[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-917]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: January 14, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service

 

East Shore Project, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU), 
Washoe County, Douglas County, and Carson City Rural Area, NV

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice, intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement on a proposal to harvest 30-40 million board feet of both 
merchantable and unmerchantable wood products from approximately 8,000 
acres of National Forest System lands on the east side of Lake Tahoe in 
Nevada. Dead and dying trees would be cut, and a green tree thinning 
component is also proposed to improve forest health. Jeffrey pine 
beetle suppression comprises part of the project. The proposed action 
also uses prescribed fire and analyzes post sale treatments, including 
watershed improvement projects.

DATES: Agencies and the public are invited to participate at any stage 
of the process; however, the Forest Supervisor requests that 
individuals concerned with the scope of the analysis comment by 
February 14, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Written comments concerning the DEIS should be sent to the 
responsible official, Forest Supervisor, LTBMU, 870 Emerald Bay Road, 
Suite 1, South Lake Tahoe, California, 96150.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Direct questions concerning the proposed action and alternatives to 
Scott Parsons, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, (916) 573-2600 or the 
above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action harvests dead, dying, 
and diseased trees, many of which are beetle-infested, over 
approximately 8,000 acres of an 11,000-acre study area. Green trees 
would be thinned from overstocked stands, over about 2,000 acres, some 
of which overlap the salvage acreage, and some of which is separate. 
Some of the 30 to 40 million board feet removed will be useful lumber; 
much of the timber removed will have no commercial value.
    Trees would be removed from gentle slopes by tractor skidding 
systems. Trees would be flown from steeper terrain by helicopter. No 
new permanent roads would be constructed; however, construction of 
additional temporary access roads and landing sites would be required, 
as well as reconstruction and restoration of existing historic roads.
    This proposed action includes treatments that will follow removal 
of the trees. This includes (but is not limited to) site preparation, 
planting, treatment of slash generated by the project, obliteration of 
temporary and unneeded roads, and restoration of landings. Monitoring 
how effectively the project prevents future beetle attacks is part of 
``post sale'' work. The use of prescribed fire will be analyzed, both 
as a post-harvest treatment and as a long-term management tool. This 
alternative treats the most acres with prescribed fire.
    Heritage (historic archaeological) resources are dispersed 
throughout the study area. Most are the remains of 19th century 
logging, and not all of them will be protected. In addition to 
mitigation negotiated with the Advisory Council of Historic 
Preservation, a key component of the analysis is to seek and address 
enhancement opportunities for representative heritage properties.
    Watershed restoration projects, road closures, and mistletoe 
reduction opportunities may also be included in the proposed action if 
they are, in the language of the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA), ``connected'', ``cumulative'' in their effects with the removal 
of dead trees, or are ``ripe for decision''.
    This action is proposed because of current forest mortality 
stemming from historical activities. Beginning in the 1850's many of 
the 200-500 year old pine trees around Lake Tahoe were harvested in 
support of silver mining activities of the Comstock Lode. Earlier, the 
forest and consisted of diverse species that resisted drought and 
insect attacks. After logging slowed in the 1890's, the area began to 
revegetate naturally. But a new and different forest grew to replace 
the old. In the absence of frequently recurring fires, dense thickets 
of moisture-loving fir trees replaced much of the open pine forest that 
had been cut. The drought that began in 1987 weakened and killed those 
fir trees that had sprouted after the massive Comstock cutting.
    Forty years of fire suppression has dramatically increased the 
density of trees and the amount of dead wood, standing or on the 
ground. Members of the public have expressed concern over the large 
numbers of dead trees the amount of forest fuels now present. Many 
requests have been made for projects to remove timber to reduce safety 
hazards, fire danger, and to improve visual quality. Such projects 
would reduce the ``fuel loading'' and could decrease the risk and 
severity of a catastrophic fire. Additionally, thinning of overstocked 
stands can be an effective way to prevent future catastrophic insect 
and disease outbreaks.
    The environmental analysis provides the decisionmaker--the LTBMU 
Forest Supervisor with an evaluation of what will happen if nothing is 
done, and what may result from the proposed action, and other 
alternatives Such disclosure will allow a reasoned choice between 
management options. If an alternative other than No Action is 
preferable, then the work has to proceed quickly. If actively infested 
trees are removed before the onset of summer when the beetles fly, then 
fewer healthy trees may be attacked. On small scale, high value areas, 
such as the East Shore beaches, beetle suppression work may reduce the 
number of large Jeffrey pines that die. Further, trees that are 
harvested quickly will have more commercial value. The high cost of a 
predominantly helicopter operation could deter potential bidders as the 
soundness of the trees declines. Consequently, project implementation 
is expected to begin during the summer or fall of 1994.
    Over sixty agencies, organizations, and individuals were notified 
of this proposed project through the LTBMU NEPA Status Report. A public 
meeting was held on October 5, 1993 as part of the scoping process. 
Some people also provided written comments. Tahoe Regional Planning 
Agency staff was briefed about the project on November 10, 1993. The 
Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer has also been briefed.
    Originally conceived and publicly scoped as a project whose 
environmental analysis would be documented in an environmental 
assessment, it was determined in late December 1993 that its potential 
