[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 93 (Monday, May 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-11820]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 16, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Eastside Forest Restoration Project, Tahoe National Forest,
Sierra County, CA
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service will
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for proposed timber
harvest, plantation thinning, fire hazard reduction, watershed
restoration, and wildlife habitat improvement projects for areas in the
Feather River Watershed and Truckee River Watershed. The project area
is located within portions of T.19N., R.14, 15, 16, & 17E., T.20N.,
R.14, 15, 16, & 17E., and T.21N., R.15, 16, and 17E., MDB&M.
The agency invites comments and suggestions on the scope of the
analysis. In addition, the agency gives notice of the full
environmental analysis and decision-making process that will occur on
the proposal so that interested and affected people are aware of how
they may participate and contribute to the final decision.
DATES: Comments should be made in writing and received by June 30,
1994.
ADDRESSES: Written comments concerning the project should be directed
to Steve Bishop, District Ranger, Sierraville Ranger District, P.O. Box
95, Sierraville, CA 96126.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Bishop, District Ranger, or Barbara Bonefeld, Public Services
Director, Sierraville Ranger District, Sierraville, CA 96126, telephone
(916) 994-3401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Eastside Analysis Area is about 85,000
acres in size. Most of the area is in the Feather River Watershed, with
a small portion in the Truckee River Watershed. It is located two miles
south of Sierraville, southwest to Webber Lake, east to the crest of
the Bald Mountain Range, and north to approximately 4 miles south of
Loyalton. The area is dominated by eastside pine stands with
catastrophic insect-induced mortality resulting from several years of
severe drought.
The extensive mortality and overstocked timber stands have resulted
in poor forest health and an extreme fire hazard. There are
opportunities to treat these stands in order to improve forest health
and reduce the fire hazard, while concurrently accomplishing watershed
restoration and wildlife habitat improvement goals.
In preparing the environmental impact statement, the Forest Service
will identify and analyze a range of alternatives that address the
issues developed for this area. One of the alternatives will be no
treatment. Other alternatives will consider differing levels of
implementation of California spotted owl standards and guidelines,
salvage and sanitation treatments, group selection harvests, plantation
thinning, thinnings from below, fuelbreak construction, plantation
protection from fire, watershed restoration, road obliteration,
wildlife habitat improvement, and new road construction and
reconstruction. An ecological approach will be used to achieve
multiple-use management of the Eastside area. It also means that the
needs of people and environmental values will be blended in such a way
that this area would represent a diverse, healthy, productive, and
sustainable ecosystems.
Public participation will be important during the analysis,
especially during the review of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and
assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies and other
individuals or organizations who may be interested in or affected by
the proposed action. This input will be used in preparation of the
draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). The scoping process
includes:
1. Identifying potential issues.
2. Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth.
3. Eliminating insignificant issues or those which have been
covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis.
4. Exploring additional alternatives.
5. Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed
action and alternatives (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative effects
and connected actions).
6. Determining potential cooperating agencies and task assignments.
The following list of issues has been identified through initial
scoping:
(1) To what extent will future options for the management of
California spotted owls be maintained?
(2) To what extent can the potential for large catastrophic
wildfires be reduced within the project area?
(3) To what extent can the forest health be improved within the
project area? In addition, what level of timber commodities could
result from forest health improvement projects?
(4) To what extent will the view from Highway 49 and Highway 89 be
affected? What will the visual character be resulting from the proposed
activities and to what extent will these activities affect views from
private land within the study area?
(5) To what extent will water quality in the Feather River and the
Truckee River watersheds be affected by the proposed activities?
(6) To what extent will air quality in the Sierra Valley and
Truckee areas be affected by proposed activities?
(7) To what extent will long term soil productivity be affected by
proposed activities?
Comments from other Federal, State, and local agencies,
organizations, and individuals who may be interested in, or affected by
the decision, are encouraged to identify other significant issues.
Public participation will be solicited through mailing letters to
potentially interested or affected mining claim owners, private land
owners, and special use permittees on the Sierraville Ranger District;
posting information in local towns; and mailing letters to local timber
industries, politicians, school boards, county supervisors, and
environmental groups. Continued participation will be emphasized
through individual contacts. Public meetings used as a method of public
involvement during preparation and review of the draft environmental
impact statement will be announced in newspapers of general circulation
in the geographic area of such meetings well in advance of scheduled
dates.
The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by the
end of January, 1995. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45
days from the date the EPA 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 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, (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of the 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
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 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.
The final EIS is expected to be available by May, 1995. The
responsible official is John H. Skinner, Forest Supervisor, Tahoe
National Forest.
Dated: May 4, 1994.
John H. Skinner,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 94-11820 Filed 5-13-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
