
with attention to issues of urgent priority at Sierra Nevada Range-wide
scale. A companion document, the Summary of Existing Management
Direction, released on August 11, 1998, summarized existing management
direction related to issues brought forward in the Science Review. This
new scientific information has implications for existing forest plans,
social values, and environmental trends in the Sierra Nevada.
The report of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project concludes: ``Most
of the problems of the Sierra can be solved, although the timeframe and
degree of solution will differ depending on the problem.'' (``Sierra
Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress'', Davis: University
of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996.) For
many of these problems, a range-wide or multi-forest planning approach
is needed.
The Land and Resource Management Plans for the eleven national
forests in the Sierra Nevada Range and Modoc Plateau were developed in
the 1980's and early 1990's. These plans were independently prepared
and adopted in response to concerns at the scale appropriate for each
forest. Given the science that recently emerged concerning issues that
go beyond the individual forest and ownership boundaries, there is an
urgent need to amend the plans to reflect this new information and
achieve range-wide consistency. In response to this need, on July 10,
1998 Regional Forester G. Lynn Sprague, in cooperation with Region 4,
committed to developing new management direction, where necessary, to
address concerns on the Sierra Nevada national forests (63 FR 37314).
This EIS is part of the overall Sierra
[[Page 64453]]
Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration, which will
continue to develop solutions to interagency issues and encourage
communication on management of wildlands in the Sierra Nevada Range.
Public Involvement
During 1998, nearly 1,000 people participated in 37 community based
workshops to provide their perspectives on the Science Review, the
Summary of Existing Management Direction, and other information
relevant to the EIS. The majority of the workshops took place in Sierra
Nevada communities. A Tribal Summit was held in Tahoe City and a state-
wide workshop was held in Davis. Other meetings were held in San
Francisco, Los Angeles, and Carson City, Nevada. Written comments were
submitted at the workshops, on the Internet, and in letters.
People attending the September and October workshops were asked to
respond to two questions: (1) Is there other new science relevant to
Sierra Nevada national forest management that would cause us to add to
or modify the findings in the Science Review, and (2) in light of the
Science Review and other new information, what changes would you
suggest for management direction in the Sierra Nevada national forests?
Responses to these questions, together with the agency's analysis of
the new science, information, and legal requirements, were used in
framing the proposed action and possible alternatives presented in this
Notice of Intent.
In addition to problems or concerns to be addressed in the EIS,
many additional concerns surfaced in September and October that are not
appropriate to address in the proposed action. Concurrent with this
Notice of Intent, the Forest Service has produced a ``Design Paper''
that documents the agency's proposal for addressing concerns outside
the scope of the proposed action. The Design Paper is available on the
Internet at www.r5.fs.red.us or by request to the Sierra Nevada
Framework Project at the address given in the For Further Information
section.
Public comments received during this period reflect a wide range of
social perspectives. Participants largely agreed on broad conservation
principles. There were, however, many different perspectives on how the
principles might be implemented. The wide variation of community
responses confirmed the need to include local residents, as well as
regional and national interests, in the design and refinement of
alternatives. Numerous suggestions were made encouraging the Forest
Service to work with other federal agencies, Indian Tribes, state and
local governments, and organizations to solve Sierra Nevada-wide
problems. The recommendations and suggestions received during meeting
will be reviewed again during the scoping period.
Each Sierra Nevada national forest will continue dialogues with
interested members of the public and other agencies throughout the
environmental analysis process. Each forest will host community
discussions to explain and hear responses to this Notice of Intent.
Workshops will be designed to receive suggestions and recommendations
regarding the proposed actions as well as information that could help
frame alternatives. Specific locations and dates of the meetings will
be posted on the Internet at www.r5.fs.fed.us and in the newspapers of
record for each Sierra Nevada national forest.
Scope
The selection of problems for inclusion in the EIS was based on the
following criteria: (1) New scientific information is available about
the extent, intensity, or duration of the problem, (2) geographic scale
is broad, (3) public perception or environmental risk, as judged by the
science community, indicates action should be taken now, and (4) the
problem is not well addressed elsewhere.
