[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29819-29821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13725]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29820]]


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


North Shore Project, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU), 
Washoe County, Nevada; Placer County, California

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 implement ecosystem management principles on 
approximately 7,000 acres of National Forest System lands, north of 
Lake Tahoe, within the Lake Tahoe Basin. Proposed activities include 
harvest of approximately twenty to thirty million board feet of both 
merchantable and unmerchantable wood products. Dead and dying trees 
would be cut, and thinning of live trees is also proposed to improve 
forest health and to reduce fire danger. The proposed action also uses 
prescribed fire and analyzes post sale treatments, including watershed 
improvement projects. Stream and riparian area enhancement and wildlife 
habitat improvements are also planned.

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 July 1, 
1995.

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 Joe 
Oden, Interdisciplinary team Leader, at (916) 573-2600 or the above 
address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action would harvest dead, 
dying, and diseased trees over approximately 7,000 acres of an 24,000-
acre study area. Trees would be thinned from overstocked stands, over 
about 6,000 acres, some of which overlap the salvage acreage, and some 
of which is separate. Some of the 20 to 30 million board feet removed 
would be useful lumber; much of the timber removed would have no 
commercial value.

    Trees would be removed from slope less than thirty percent by 
tractor skidding systems. Trees would be flown from slopes over thirty 
percent by helicopter. No new permanent roads would be constructed; 
however, construction of additional temporary access roads and landing 
sites may be required, as well as reconstruction and restoration of 
existing roads.
    The proposed action includes treatments that would follow tree 
removal activities. This would include (but is not limited to) site 
preparation, planting, treatment of slash generated by the project, 
fuel treatment adjacent to residential areas, closing of temporary and 
unneeded roads, and restoration of landings. The use of prescribed fire 
will be analyzed, both as a post-harvest treatment and as a means to 
reintroduce fire to the ecosystem on untreated areas. Wildlife habitat 
would be improved by thinning stands of small lodgepole pines and 
underburning older brushfields.
    Heritage (historic archaeological) resources are dispersed 
throughout the study area. Most are the remains of 19th century 
logging. Sites determined to be significant 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 and road closures are also included 
in the proposed action if they are, in the language of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA--. ``connected'', ``cumulative'' or are 
``ripe for decision''.
    These actions are proposed to promote stable ecosystems as 
described in ``desired condition'' portions of the Forest Plan and the 
North Shore Ecosystem Report.
    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 had consisted of diverse 
species that better 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 has been cut. The drought 
that begin in 1987 weakened and killed many of the 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, both standing and on the 
ground. Members of the public have expressed concern over the large 
numbers of dead trees and 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 reduce the risk of 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 selected 
the work should proceed without delay. Delaying the removal of dead, 
dying, or diseased trees can reduce their commercial value. The 
anticipated high cost of implementation could deter potential bidders 
as the soundness of the trees declines. Consequently, project 
implementation is expected to begin during the spring or summer of 
1996.
    Over sixty agencies, organizations, and individuals were notified 
of this proposed project through the LTBMU NEPA Status Report. Public 
meetings were held on March 10, 13 and 24, as part of the scoping 
process. Some people also provided written comments. Tahoe Regional 
Planning agency staff was briefed about the project on March 13, 1995.
    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 received by 
July 1, 1994 will be addressed in the draft EIS.
    The ``no action'' alternative (Alternative 1) proposes a 
continuation of the current types of management activities currently 
conducted in the study area, without imposing impacts from proposed 
fuels treatments, logging, wildlife or streamzone enhancements, or 
watershed improvement work.
    Alternative 3 emphasizes fuels treatments to reduce the threat of 
intense wildfires. It harvests dead, dying, diseased, and overcrowded 
trees over approximately 3,600 acres, concentrating on areas of high 
tree mortality and areas adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Removal 
of 15 to 20 MMBF of both merchantable and unmerchantable material is 
anticipated. This alternative includes all components of the proposed 
action, except when modified as described: Tree removal activities and 
prescribed underburning would be located adjacent to proposed 
fuelbreaks to maximize fire defensible space 
strategies. [[Page 29821]] 
    Alternative 4 represents a ``wildlife habitat emphasis.'' It 
includes harvests of dead, dying, diseased, and overcrowded trees over 
approximately 3,000 acres, for the purpose of improving wildlife 
habitat. Removal of about 10 MMBF of both merchantable and 
unmerchantable material is anticipated. This alternative includes all 
components of the proposed action, except as modified: while treatment 
of activity fuels will occur, the use of prescribed fire as a 
management tool will be limited to improving wildlife habitat; a 
greater level of road closures would be implemented to reduce 
disturbance to wildlife.
    Implementation of this project requires permits from the Tahoe 
Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and the California Regional Water 
Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region. Additionally, encroachment 
permits from the California and Nevada Departments of Transportation 
will be required for project implementation. Consultation with both the 
California and Nevada State Historic Preservation Offices (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 
September 1995. The final EIS and its Record of Decision is expected in 
January 1996. The decision will be appealable under Forest Service 
regulations found at 36 CFR 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: May 23, 1995.
Robert E. Harris,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 95-13725 Filed 6-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M