environmental effects warrant an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 
Project activities will adversely affect heritage resources in a 
National Register-eligible historic district.
    While the type of NEPA documentation has changed since the 
project's conception, the project itself has not changed. Consequently, 
only minimal additional public scoping will occur. A public and agency 
briefing on the project, to be announced in the Tahoe Daily Tribune and 
through letters sent to those parties who have expressed interest in 
the East Shore Project, will be held on January 26, 1994, at the El 
Dorado County Library at 1000 Rufus Allen Boulevard in South Lake 
Tahoe. Participants in the planning process will be sent copies of the 
draft EIS for the public comment period. Availability of the draft EIS 
will also be noticed in the Federal Register, and the Tahoe Daily 
Tribune, the LTBMU's newspaper of record. Written comments and 
suggestions received by January 24, 1994 will be addressed in the draft 
EIS.
    The ``no action'' alternative proposes a continuation of the 
current types of management activities currently conducted in the study 
areas, without imposing impacts from logging to heritage resources. 
Trees which pose hazards to life and property will be taken down. While 
the long-term management of the Genoa Peak road system is primarily for 
off-highway vehicle use, road reconstruction and maintenance at a 
logging truck standard along a portion of the road will be required to 
accommodate log haul for timber sales on the adjacent Toiyabe National 
Forest, as analyzed in the Carson District's Spooner Salvage Sale 
environmental assessment. Short-term road closures will prevent public 
recreation use of parts of the area during timber sale operations. 
Obliteration of nonhistoric nonsystem roads, maintenance of existing 
system roads and trails, watershed improvement projects, and study and 
management of the proposed National Register District will continue as 
part of ongoing programs.
    The ``salvage only'' alternative harvests dead, dying, and diseased 
trees, many of which are beetle-infested, over approximately 6,600 
acres. No green tree thinning will occur. Removal of about 30 MMBF of 
both merchantable and unmerchantable material is anticipated. This 
alternative includes all components of the proposed action, except when 
modified as described: (1) While treatment of activity fuels will 
occur, only limited use of prescribed fire as a management tool is 
proposed, in selected areas, such as for use as a fuelbreak near urban 
areas; (2) site preparation and planting will occur on high value areas 
only (such as at the beaches and along roadway corridors) and natural 
regeneration only will occur in general forest zones; and (3) only 
temporary roads and landings used as part of the project will be 
obliterated.
    The fourth alternative emphasizes helicopter harvesting in areas 
with significant heritage resources. It harvests dead, dying, and 
diseased trees, many of which are beetle-infested, over approximately 
6,750 acres--with approximately 550 acres less tractor logging than 
alternatives two or three. Green trees would be thinned from 
overstocked stands only within those areas entered for salvage 
activities. Removal of 30 to 35 MMBF of both merchantable and 
unmerchantable material is anticipated. This alternative includes all 
components of the proposed action, except when modified as described: 
(1) While treatment of activity fuels will occur, only limited use of 
prescribed fire as a management tool is proposed, in selected areas, 
such as for use as a fuelbreak near urban areas.
    Implementation of this project requires a permit from the Tahoe 
Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). It is in a classification of actions 
requiring TRPA Governing Board review and approval. Additionally, 
encroachment permits from the Nevada Department of Transportation are 
required for project implementation. Consultation with the Nevada State 
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation (ACHP) in accordance with the National Historic 
Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) is required. 
Concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is needed if the 
Forest Service Biological Assessment results in a ``may affect'' 
determination.
    The decision on this analysis, pursuant to NEPA, is made by Lake 
Tahoe Basin Management Unit Forest Supervisor, Robert Harris, as the 
Forest Service is the lead agency under NEPA. There is no other joint 
lead agency and no cooperating agencies under NEPA.
    The draft EIS is anticipated to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency and made available to the public for comment in 
February of 1994. The final EIS and its Record of Decision is expected 
in May of 1994. The decision will be appealable under Forest Service 
regulations found at 36 CFR part 215.
    The comment period for the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date 
the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of availability appears in 
the Federal Register. The public will also be informed of the 
availability of the DEIS by news releases issued to the media in the 
Lake Tahoe region. It is very important that those interested in this 
proposed action participate at that time. To be the most helpful, 
comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible and may 
address the adequacy of the statement or the merits of the alternatives 
discussed (see the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for 
implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA at 40 CFR 1503.3).
    In addition, Federal court decisions have established that 
reviewers of draft EIS' must structure their participation in the 
environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and 
alerts an agency to the reviewers' position and contentions. Vermont 
Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). 
Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage 
may be waived if not raised until after completion of the final EIS. 
City of Angoon v. Hodel, (9th Circuit, 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, 
Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). The reason 
for this is to ensure that substantive comments and objections are made 
available for the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully 
consider them and respond to them in the final.

    Dated: January 4, 1994.
John R. Swanson,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 94-917 Filed 1-13-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M