[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 224 (Friday, November 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64452-64458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-31022]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Project EIS

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Regions 4 and 5 
will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to amend eleven 
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans and the Regional 
Guides for the Intermountain and Pacific Southwest Regions in response 
to changed circumstances and new information resulting from the report 
of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, the Sierra Nevada Science 
Review, and the Summary of Existing Management Direction. The Land and 
Resource Management Plans to be amended encompass the Humboldt-Toiyabe, 
Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, Sequoia, 
and Inyo National Forests, and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit.

DATES: The public is asked to provide any additional information they 
believe the Forest Service may still not have at this time, and to 
submit any issues (points of concern, debate, dispute or disagreement) 
regarding potential effects of the proposed action or alternatives by 
January 9, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Steve Clauson, EIS Team Leader, 
USDA Forest Service, Sierra Nevada Framework Project, Room 419, 801 
``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Contact Steve Clauson, EIS Team Leader, USDA Forest Service, Sierra 
Nevada Framework Project, Room 419, 801 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 
95814. Phone number--916-492-7554.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In the Pacific Southwest Region, Region 5 of the Forest Service, a 
Sierra Nevada-wide planning effort was initiated in 1992 to protect the 
California spotted owl (CASPO). This planning responded to Forest 
Service research on the status and viability of the California spotted 
owl (CASPO Technical Report, 1992). The CASPO report recommended 
interim management guidelines be adopted to protect California spotted 
owl populations while a more comprehensive management plan was 
developed. An environmental assessment to implement interim guidelines 
was prepared and a Decision Notice approving implementation of interim 
guidelines was signed on January 13, 1993. To develop a comprehensive 
management plan, the Forest Service prepared a draft environmental 
impact statement (EIS) for the comprehensive management of California 
spotted owl in 1995. A revised draft EIS was scheduled for release in 
1996, however new scientific information came to light and work was 
suspended pending the report of a Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) that 
was chartered to review the revised draft EIS. The work of the FAC was 
influenced by the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP), which 
produced four volumes of scientific assessments including several 
papers exploring possible management strategies, and made available 
large databases and maps for the Sierra Nevada.
    The Federal Advisory Committee concluded that the revised draft EIS 
was inadequate in its current form as either an owl or ecosystem 
management EIS (``Final Report of the California Spotted Owl Federal 
Advisory Committee'', USDA, December 1997). The FAC report identified 
specific critical shortcomings and offered recommendations to address 
inconsistencies with scientific information, flaws in some key elements 
of the analysis process, and the need for a more collaborative planning 
process. The Forest Service has redirected the EIS effort in response 
to the FAC report and other information.
    On July 24, 1998, a team of scientists from the USDA Forest 
Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, produced the Sierra Nevada 
Science Review (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 
Station, July 24, 1998), a review of current scientific information 
with attention to issues of urgent priority at Sierra Nevada Range-wide 
scale. A companion document, the Summary of Existing Management 
Direction, released on August 11, 1998, summarized existing management 
direction related to issues brought forward in the Science Review. This 
new scientific information has implications for existing forest plans, 
social values, and environmental trends in the Sierra Nevada.
    The report of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project concludes: ``Most 
of the problems of the Sierra can be solved, although the timeframe and 
degree of solution will differ depending on the problem.'' (``Sierra 
Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress'', Davis: University 
of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996.) For 
many of these problems, a range-wide or multi-forest planning approach 
is needed.
    The Land and Resource Management Plans for the eleven national 
forests in the Sierra Nevada Range and Modoc Plateau were developed in 
the 1980's and early 1990's. These plans were independently prepared 
and adopted in response to concerns at the scale appropriate for each 
forest. Given the science that recently emerged concerning issues that 
go beyond the individual forest and ownership boundaries, there is an 
urgent need to amend the plans to reflect this new information and 
achieve range-wide consistency. In response to this need, on July 10, 
1998 Regional Forester G. Lynn Sprague, in cooperation with Region 4, 
committed to developing new management direction, where necessary, to 
address concerns on the Sierra Nevada national forests (63 FR 37314). 
This EIS is part of the overall Sierra

[[Page 64453]]

Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration, which will 
continue to develop solutions to interagency issues and encourage 
communication on management of wildlands in the Sierra Nevada Range.