A single EIS amending the eleven forest plans is proposed because:
(1) Some problems may only be treatable at a range-wide scale, (2) the
public, Indian Tribes, other governmental agencies, and the Forest
Service need to consider ways to meet environmental goals common to the
eleven forests economically and efficiently, and (3) implementation can
be made more accountable and consistent.
Problems that did not meet these criteria will be addressed in the
associated activities of the Sierra Nevada Framework. For example,
concerns surrounding the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep can be more
immediately resolved within the scope of the existing forest plans by
increased attention from the five affected national forests in the
southern Sierra Nevada.
Problem identified for action in this EIS are:
1. Old forest ecosystems and associated species. Old forest
ecosystems have declined in quality, amount and connectivity throughout
the Sierra Nevada over the past hundred years. Habitats and/or
populations of some animals associated with old-forests, including
forest carnivores and the California spotted owl, have declined. No
regionally consistent direction for old-forest conservation exists.
2. Aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystems. These ecosystems are
the most degraded of all habitats in the Sierra Nevada. Many aquatic
and riparian-dependent species (willow flycatcher and amphibians in
particular) and communities are at risk. No regionally consistent
direction exists to deal with this urgent problem.
3. Fire and Fuels. Wildland fire is both a major threat to life,
property and natural resources and a critical natural process in the
Sierra Nevada. Fire management planning is outdated and not integrated
into forest plans.
4. Noxious weeds. There is a rapid spread of invasive, exotic plant
species that threaten to crowd out native plants and compromise
wildland values. Noxious weeds are spreading throughout California and
gaining ground at higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada.
5. Lower westside hardwood forest ecosystems. Increasing urban
development in lower elevations in the Sierra Nevada has fragmented and
decreased the amount of hardwood forests. The public has expressed a
desire to maintain the remaining extent of hardwood forests for their
ecological roles, biodiversity, aesthetics, cultural resources, and for
resource uses such as firewood and forage.
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the proposed action is to improve national forest
management direction for five broad problems: (1) Conservation of old-
forest ecosystems, (2) conservation of aquatic, riparian, and meadow
ecosystems, (3) increased risk of fire and fuels buildup, (4)
introduction of noxious weeds, and (5) sustaining hardwood forests.
Resolution of these problems will influence and be influenced by
social, cultural and economic values. The need is to ensure that
national forest management direction accounts for current scientific
thinking and public expectations, and is consistent among the eleven
national forests in practices, procedures, definitions, standards and
guidelines.
Current forests plan direction does not reflect the shift in public
values and expectations for goods and services from the Sierra Nevada
national forests. As the five problem areas are addressed, there is a
need to ensure that changes in the level of natural resource products,
services, and values, e.g., forage, timber, wildlife, fish, recreation,
wilderness, or water, are identified to respond to public concerns with
the certainty of
[[Page 64454]]
future forest management products and services. In some cases, the lack
of certainty has contributed to false expectations about the capability
to provide products and services without diminishing long-term
productive capability and without violating legal requirements for
clean water, clean air, biological diversity, and endangered species.
Three processes are needed to address the problems identified
above: adaptive management, landscape analysis, and collaborative
interaction with the public.
Adaptive Management. The purpose is to adjust management direction
based on results gained through experience. The need is for monitoring
protocols that provide timely, accurate information on outcomes
achieved by implementing current management direction. As stated in the
report of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: ``All strategies for
improvements are in some ways experiments. Learning as we go and
adjusting as necessary work best when we give as much care and planning
to measuring the response to new management strategies as we do to
implementing them.''
Landscape Analysis. The purpose is to consider how management
direction at the scale of the forest plan or higher can be applied
given landscape conditions at the watershed or subwatershed scale. The
need is to identify a suitable set of landscape analysis protocols so
that treatment needs can be identified and project priorities set.
Public Interaction and Collaboration. The purpose is to ensure that
citizens can meaningfully participate in the design, implementation and
monitoring of management direction. Past planning efforts have followed
a traditional model that has public input to the planning process only
at prescribed intervals with little collaboration. As the report of the
Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project concludes: ``Collaboration among
various agencies, private interests, and public at large in the Sierra
is the most significant principle that emerges from the SNEP
strategies.''
