[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14881-14882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7893]


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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Liberty Forest Health Improvement 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 a proposed forest health improvement project within the boundaries 
of the Liberty Analysis Area. This area is identified by watershed 
boundaries that encompass about 12,769 total acres. The analysis area 
is located on the Sierraville Ranger District and is about eight miles 
south and east of Sierraville, California. It is located within all or 
portions of T18N and T19N, R14E and R15E, MDB&M.
    The primary objectives of the project are to improve the forest 
health and to reduce the risk of stand-destroying fires by treating 
about 3,100 acres within the analysis area. The project proposal 
focuses on reducing stocking levels of existing weakened and 
overcrowded stands that are mixed with dead and dying trees. The trees 
to be removed are relatively small second-growth, evenaged timber, 
averaging 10 inches to 18 inches in diameter, 50 to 90 feet tall, and 
80 to 110 years old.
    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 April 23, 
1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments concerning the project should be directed 
to Sam Wilbanks, District Ranger, Sierraville Ranger District, P.O. Box 
95, Sierraville, CA 96126.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sam Wilbanks, District Ranger, Sierraville Ranger District, 
Sierraville, CA 96126, telephone (916) 994-3401, or Phil Horning, 
Project Team Leader, at (916) 478-6210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Liberty analysis area is mixed ownership 
with about 8,262 acres of National Forest System lands and 4,507 acres 
of lands of other ownerships that are located in the upper reaches of 
the Little Truckee River watershed, a tributary to the Truckee River. 
Most of the area is accessible by either National Forest or County 
roads; however, about

[[Page 14882]]

1.8 miles of new road construction and 4.5 miles of temporary 
construction are proposed. The 3,100 acres of proposed activities are 
located in the eastern two-thirds of the analysis area, primarily west 
of State Highway 89 and south of Fiberboard road.
    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 commercial timber stand thinning treatments, fuels 
reduction, pre-commercial thinning in plantations, 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 Liberty Analysis area. 
It also means that the needs of people and environmental values will be 
blended in a such 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 
wildfires 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 be removed economically 
from the forest health restoration projects?
    (4) To what extent will long-term soil productivity be affected by 
equipment compaction by the proposed activities.
    (5) To what extent will water quality in the Truckee River 
watershed be affected by proposed activities? To what extent will 
cumulative watershed effects, e.g., channel erosion, stream 
sedimentation, occur and what opportunities exist to reduce or mitigate 
these potential effects?
    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, depending on interest, 
will be used as a method of public involvement during preparation and 
review of the draft environmental impact statement and will be 
announced in newspapers of general circulation in the geographic area 
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 June, 
1997. 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 on 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 August, 1997. The 
responsible official is John H. Skinner, Forest Supervisor, Tahoe 
National Forest.

    Dated: March 21, 1997.
John H. Skinner,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 97-7893 Filed 3-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M