Public Involvement

    During 1998, nearly 1,000 people participated in 37 community based 
workshops to provide their perspectives on the Science Review, the 
Summary of Existing Management Direction, and other information 
relevant to the EIS. The majority of the workshops took place in Sierra 
Nevada communities. A Tribal Summit was held in Tahoe City and a state-
wide workshop was held in Davis. Other meetings were held in San 
Francisco, Los Angeles, and Carson City, Nevada. Written comments were 
submitted at the workshops, on the Internet, and in letters.
    People attending the September and October workshops were asked to 
respond to two questions: (1) Is there other new science relevant to 
Sierra Nevada national forest management that would cause us to add to 
or modify the findings in the Science Review, and (2) in light of the 
Science Review and other new information, what changes would you 
suggest for management direction in the Sierra Nevada national forests? 
Responses to these questions, together with the agency's analysis of 
the new science, information, and legal requirements, were used in 
framing the proposed action and possible alternatives presented in this 
Notice of Intent.
    In addition to problems or concerns to be addressed in the EIS, 
many additional concerns surfaced in September and October that are not 
appropriate to address in the proposed action. Concurrent with this 
Notice of Intent, the Forest Service has produced a ``Design Paper'' 
that documents the agency's proposal for addressing concerns outside 
the scope of the proposed action. The Design Paper is available on the 
Internet at www.r5.fs.red.us or by request to the Sierra Nevada 
Framework Project at the address given in the For Further Information 
section.
    Public comments received during this period reflect a wide range of 
social perspectives. Participants largely agreed on broad conservation 
principles. There were, however, many different perspectives on how the 
principles might be implemented. The wide variation of community 
responses confirmed the need to include local residents, as well as 
regional and national interests, in the design and refinement of 
alternatives. Numerous suggestions were made encouraging the Forest 
Service to work with other federal agencies, Indian Tribes, state and 
local governments, and organizations to solve Sierra Nevada-wide 
problems. The recommendations and suggestions received during meeting 
will be reviewed again during the scoping period.
    Each Sierra Nevada national forest will continue dialogues with 
interested members of the public and other agencies throughout the 
environmental analysis process. Each forest will host community 
discussions to explain and hear responses to this Notice of Intent. 
Workshops will be designed to receive suggestions and recommendations 
regarding the proposed actions as well as information that could help 
frame alternatives. Specific locations and dates of the meetings will 
be posted on the Internet at www.r5.fs.fed.us and in the newspapers of 
record for each Sierra Nevada national forest.

Scope

    The selection of problems for inclusion in the EIS was based on the 
following criteria: (1) New scientific information is available about 
the extent, intensity, or duration of the problem, (2) geographic scale 
is broad, (3) public perception or environmental risk, as judged by the 
science community, indicates action should be taken now, and (4) the 
problem is not well addressed elsewhere.
    A single EIS amending the eleven forest plans is proposed because: 
(1) Some problems may only be treatable at a range-wide scale, (2) the 
public, Indian Tribes, other governmental agencies, and the Forest 
Service need to consider ways to meet environmental goals common to the 
eleven forests economically and efficiently, and (3) implementation can 
be made more accountable and consistent.
    Problems that did not meet these criteria will be addressed in the 
associated activities of the Sierra Nevada Framework. For example, 
concerns surrounding the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep can be more 
immediately resolved within the scope of the existing forest plans by 
increased attention from the five affected national forests in the 
southern Sierra Nevada.
    Problem identified for action in this EIS are:
    1. Old forest ecosystems and associated species. Old forest 
ecosystems have declined in quality, amount and connectivity throughout 
the Sierra Nevada over the past hundred years. Habitats and/or 
populations of some animals associated with old-forests, including 
forest carnivores and the California spotted owl, have declined. No 
regionally consistent direction for old-forest conservation exists.
    2. Aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystems. These ecosystems are 
the most degraded of all habitats in the Sierra Nevada. Many aquatic 
and riparian-dependent species (willow flycatcher and amphibians in 
particular) and communities are at risk. No regionally consistent 
direction exists to deal with this urgent problem.
    3. Fire and Fuels. Wildland fire is both a major threat to life, 
property and natural resources and a critical natural process in the 
Sierra Nevada. Fire management planning is outdated and not integrated 
into forest plans.
    4. Noxious weeds. There is a rapid spread of invasive, exotic plant 
species that threaten to crowd out native plants and compromise 
wildland values. Noxious weeds are spreading throughout California and 
gaining ground at higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada.
    5. Lower westside hardwood forest ecosystems. Increasing urban 
development in lower elevations in the Sierra Nevada has fragmented and 
decreased the amount of hardwood forests. The public has expressed a 
desire to maintain the remaining extent of hardwood forests for their 
ecological roles, biodiversity, aesthetics, cultural resources, and for 
resource uses such as firewood and forage.

Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose of the proposed action is to improve national forest 
management direction for five broad problems: (1) Conservation of old-
forest ecosystems, (2) conservation of aquatic, riparian, and meadow 
ecosystems, (3) increased risk of fire and fuels buildup, (4) 
introduction of noxious weeds, and (5) sustaining hardwood forests. 
Resolution of these problems will influence and be influenced by 
social, cultural and economic values. The need is to ensure that 
national forest management direction accounts for current scientific 
thinking and public expectations, and is consistent among the eleven 
national forests in practices, procedures, definitions, standards and 
guidelines.
    Current forests plan direction does not reflect the shift in public 
values and expectations for goods and services from the Sierra Nevada 
national forests. As the five problem areas are addressed, there is a 
need to ensure that changes in the level of natural resource products, 
services, and values, e.g., forage, timber, wildlife, fish, recreation, 
wilderness, or water, are identified to respond to public concerns with 
the certainty of

[[Page 64454]]

future forest management products and services. In some cases, the lack 
of certainty has contributed to false expectations about the capability 
to provide products and services without diminishing long-term 
productive capability and without violating legal requirements for 
clean water, clean air, biological diversity, and endangered species.
    Three processes are needed to address the problems identified 
above: adaptive management, landscape analysis, and collaborative 
interaction with the public.
    Adaptive Management. The purpose is to adjust management direction 
based on results gained through experience. The need is for monitoring 
protocols that provide timely, accurate information on outcomes 
achieved by implementing current management direction. As stated in the 
report of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: ``All strategies for 
improvements are in some ways experiments. Learning as we go and 
adjusting as necessary work best when we give as much care and planning 
to measuring the response to new management strategies as we do to 
implementing them.''
    Landscape Analysis. The purpose is to consider how management 
direction at the scale of the forest plan or higher can be applied 
given landscape conditions at the watershed or subwatershed scale. The 
need is to identify a suitable set of landscape analysis protocols so 
that treatment needs can be identified and project priorities set.
    Public Interaction and Collaboration. The purpose is to ensure that 
citizens can meaningfully participate in the design, implementation and 
monitoring of management direction. Past planning efforts have followed 
a traditional model that has public input to the planning process only 
at prescribed intervals with little collaboration. As the report of the 
Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project concludes: ``Collaboration among 
various agencies, private interests, and public at large in the Sierra 
is the most significant principle that emerges from the SNEP 
strategies.''
    The following are the specific purposes, by problem area, for 
taking action.
    Old Forest Ecosystems and Associated Species. The purpose of the 
proposed action is to protect, increase, and perpetuate old forest and 
hardwood ecosystem conditions including their structure, composition, 
function, and to ensure the maintenance of biological diversity of 
these ecosystems including the viability of associated species while 
meeting people's needs and concerns. This will include reversing the 
declining trends in abundance of old-forest ecosystems and habitats for 
species that use old-forests.
    Aquatic, Riparian, and Meadow Ecosystems. The purpose of the 
proposed action is to protect and restore aquatic, riparian and meadow 
ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada national forests. This direction will 
ensure the proper functioning, such as stable streambanks and 
shorelines, of key ecosystem processes, such as nutrient cycling, and 
continued supplies of high quality water and will ensure the 
maintenance of biological diversity and the viability of species 
associated with these ecosystems. The purpose is to: (1) Improve 
consistency of existing conservation programs, strategies and 
practices, and (2) establish through landscape analysis, a consistent 
assessment of watershed condition to determine priorities for the 
allocation of limited personnel and funds.
    Fire and Fuels. The purposes are to: (1) bring greater consistency 
in fire and fuels management across the national forests and coordinate 