The following are the specific purposes, by problem area, for
taking action.
Old Forest Ecosystems and Associated Species. The purpose of the
proposed action is to protect, increase, and perpetuate old forest and
hardwood ecosystem conditions including their structure, composition,
function, and to ensure the maintenance of biological diversity of
these ecosystems including the viability of associated species while
meeting people's needs and concerns. This will include reversing the
declining trends in abundance of old-forest ecosystems and habitats for
species that use old-forests.
Aquatic, Riparian, and Meadow Ecosystems. The purpose of the
proposed action is to protect and restore aquatic, riparian and meadow
ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada national forests. This direction will
ensure the proper functioning, such as stable streambanks and
shorelines, of key ecosystem processes, such as nutrient cycling, and
continued supplies of high quality water and will ensure the
maintenance of biological diversity and the viability of species
associated with these ecosystems. The purpose is to: (1) Improve
consistency of existing conservation programs, strategies and
practices, and (2) establish through landscape analysis, a consistent
assessment of watershed condition to determine priorities for the
allocation of limited personnel and funds.
Fire and Fuels. The purposes are to: (1) bring greater consistency
in fire and fuels management across the national forests and coordinate
management strategies with other ownerships and with objectives for
Forest Service management of other resources, (2) adjust the goals and
objectives in the national forest land management plan direction to
reflect the role and consequence of wildland fire, and (3) set
priorities for fire management actions to balance the need to restore
fire regimes while minimizing the threat fire poses to structures,
lives and resources.
Noxious Weeds. The purpose is to provide a strategy to control the
rapid spread of invasive exotic plant species, to contain existing weed
populations and, where possible, to eradicate them.
Lower Westside Hardwood Forest Ecosystems. The purpose of the
proposed action is to provide a management strategy that will result in
a sustainable hardwood forest ecosystem in the lower westside of the
Sierra Nevada, including the structure, composition, and function to
ensure maintenance of biological diversity.
Proposed Action
The proposed action responds to the needs identified above, the
reports of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project and the Sierra Nevada
Science Review, and concerns raised during public workshops held
earlier this year. It also responds to the USDA Forest Service Natural
Resource Agenda (on the Internet at www.fs.fed.us/news/agenda), the
Final Report of the California Spotted Owl Federal Advisory Committee
and the Clean Water Action Plan (delivered to Vice President Gore by
EPA and USDA on February 19, 1998).
The proposed action, while addressing the five problem areas,
integrates multiple uses such as recreation, grazing, timber
harvesting, and public access to the national forest into the actions.
Sustainable levels of products and services, reflective of shifting
public values and expectations, are an integral part of the proposed
action. Employment, economic prosperity, community vitality, and the
health of resource-based industries were concerns voiced during public
comment. They are relevant to all aspects of the proposed action and
will be evaluated as alternatives are prepared.
The proposed action calls for application of adaptive management
principles to adjust management direction to future events, changing
knowledge, or dynamic social views. Adaptive management involves: (1)
Establishing desired outcomes and steps towards achieving them, (2)
monitoring to generate new information, (3) adjusting management
objectives, and (4) adjusting strategies in response to the new
information. The proposed action will contain a monitoring strategy to
provide the critical information needed to trigger management
adaptations.
The proposed action also calls for analysis of environmental
conditions and management possibilities at the watershed and sub-
watershed scale to: (1) Link decisions at the project scale to larger
scale decisions, (2) link forest plans to the efforts of other
agencies, (3) prioritize treatments within the watershed or sub-
watershed, and (4) facilitate local collaborative stewardship.
The proposed action will be implemented using a collaborative
process to ensure coordination and consideration of the needs of other
federal agencies, Indian Tribes, state and local governments and
individuals. This involvement will help shape national forest land
management direction so that ecosystems are restored and maintained
while providing the management consistency that allows for a
sustainable level of multiple uses, including recreation, grazing,
timber, water, mining, and others.
This process will also assure redemption of the government's trust
responsibilities with Indian Tribes and consideration of their
expertise, cultural needs; and traditional and contemporary uses.
