[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24565]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 5, 1994]


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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 

Cottonwood Fire 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, Tahoe 
National Forest will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) 
for proposed watershed restoration, timber salvage, fuels reduction, 
wildlife habitat improvement, and reforestation activities within the 
xx,xxx-acre Cottonwood Fire Restoration Project analysis area located 
in the Feather River and Truckee River watersheds. The project area is 
located within all or portions of T19N, R15 & 16E, T20N, R15, 16, & 
17E; and T21N, R15, 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 November 21, 
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, 
Sierraville Ranger District, Sierraville, CA 96126, telephone (916) 
994-3401, or Martha Twarkins, Project Team Leader, at the above 
location or at (916) 478-6293.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice of Intent to prepare the Eastside 
Forest Restoration Project EIS was published in the Federal Register on 
May 16, 1994 [59 FR 25440-25441]. That 85,000-acre project was proposed 
to address the area's extensive tree mortality and overstocked timber 
stands. Opportunities were identified to treat those stands in order to 
improve forest health and reduce the fire hazard, while concurrently 
accomplishing watershed restoration and wildlife habitat improvement 
goals.
    Significant new circumstances have occurred that bear on the 
original proposal. From August 16 through August 31, 1994, the 48,000-
acre Cottonwood Fire burned through the Eastside Forest Restoration 
Project analysis area, affecting about 36,300 acres of National Forest 
System land and 11,700 acres of lands of other ownership on both the 
Tahoe and Toiyabe National Forests.
    The fire burned with high-to-moderate intensity on over 90 percent 
of the affected area, leaving only skeletons of burned trees and 
shrubs. Less than 10 percent of the area burned with low intensity, 
leaving partially burned or scattered live trees. This loss of 
vegetation has resulted in large areas of exposed soils and, thus, 
unstable watershed conditions, large amounts of new fuels, and the loss 
of standing timber and future timber growth potential. The fire also 
affected other important resources, such as wildlife habitat, 
recreation sites, visual quality, historic and pre-historic sites, 
fisheries, sensitive plant and animal species, and water quantity and 
quality.
    The unburned portion (about xx,xxx acres) of Eastside Forest 
Restoration Project EIS is being deferred for analysis until the 
completion of the Cottonwood Fire Restoration Project EIS; a revised 
Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the 
remaining area, along with new time schedules, will be placed in the 
Federal Register at a later date.
    The Cottonwood Fire Restoration Project analysis area is about 
xx,xxx acres in size, and includes xx,xxx acres of National Forest 
System lands and xx,xxx acres of lands of other ownerships. Most of the 
area is in the Feather River watershed, with a small portion in the 
Truckee River watershed. It is located east of the town of Sierraville 
and Highway 89, north of Sardine Peak and Lewis Mill, west of Babbitt 
Peak and the crest of the Bald Mountain Range, and south of the town of 
Loyalton. Major drainages within the project area include Cottonwood 
Creek, Lemon Canyon, Turner Canyon, Smithneck Creek, Bear Valley Creek, 
and Badenaugh Canyon. The project area includes all lands within the 
fire boundary on the Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National 
Forest; the area burned on the Carson Ranger District of the Toiyabe 
National Forest will be analyzed separately.
    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 salvage treatments, fuels reduction, 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 Cottonwood Fire area. It 
also means that the needs of people and environmental values will be 
blended in such a way that this area's desired condition would 
represent a diverse, healthy, productive, and sustainable ecosystem.
    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. 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 can the potential for future large, catastrophic 
wildlife be reduced within the project area?
    (2) To what extent can the forest health be restored within the 
project area?
    (3) What level of timber commodities could result from forest 
health restoration projects?
    (4) To what extent will erodable and sensitive soils, and thus 
long-term soil productivity, be affected by the proposed activities?
    (5) To what extent will the view from Highways 49 and 89 be 
affected? What visual character will result from the proposed 
activities, and to what extent can visual quality be improved in 
sensitive areas affected by the fire?
    (6) To what extent will vegetative diversity be improved to support 
a wide variety of biological communities?
    (7) To what extent and at what timing will wildlife habitat be 
restored for the large variety of wildlife using the area?
    (8) To what extent will watershed conditions be improved and 
restored by the proposed activities?
    (9) To what extent will air quality in the Sierra Valley and 
Truckee areas be affected by the 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 
December, 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, 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 final EIS is expected to be available by March, 1995. The 
responsible official is John H. Skinner, Forest Supervisor, Tahoe 
National Forest.

    Dated: September 26, 1994.
Larry Gruver,
Acting Forest Supervisor
[FR Doc. 94-24565 Filed 10-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M