management strategies with other ownerships and with objectives for 
Forest Service management of other resources, (2) adjust the goals and 
objectives in the national forest land management plan direction to 
reflect the role and consequence of wildland fire, and (3) set 
priorities for fire management actions to balance the need to restore 
fire regimes while minimizing the threat fire poses to structures, 
lives and resources.
    Noxious Weeds. The purpose is to provide a strategy to control the 
rapid spread of invasive exotic plant species, to contain existing weed 
populations and, where possible, to eradicate them.
    Lower Westside Hardwood Forest Ecosystems. The purpose of the 
proposed action is to provide a management strategy that will result in 
a sustainable hardwood forest ecosystem in the lower westside of the 
Sierra Nevada, including the structure, composition, and function to 
ensure maintenance of biological diversity.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action responds to the needs identified above, the 
reports of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project and the Sierra Nevada 
Science Review, and concerns raised during public workshops held 
earlier this year. It also responds to the USDA Forest Service Natural 
Resource Agenda (on the Internet at www.fs.fed.us/news/agenda), the 
Final Report of the California Spotted Owl Federal Advisory Committee 
and the Clean Water Action Plan (delivered to Vice President Gore by 
EPA and USDA on February 19, 1998).
    The proposed action, while addressing the five problem areas, 
integrates multiple uses such as recreation, grazing, timber 
harvesting, and public access to the national forest into the actions. 
Sustainable levels of products and services, reflective of shifting 
public values and expectations, are an integral part of the proposed 
action. Employment, economic prosperity, community vitality, and the 
health of resource-based industries were concerns voiced during public 
comment. They are relevant to all aspects of the proposed action and 
will be evaluated as alternatives are prepared.
    The proposed action calls for application of adaptive management 
principles to adjust management direction to future events, changing 
knowledge, or dynamic social views. Adaptive management involves: (1) 
Establishing desired outcomes and steps towards achieving them, (2) 
monitoring to generate new information, (3) adjusting management 
objectives, and (4) adjusting strategies in response to the new 
information. The proposed action will contain a monitoring strategy to 
provide the critical information needed to trigger management 
adaptations.
    The proposed action also calls for analysis of environmental 
conditions and management possibilities at the watershed and sub-
watershed scale to: (1) Link decisions at the project scale to larger 
scale decisions, (2) link forest plans to the efforts of other 
agencies, (3) prioritize treatments within the watershed or sub-
watershed, and (4) facilitate local collaborative stewardship.
    The proposed action will be implemented using a collaborative 
process to ensure coordination and consideration of the needs of other 
federal agencies, Indian Tribes, state and local governments and 
individuals. This involvement will help shape national forest land 
management direction so that ecosystems are restored and maintained 
while providing the management consistency that allows for a 
sustainable level of multiple uses, including recreation, grazing, 
timber, water, mining, and others.
    This process will also assure redemption of the government's trust 
responsibilities with Indian Tribes and consideration of their 
expertise, cultural needs; and traditional and contemporary uses.
    Section 401 of the 1999 Department of the Interior and Related 
Agencies

[[Page 64455]]

Appropriations Act (the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest 
Recovery Act), 112 Stat. 2681, directs the Secretary to implement a 
pilot project on certain federal lands within the Plumas, Lassen and 
Tahoe National forests. The Forest Service will be issuing a Notice of 
intent for an environmental impact statement to begin implementation of 
section 401. We will coordinate the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 
Project Environmental Impact Statement with the environmental impact 
statement to implement section 401. We would like comments from the 
public and interested groups concerning the relationship between the 
two environmental impact statements.
    The description of the proposed action for each problem area 
includes alternative strategies, where they have been identified, that 
could accomplish the purpose and need for action.