Section 401 of the 1999 Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies
[[Page 64455]]
Appropriations Act (the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest
Recovery Act), 112 Stat. 2681, directs the Secretary to implement a
pilot project on certain federal lands within the Plumas, Lassen and
Tahoe National forests. The Forest Service will be issuing a Notice of
intent for an environmental impact statement to begin implementation of
section 401. We will coordinate the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment
Project Environmental Impact Statement with the environmental impact
statement to implement section 401. We would like comments from the
public and interested groups concerning the relationship between the
two environmental impact statements.
The description of the proposed action for each problem area
includes alternative strategies, where they have been identified, that
could accomplish the purpose and need for action.
1. Old Forest Ecosystems and Associated Species (Including Forest
Carnivores and California Spotted Owl)
The desired condition for Sierra Nevada national forests is to
support old forests, which vary by vegetation type at a variety of
scales, from individual old conifer or hardwood trees and snags to
entire landscapes. Old forest habitat is present in sufficient
locations, connectivity, quantities, and quality to sustain viable
populations of old forest associated species and allow for seasonal
migration of animals. Old forest ecosystems, including associated
wildlife, fish, and plant populations, will be resilient to natural
disturbance processes such as fire, which serve to sustain ecosystem
composition, structure, and function. Management of old forest
ecosystems integrates hardwoods and complements the aquatic
conservation, fire and fuels, and noxious weeds strategies. Human uses
of forests, e.g. recreation, resource uses, and Native American uses,
are retained as important considerations for management of old forest
ecosystems.
The proposed action is to develop both processes and management
standards and guidelines for the California spotted owl and forest
carnivores to be integrated with strategies for old forests, aquatic
ecosystems, and fire and fuel. These processes, standards, and
guidelines would address habitat conservation, modeling, mapping and
assessment, and analysis of effects of management actions.
The proposed action is to: (1) Develop consistent old forest
definitions by forest type, (2) set mapping standards, (3) adapt
management to changing conditions, and (4) standardize large-scale
monitoring of old forest ecosystems. The expected result of this action
is to increase the acreage supporting old forests and habitat for
species that occur there. Two contrasting approaches may be applied to
achieve the desired condition.
Landscape Reserve Alternative. The landscape reserve alternative
would allocate land as old forest emphasis areas. These reserves would
occur over all forest types and include hardwoods as well as conifer-
dominated communities. Little to no entry for commercial timber harvest
or road building would be allowed in these areas. Prescribed fire would
be the primary tool to attain protection and restoration goals. The old
forest emphasis areas would be large enough to absorb large-scale
natural disturbances, and geographically connected by riparian areas
protected in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy to facilitate animal
dispersal and contribute toward the continued existence of wide-ranging
animals.
Old forest emphasis areas would be selected based upon the
following criteria: existing concentrations of old trees; known
locations of wildlife, fish and plant populations that require these
habitats; low road denisty; habitat for riparian/aquatic species;
representativeness of soils, geology, climatic and vegetation
conditions; existing wilderness and wild and scenic rivers; likelihood
of long-term sustainability given estimated fire conditions.
Outside the old forest emphasis areas, individual large old conifer
and hardwood trees, large snags, and concentrations of old trees would
be protected wherever they occur in the landscape, except where they
pose a safety hazard. Lands would be available for commercial timber
harvest and other uses.
Whole Forest Alternative. The whole forest alternative designates
the entire hardwood and conifer-dominated forest landscape in the
Sierra Nevada for succession towards old forests. Individual large old
conifer and hardwood trees and large snags would be protected wherever
they occur in the landscape, except where they pose a safety hazard. In
roadless areas, concentrations of old trees would be protected by
constructing no new roads, and conducting no commercial timber harvest.
In roaded areas, concentrations of old trees would primarily be
maintained using prescribed fire. Elsewhere in roaded areas, commercial
timber harvest, other mechanical treatments, and prescribed fire would
be used to accelerate succession toward old forest conditions.
