[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 105 (Monday, June 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29706-29707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14231]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Giant Multi-Resource Management Project, Placer 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, wildlife habitat improvement projects,
creation of an interpretive trail, planting riparian vegetation,
closing of dispersed camping sites, decommissioning of roads, creation
of scenic overlooks, and seasonal road closures for wildlife protection
within the North Shirttail Canyon watershed in accordance with the
requirements of 36 CFR 219.19. It is located in all or part of section
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, and 18, TSN, R11E and portions of
sections 12, 13, and 24, T15N, R10E, Placer County, MDM, CA
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 23,
1997.
ADDRESSES: Written comments concerning the project should be directed
to Rich Johnson, District Ranger, Foresthill Ranger District, 22830
Foresthill Road, Foresthill CA 95631.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Bradford, Environmental Coordinator, Foresthill Ranger District,
Foresthill, CA 95631, telephone (916) 478-6254.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Giant Analysis Area is located in the
North Shirttail Canyon watershed. It lies primarily east of Sugar Pine
Reservoir, west of Humbug Canyon, north of Big Reservoir, and south of
the North Fork American River.
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. Another alternative will implement all of the actions being
proposed. It also means that the needs of people and environmental
values will be considered in a such way that this area will represent a
diverse, healthy, productive, and sustainable ecosystem.
The proposed actions include:
(1) Commercial timber harvesting on approximately 1100 acres of
plantations and natural stands.
(2) Creation of two scenic overlooks, one near Sugar Pine Reservoir
and one near the North Fork American River.
(3) Wildlife habitat improvement through thinning of black oak
clumps and through burning or masticating of shrubfields.
(4) Closing six dispersed camping sites to restore riparian habitat
and restore potential red-legged frog habitat.
(5) Protect deer winter range by installing gates and implementing
a seasonal road closure.
(6) Restore native riparian vegetation in conifer plantations
through planting riparian species.
(7) Establish a \1/4\ mile long interpretive trail along North
Shirttail Canyon.
(8) Precommercial thin in conifer plantations using chain saw and
track-laying masticating machines on approximately 580 acres.
(9) Prune plantation trees on approximately 350 acres. 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).
The following list of issues has been identified through initial
scoping:
(1) to what extent will harvesting affect water quality?
(2) What affect will timber harvesting have on the Off-Highway
Vehicle (OHV) trail system in the project area.?
[[Page 29707]]
(3) To what extent can 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 Sugar Pine Reservoir be
affected? What will the visual character be resulting from the proposed
activities?
(5) What affect will the proposed activities have on long-term soil
productivity?
(6) to what extent will air quality in the Sacramento Valley be
affected by proposed activities?
(7) What affect will including harvest of <10'' diameter="" trees="" have="" on="" the="" potential="" to="" sell="" harvested="" trees="" in="" a="" commercial="" timber="" sale?="" 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="" foresthill="" 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="" comment="" period="" on="" the="" draft="" eis="" 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="" 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,="" 1338="" (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="" draft="" eis="" is="" expected="" to="" be="" available="" for="" public="" review="" by="" the="" end="" of="" july,="" 1997.="" the="" final="" eis="" is="" expected="" to="" be="" available="" by="" the="" end="" of="" september,="" 1997.="" the="" responsible="" official="" is="" john="" h.="" skinner,="" forest="" supervisor,="" tahoe="" national="" forest,="" po="" box="" 6003,="" nevada="" city,="" ca="" 95959.="" dated:="" may="" 16,="" 1997.="" john="" h.="" skinner,="" forest="" supervisor.="" [fr="" doc.="" 97-14231="" filed="" 5-30-97;="" 8:45="" am]="" billing="" code="" 3410-11-m="">