1. Old Forest Ecosystems and Associated Species (Including Forest 
Carnivores and California Spotted Owl)

    The desired condition for Sierra Nevada national forests is to 
support old forests, which vary by vegetation type at a variety of 
scales, from individual old conifer or hardwood trees and snags to 
entire landscapes. Old forest habitat is present in sufficient 
locations, connectivity, quantities, and quality to sustain viable 
populations of old forest associated species and allow for seasonal 
migration of animals. Old forest ecosystems, including associated 
wildlife, fish, and plant populations, will be resilient to natural 
disturbance processes such as fire, which serve to sustain ecosystem 
composition, structure, and function. Management of old forest 
ecosystems integrates hardwoods and complements the aquatic 
conservation, fire and fuels, and noxious weeds strategies. Human uses 
of forests, e.g. recreation, resource uses, and Native American uses, 
are retained as important considerations for management of old forest 
ecosystems.
    The proposed action is to develop both processes and management 
standards and guidelines for the California spotted owl and forest 
carnivores to be integrated with strategies for old forests, aquatic 
ecosystems, and fire and fuel. These processes, standards, and 
guidelines would address habitat conservation, modeling, mapping and 
assessment, and analysis of effects of management actions.
    The proposed action is to: (1) Develop consistent old forest 
definitions by forest type, (2) set mapping standards, (3) adapt 
management to changing conditions, and (4) standardize large-scale 
monitoring of old forest ecosystems. The expected result of this action 
is to increase the acreage supporting old forests and habitat for 
species that occur there. Two contrasting approaches may be applied to 
achieve the desired condition.
    Landscape Reserve Alternative. The landscape reserve alternative 
would allocate land as old forest emphasis areas. These reserves would 
occur over all forest types and include hardwoods as well as conifer-
dominated communities. Little to no entry for commercial timber harvest 
or road building would be allowed in these areas. Prescribed fire would 
be the primary tool to attain protection and restoration goals. The old 
forest emphasis areas would be large enough to absorb large-scale 
natural disturbances, and geographically connected by riparian areas 
protected in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy to facilitate animal 
dispersal and contribute toward the continued existence of wide-ranging 
animals.
    Old forest emphasis areas would be selected based upon the 
following criteria: existing concentrations of old trees; known 
locations of wildlife, fish and plant populations that require these 
habitats; low road denisty; habitat for riparian/aquatic species; 
representativeness of soils, geology, climatic and vegetation 
conditions; existing wilderness and wild and scenic rivers; likelihood 
of long-term sustainability given estimated fire conditions.
    Outside the old forest emphasis areas, individual large old conifer 
and hardwood trees, large snags, and concentrations of old trees would 
be protected wherever they occur in the landscape, except where they 
pose a safety hazard. Lands would be available for commercial timber 
harvest and other uses.
    Whole Forest Alternative. The whole forest alternative designates 
the entire hardwood and conifer-dominated forest landscape in the 
Sierra Nevada for succession towards old forests. Individual large old 
conifer and hardwood trees and large snags would be protected wherever 
they occur in the landscape, except where they pose a safety hazard. In 
roadless areas, concentrations of old trees would be protected by 
constructing no new roads, and conducting no commercial timber harvest. 
In roaded areas, concentrations of old trees would primarily be 
maintained using prescribed fire. Elsewhere in roaded areas, commercial 
timber harvest, other mechanical treatments, and prescribed fire would 
be used to accelerate succession toward old forest conditions.
    The main differences between the landscape reserve and whole forest 
alternatives are that under the landscape reserve alternative the 
location of those reserves would not change over time and no commercial 
timber harvest would be permitted within the reserves, regardless of 
current condition. Under the Whole Forest Strategy, no timber harvest 
would be permitted in existing concentrations of old trees, regardless 
of location. Two points are common to both strategies: (1) The goal is 
to increase acreages supporting old forest, and (2) concentrations of 
old trees would move across the landscape over time in response to 
large-scale natural or human-generated disturbances.