The main differences between the landscape reserve and whole forest
alternatives are that under the landscape reserve alternative the
location of those reserves would not change over time and no commercial
timber harvest would be permitted within the reserves, regardless of
current condition. Under the Whole Forest Strategy, no timber harvest
would be permitted in existing concentrations of old trees, regardless
of location. Two points are common to both strategies: (1) The goal is
to increase acreages supporting old forest, and (2) concentrations of
old trees would move across the landscape over time in response to
large-scale natural or human-generated disturbances.
2. Aquatic, Riparian, and Meadow Ecosystems
The desired condition of the Sierra Nevada national forests will be
to provide sustainable aquatic, riparian and meadow ecosystem
compositions, structures and functions. Structures include vegetation,
flows and stream/lake bottoms. Fire and flooding, and processes such as
nutrient cycling, water and sediment flows are within a desired range
of variability. Land use activities, such as recreation, hydro-power,
grazing, mining, timber harvest, transportation system maintenance and
fuel treatments will be managed to enhance and restore the health of
these ecosystems. Habitat to support populations of native and desired
non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate species will be well-
distributed. Watersheds will be connected to each other, allowing fish
and wildlife populations to move between them.
The proposed action is to implement an Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. This includes a broad-scale assessment to identify the
highest quality watersheds, and rare and imperiled wildlife and plant
habitats for protection.
Important components of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy will be
the integration of existing management practices (i.e., collaboration,
restoration, existing watershed conservation practices, adaptive
management, monitoring and research), landscape analysis to assess
watershed conditions, and establishment of emphasis watersheds and
habitats. Criteria for designation of emphasis watersheds and habitats
include the presence of native aquatic species; a low level or lack of
exotic species; watershed condition; and distribution of, rarity of,
and risk to aquatic habitat.
The strategy will include specific standards and guidelines for at-
risk frog
[[Page 64456]]
and amphibian species. This group includes both foothill (Rana boylii)
and mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa), California red-legged
frog (Rana aurora draytoni), Cascade frog (Rana cascade), northern
leopard frog (Rana pipiens), and Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus). The
standards and guidelines will address protecting both occupied and
potential habitat from the adverse effects of grazing, mining,
reservoir construction, urbanization and other activities.
The willow flycatcher is currently listed by the State of
California as an endangered species. Three subspecies occur within
California. Two of these subspecies occur in the Sierra Nevada
(Empidonax traillii brewsteri and E. t. adastus) and are listed as
Region 5 Sensitive Species. Standards and guidelines for these species
will be a subject of the proposed action. A separate subspecies of
willow flycatcher (E. t. extimus) is listed as federally endangered,
occurs at the southern end of the Sierra Nevada, and is not expected to
be addressed or affected by this proposed action.
The proposed action is to protect known and potential willow
flycatcher habitat from livestock grazing and other management
activities through habitat management guidelines. Specific guidelines
could include preventing cattle and sheep grazing in willow flycatcher
habitat during the breeding season and managing grazing intensity to
avoid adverse impacts to vegetation needed for nesting and foraging.
Also included in the guidelines will be measures to: (1) Promote
the improvement and expansion of suitable habitat, (2) minimize the
likelihood of nest parasitism by brownheaded cowbirds, and (3) require
annual surveys to monitor breeding success and habitat conditions.
Two alternative approaches may be applied to implement the Aquatic
Conservation Strategy, however both of these approaches will include
the strategy for amphibian species and willow flycatcher as described
above.
Range-wide Standards. Under this approach, Sierra Nevada-wide
standards and guidelines will be developed to be consistent across the
province, forest, watershed and project scales. These include
delineation of riparian reserves; location, maintenance and engineering
of roads; design of timber harvest units; and grazing, recreation, and
fuels treatments.
Site Specific Standards. Under this approach, management activities
will be determined only after a landscape analysis identifies actions
that are most appropriate and effective. In the absence of site
specific standards, range-wide standards and guidelines will apply.
