[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