2. Aquatic, Riparian, and Meadow Ecosystems

    The desired condition of the Sierra Nevada national forests will be 
to provide sustainable aquatic, riparian and meadow ecosystem 
compositions, structures and functions. Structures include vegetation, 
flows and stream/lake bottoms. Fire and flooding, and processes such as 
nutrient cycling, water and sediment flows are within a desired range 
of variability. Land use activities, such as recreation, hydro-power, 
grazing, mining, timber harvest, transportation system maintenance and 
fuel treatments will be managed to enhance and restore the health of 
these ecosystems. Habitat to support populations of native and desired 
non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate species will be well-
distributed. Watersheds will be connected to each other, allowing fish 
and wildlife populations to move between them.
    The proposed action is to implement an Aquatic Conservation 
Strategy. This includes a broad-scale assessment to identify the 
highest quality watersheds, and rare and imperiled wildlife and plant 
habitats for protection.
    Important components of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy will be 
the integration of existing management practices (i.e., collaboration, 
restoration, existing watershed conservation practices, adaptive 
management, monitoring and research), landscape analysis to assess 
watershed conditions, and establishment of emphasis watersheds and 
habitats. Criteria for designation of emphasis watersheds and habitats 
include the presence of native aquatic species; a low level or lack of 
exotic species; watershed condition; and distribution of, rarity of, 
and risk to aquatic habitat.
    The strategy will include specific standards and guidelines for at-
risk frog

[[Page 64456]]

and amphibian species. This group includes both foothill (Rana boylii) 
and mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa), California red-legged 
frog (Rana aurora draytoni), Cascade frog (Rana cascade), northern 
leopard frog (Rana pipiens), and Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus). The 
standards and guidelines will address protecting both occupied and 
potential habitat from the adverse effects of grazing, mining, 
reservoir construction, urbanization and other activities.
    The willow flycatcher is currently listed by the State of 
California as an endangered species. Three subspecies occur within 
California. Two of these subspecies occur in the Sierra Nevada 
(Empidonax traillii brewsteri and E. t. adastus) and are listed as 
Region 5 Sensitive Species. Standards and guidelines for these species 
will be a subject of the proposed action. A separate subspecies of 
willow flycatcher (E. t. extimus) is listed as federally endangered, 
occurs at the southern end of the Sierra Nevada, and is not expected to 
be addressed or affected by this proposed action.
    The proposed action is to protect known and potential willow 
flycatcher habitat from livestock grazing and other management 
activities through habitat management guidelines. Specific guidelines 
could include preventing cattle and sheep grazing in willow flycatcher 
habitat during the breeding season and managing grazing intensity to 
avoid adverse impacts to vegetation needed for nesting and foraging.
    Also included in the guidelines will be measures to: (1) Promote 
the improvement and expansion of suitable habitat, (2) minimize the 
likelihood of nest parasitism by brownheaded cowbirds, and (3) require 
annual surveys to monitor breeding success and habitat conditions.
    Two alternative approaches may be applied to implement the Aquatic 
Conservation Strategy, however both of these approaches will include 
the strategy for amphibian species and willow flycatcher as described 
above.
    Range-wide Standards. Under this approach, Sierra Nevada-wide 
standards and guidelines will be developed to be consistent across the 
province, forest, watershed and project scales. These include 
delineation of riparian reserves; location, maintenance and engineering 
of roads; design of timber harvest units; and grazing, recreation, and 
fuels treatments.
    Site Specific Standards. Under this approach, management activities 
will be determined only after a landscape analysis identifies actions 
that are most appropriate and effective. In the absence of site 
specific standards, range-wide standards and guidelines will apply.