3. Fire and Fuels
The desired condition is to have a cost-effective fire management
program that protects natural resources, life, and property from the
effects of unwanted wildland fire. Fuels are maintained at levels
commensurate with minimizing resource loss from fire while meeting
other requirements for overall ecosystem health. Fire, under prescribed
conditions, is one of the most important tools for restoration and
sustainability of ecosystem diversity and productivity. Fire management
is coordinated with the National Park Service, Bureau of Land
Management, Indian Tribes, Fish and Wildlife Service, California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and other agencies and
jurisdictions.
The proposal is to implement a fire management plan for each of the
eleven national forests that demonstrates consistency with the Federal
Wildland Fire Policy and coordinates with the California Fire Plan
prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
A fire management plan is a strategic plan that defines a program to
manage wildland and prescribed fires and documents implementation
strategies for the fire management program in the approved forest plan.
All fire plans will be supplemented by a range-wide, interagency
assessment of flammability and fire risk. This assessment will be based
on existing interagency mapping of surface fuels and vegetation, on
fire history (location and size of historical fires), and will be
adjusted using other factors that affect fire behavior such as weather,
climatology, slope and aspect. It displays the likelihood that fires
will occur and suggests how large and intense they could be under
existing conditions.
This assessment will help guide the setting of priorities for
wildland fire management and fire hazard reduction. Priorities should
include location of areas of high resource values, reintroduction of
fire as an ecosystem process, effects on local economies and impacts on
air quality.
Two alternative strategies for priority setting are proposed.
Prescribed Fire and Natural Wildland Fire Use With Focused Use of
Mechanical Treatments. Treat fuel accumulations and restore ecosystems
primarily through the use of prescribed and natural wildlife fire. Use
mechanical treatments along the urban wildland interface and major
transportation routes.
Prescribed Fire and Natural Wildland Fire With Extensive Use of
Mechanical Treatments. Use prescribed and natural wildland fire to
maintain treated areas and to reintroduce fire. Where fuel
accumulations, smoke management restrictions, or other concerns
preclude the use of prescribed fire as a means to deal with fuels
management or the risk of high intensity wildfire, use mechanical
methods to create a network of interspersed shaded fuelbreaks and area-
wide treatments consistent with fire management priorities.
4. Noxious Weeds
The desired condition is for no new populations of noxious weeds.
Existing populations are contained and, where possible, eradicated.
Employees, users of National Forest System lands, adjacent landowners,
and State agencies are aware and informed about noxious weed concerns.
The 1995 Forest Service Manual direction for noxious weed
management will be incorporated into all alternatives developed in the
EIS. Also, because noxious weed control and eradication is a Region-
wide effort, management directions developed for the Sierra Nevada
forests will be integrated at the Regional scale and coordinated with
other land management agencies in California.
Alternatives will contain management direction to minimize the
spread of noxious weed by roadbuilding, livestock use, vehicle use,
equipment use and other carriers. California wildland fire fighting
agencies would be encouraged to inventory and adopt use of weed-free
fire camps. Direction will also be included to ensure weed-free
administration sites and that materials brought onto the national
forests (e.g., sand, gravel, and pack animal's feed) will be weed-free.
All alternatives will include direction to use State certified
``noxious weed-free'' materials as soon as the State program is in
place.
Monitoring and inventory programs for noxious weed populations will
be tied to monitoring that triggers shifting the nature and intensity
of actions. Monitoring results and inventories will be shared across
agencies and national forests. The range-wide efficiency of the control
program would be periodically evaluated.
5. Lower Westside Hardwood Forest Ecosystems
The desired condition is for the lower westside hardwood forests to
be present in sufficient locations, connectivity, quantities, and
quality to provide for public uses, resident wildlife fish and acquatic
species, sensitive plant species
[[Page 64457]]
and seasonal migrants including deer. Fire will be employed to maintain
both old tree dominated forests and a mosaic of hardwood stand ages
across the landscape. Connectivity between lower elevation hardwood and
upper elevation conifer forests will be sufficient to allow for
wildlife migration and for natural processes, such as wildland fire, to
occur. Collaboration with local land owners and governments, and
consultation with tribes and permittees, will be an integral part of
managing these areas.