3. Fire and Fuels

    The desired condition is to have a cost-effective fire management 
program that protects natural resources, life, and property from the 
effects of unwanted wildland fire. Fuels are maintained at levels 
commensurate with minimizing resource loss from fire while meeting 
other requirements for overall ecosystem health. Fire, under prescribed 
conditions, is one of the most important tools for restoration and 
sustainability of ecosystem diversity and productivity. Fire management 
is coordinated with the National Park Service, Bureau of Land 
Management, Indian Tribes, Fish and Wildlife Service, California 
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and other agencies and 
jurisdictions.
    The proposal is to implement a fire management plan for each of the 
eleven national forests that demonstrates consistency with the Federal 
Wildland Fire Policy and coordinates with the California Fire Plan 
prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 
A fire management plan is a strategic plan that defines a program to 
manage wildland and prescribed fires and documents implementation 
strategies for the fire management program in the approved forest plan.
    All fire plans will be supplemented by a range-wide, interagency 
assessment of flammability and fire risk. This assessment will be based 
on existing interagency mapping of surface fuels and vegetation, on 
fire history (location and size of historical fires), and will be 
adjusted using other factors that affect fire behavior such as weather, 
climatology, slope and aspect. It displays the likelihood that fires 
will occur and suggests how large and intense they could be under 
existing conditions.
    This assessment will help guide the setting of priorities for 
wildland fire management and fire hazard reduction. Priorities should 
include location of areas of high resource values, reintroduction of 
fire as an ecosystem process, effects on local economies and impacts on 
air quality.
    Two alternative strategies for priority setting are proposed.
    Prescribed Fire and Natural Wildland Fire Use With Focused Use of 
Mechanical Treatments. Treat fuel accumulations and restore ecosystems 
primarily through the use of prescribed and natural wildlife fire. Use 
mechanical treatments along the urban wildland interface and major 
transportation routes.
    Prescribed Fire and Natural Wildland Fire With Extensive Use of 
Mechanical Treatments. Use prescribed and natural wildland fire to 
maintain treated areas and to reintroduce fire. Where fuel 
accumulations, smoke management restrictions, or other concerns 
preclude the use of prescribed fire as a means to deal with fuels 
management or the risk of high intensity wildfire, use mechanical 
methods to create a network of interspersed shaded fuelbreaks and area-
wide treatments consistent with fire management priorities.

4. Noxious Weeds

    The desired condition is for no new populations of noxious weeds. 
Existing populations are contained and, where possible, eradicated. 
Employees, users of National Forest System lands, adjacent landowners, 
and State agencies are aware and informed about noxious weed concerns.
    The 1995 Forest Service Manual direction for noxious weed 
management will be incorporated into all alternatives developed in the 
EIS. Also, because noxious weed control and eradication is a Region-
wide effort, management directions developed for the Sierra Nevada 
forests will be integrated at the Regional scale and coordinated with 
other land management agencies in California.
    Alternatives will contain management direction to minimize the 
spread of noxious weed by roadbuilding, livestock use, vehicle use, 
equipment use and other carriers. California wildland fire fighting 
agencies would be encouraged to inventory and adopt use of weed-free 
fire camps. Direction will also be included to ensure weed-free 
administration sites and that materials brought onto the national 
forests (e.g., sand, gravel, and pack animal's feed) will be weed-free. 
All alternatives will include direction to use State certified 
``noxious weed-free'' materials as soon as the State program is in 
place.
    Monitoring and inventory programs for noxious weed populations will 
be tied to monitoring that triggers shifting the nature and intensity 
of actions. Monitoring results and inventories will be shared across 
agencies and national forests. The range-wide efficiency of the control 
program would be periodically evaluated.

5. Lower Westside Hardwood Forest Ecosystems

    The desired condition is for the lower westside hardwood forests to 
be present in sufficient locations, connectivity, quantities, and 
quality to provide for public uses, resident wildlife fish and acquatic 
species, sensitive plant species

[[Page 64457]]

and seasonal migrants including deer. Fire will be employed to maintain 
both old tree dominated forests and a mosaic of hardwood stand ages 
across the landscape. Connectivity between lower elevation hardwood and 
upper elevation conifer forests will be sufficient to allow for 
wildlife migration and for natural processes, such as wildland fire, to 
occur. Collaboration with local land owners and governments, and 
consultation with tribes and permittees, will be an integral part of 
managing these areas.
    The proposed action is a management strategy that will ensure lower 
westside hardwood forests are sustained. This strategy complements the 
old-forest, aquatic conservation, fire and fuels, and noxious weeds 
strategies. Individual large trees and snags, and concentrations of old 
trees will be protected consistent with the old-forest ecosystem 
strategy. A mosaic of hardwood stand ages will be provided through 
reintroduction of fire, where possible, or through other fuels 
reduction techniques in compliance with the fire and fuels strategy. 
Management practices for improving connectivity between hardwood and 
conifer forests and for reducing the impacts of urban development to 
hardwood ecosystems will also be included. Viable populations of plants 
and animals associated with hardwood forests would be sustained, to the 
extent feasible in light of the fragmentation of these forests. The 
monitoring strategy will be designed to ensure the management strategy 
is effective in sustaining lower westside hardwood forests.