The proposed action is a management strategy that will ensure lower
westside hardwood forests are sustained. This strategy complements the
old-forest, aquatic conservation, fire and fuels, and noxious weeds
strategies. Individual large trees and snags, and concentrations of old
trees will be protected consistent with the old-forest ecosystem
strategy. A mosaic of hardwood stand ages will be provided through
reintroduction of fire, where possible, or through other fuels
reduction techniques in compliance with the fire and fuels strategy.
Management practices for improving connectivity between hardwood and
conifer forests and for reducing the impacts of urban development to
hardwood ecosystems will also be included. Viable populations of plants
and animals associated with hardwood forests would be sustained, to the
extent feasible in light of the fragmentation of these forests. The
monitoring strategy will be designed to ensure the management strategy
is effective in sustaining lower westside hardwood forests.
Proposed Scoping Process
This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process whereby the
Forest Service will identify the scope of issues to be addressed in the
EIS and identify the significant environmental issues related to the
proposed action.
Public comment is invited on the proposal to prepare the EIS.
Comment is also invited on the relationship between the EIS and section
401 of the 1999 Department of Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act (the Herger-Feintstein Quincy Library Group Forest
Recovery Act), 112 Stat. 2681.
Community meetings with interested publics will be hosted by each
Sierra Nevada national forest during scoping, after release of the
Draft EIS, and after release of the Final EIS. Coordination with
Federal and State agencies, Tribal governments, and local governments
will occur throughout the scoping process.
During December 1998, the eleven national forests will each host
workshops designed to explain the Notice of Intent. In January 1999,
community workshops will be held to solicit suggestions,
recommendations, and comments to help frame alternatives to the
proposed action. Workshops will also be held in Los Angeles and San
Francisco. Specific locations and dates of the meetings will be posted
on the Internet at www.r5.fs.fed.us and in the newspaper of record for
each Sierra Nevada national forest.
Decision To Be Made and Responsible Official
The Regional Foresters of Regions 4 and 5 will decide, for their
respective Regions, whether or not, and in what manner, to amend the
Land and Resource Management Plans for the eleven Sierra national
forests; Humboldt-Toiyabe, Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado,
Stanislaus, Sierra, Sequioa, Inyo, and Lake Tahoe Basin Management
Unit. Also, the decision could include a non-significant amendment to
the Regional Guides for the Intermountain and Pacific Southwest
Regions. The responsible officials are Regional Foresters Jack A.
Blackwell, Region 4, USDA Forest Service, Federal Building 324, 25th
Street, Ogden, UT 84401 and G. Lynn Sprague, Region 5, USDA Forest
Service, 630 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94111.
Coordination With Other Agencies
While the Forest Service is the lead agency with responsibility to
prepare this EIS, requests have been made of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and California Department
of Fish and Game to participate as cooperating agencies (40 CFR Part
1501.6). The Environmental Protection Agency and Fish and Wildlife
Service have regulatory responsibilities that could not efficiently be
considered without direct involvement; formal consultation
responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act will be carried out
by having a Fish and Wildlife Service specialist participate as a
member of the interdisciplinary team. Cooperation by the National
Marine Fisheries Service is being sought. Coordination with the
California Department of Fish and Game and the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection is necessary because some mission
responsibilities overlap or are closely aligned with the conservation
activities of the Forest Service. Negotiations with the California
Department of Parks and Recreation to seek their cooperation is also
underway. Each agency will continue to participate as resources and
competing demands permit. Other agencies, local and county governments
will be invited to comment, as appropriate.
Commenting
A draft environmental impact statement is expected to be available
for public review and comment in February 1999; and a final
environmental impact statement in July 1999. The comment period on the
draft environmental impact statement will be 90 days from the date of
availability published in the Federal Register by the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names
and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the
public record on this proposed action and will be available for public
inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and
considered. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may
request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by
showing how the Freedom of Information (FOIA) permits such
confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be
aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very
limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest
Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding
the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the
agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the
comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address.
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 the 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 stage 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 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it
[[Page 64458]]
is very important that those interested in this proposed action
participate by the close of the 90 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 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.
Dated: November 16, 1998.
Kent Connaughton,
Deputy Regional Forester.
[FR Doc. 98-31022 Filed 11-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