Proposed Scoping Process

    This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process whereby the 
Forest Service will identify the scope of issues to be addressed in the 
EIS and identify the significant environmental issues related to the 
proposed action.
    Public comment is invited on the proposal to prepare the EIS. 
Comment is also invited on the relationship between the EIS and section 
401 of the 1999 Department of Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act (the Herger-Feintstein Quincy Library Group Forest 
Recovery Act), 112 Stat. 2681.
    Community meetings with interested publics will be hosted by each 
Sierra Nevada national forest during scoping, after release of the 
Draft EIS, and after release of the Final EIS. Coordination with 
Federal and State agencies, Tribal governments, and local governments 
will occur throughout the scoping process.
    During December 1998, the eleven national forests will each host 
workshops designed to explain the Notice of Intent. In January 1999, 
community workshops will be held to solicit suggestions, 
recommendations, and comments to help frame alternatives to the 
proposed action. Workshops will also be held in Los Angeles and San 
Francisco. Specific locations and dates of the meetings will be posted 
on the Internet at www.r5.fs.fed.us and in the newspaper of record for 
each Sierra Nevada national forest.

Decision To Be Made and Responsible Official

    The Regional Foresters of Regions 4 and 5 will decide, for their 
respective Regions, whether or not, and in what manner, to amend the 
Land and Resource Management Plans for the eleven Sierra national 
forests; Humboldt-Toiyabe, Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado, 
Stanislaus, Sierra, Sequioa, Inyo, and Lake Tahoe Basin Management 
Unit. Also, the decision could include a non-significant amendment to 
the Regional Guides for the Intermountain and Pacific Southwest 
Regions. The responsible officials are Regional Foresters Jack A. 
Blackwell, Region 4, USDA Forest Service, Federal Building 324, 25th 
Street, Ogden, UT 84401 and G. Lynn Sprague, Region 5, USDA Forest 
Service, 630 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94111.

Coordination With Other Agencies

    While the Forest Service is the lead agency with responsibility to 
prepare this EIS, requests have been made of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California 
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and California Department 
of Fish and Game to participate as cooperating agencies (40 CFR Part 
1501.6). The Environmental Protection Agency and Fish and Wildlife 
Service have regulatory responsibilities that could not efficiently be 
considered without direct involvement; formal consultation 
responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act will be carried out 
by having a Fish and Wildlife Service specialist participate as a 
member of the interdisciplinary team. Cooperation by the National 
Marine Fisheries Service is being sought. Coordination with the 
California Department of Fish and Game and the California Department of 
Forestry and Fire Protection is necessary because some mission 
responsibilities overlap or are closely aligned with the conservation 
activities of the Forest Service. Negotiations with the California 
Department of Parks and Recreation to seek their cooperation is also 
underway. Each agency will continue to participate as resources and 
competing demands permit. Other agencies, local and county governments 
will be invited to comment, as appropriate.

Commenting

    A draft environmental impact statement is expected to be available 
for public review and comment in February 1999; and a final 
environmental impact statement in July 1999. The comment period on the 
draft environmental impact statement will be 90 days from the date of 
availability published in the Federal Register by the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names 
and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the 
public record on this proposed action and will be available for public 
inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and 
considered. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may 
request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by 
showing how the Freedom of Information (FOIA) permits such 
confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be 
aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very 
limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest 
Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding 
the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the 
agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the 
comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address.
    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 the 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 environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised 
until after completion of the final environmental stage 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 these court rulings, it

[[Page 64458]]

is very important that those interested in this proposed action 
participate by the close of the 90 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 environmental impact statement.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft 
environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is 
also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the 
draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft 
environmental impact statement 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.

    Dated: November 16, 1998.
Kent Connaughton,
Deputy Regional Forester.
[FR Doc. 98-31022 Filed 11-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M