[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77557-77558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31535]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Horsethief

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that the 
Forest Service intends to prepare an environmental impact statement for 
the Horsethief project, Sierra National Forest Fresno County, 
California.

DATES: The public is asked to submit any issues regarding potential 
effects of the proposed action or alternatives by January 15, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Ray Porter, District Ranger, 
Pineridge/King River Ranger District, P.O. Box 559, Prather, California 
93651.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Sorini-Wilson, Team Leader at 
(559) 855-5355, or e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Early Public Involvement

    In 1995, the NEPA process for Horsethief began; knowing the main 
focus would be to re-introduce fire into the ecosystem with fuels 
reduction through timber harvest. A letter was sent to the public, 
requesting preliminary input in defining the characteristics of a 
healthy and viable ecosystem and to assist in planning projects that 
would achieve those characteristics. Two public field trips to 
Horsethief occurred in June 1995 and specialists began gathering 
information about existing condition. A conscious decision was made by 
the Forest Supervisor to defer planning efforts in order to better 
understand ecosystem management. An ecosystem management plan was 
prepared and signed in June of 1997. The Plan is titled Horsethief 
Ecosystem Analysis Plan. From this Ecosystem Analysis an Environmental 
Assessment titled Horsethief Environmental Assessment was completed and 
sent out for comments in December 1999; with the comments received and 
new scientific information it was decided to prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement. No additional public meetings are anticipated.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action is to reintroduce fire, improve forest health, 
manage stand structure and density for the survival and growth of 
conifer/oak seedlings and reestablish conifers while providing desired 
spotted owl habitat within Spotted Owl Habitat Area (SOHA #14, FR031).
    The need is due to the high risk of stand replacing fire, the 
potential loss to the current investment (plantations) from fire and 
disease, and the potential for fires to exceed the boundaries of one 
watershed. A current fire risk analysis has shown this watershed to be 
at high risk for a stand replacing fire.
    The need for forest health improvement is due to high tree 
densities are increasing tree stress, susceptibility to stand replacing 
fire, susceptibility of insect attack and disease; and plantations are 
at risk to increased infestations of mistletoe from infected mistletoe 
trees.
    The need to improve the habitat conditions of SOHA #14 is due to 
lack of nesting habitat, excessive foraging habitat, vegetation 
conditions are not appropriate for increasing non-overlapping canopy 
cover, and previously harvested areas are not providing nesting or 
foraging habitat.
    The proposed activities are consistent with the LRMP and the 
Horsethief Ecosystem Analysis Plan. The project prescriptions will be 
following California Spotted Owl (CASPO) guidelines (USDA 1993) and the 
recommended direction suggested in the Regional Forester's letter of 
May 1, 1998.

Preliminary Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    To comply with NEPA, the Forest Service will evaluate alternatives 
to the proposed action within the EIS, including No Action and other 
alternatives responding to public comments. Each alternative will be 
rigorously explored and evaluated, or

[[Page 77558]]

rationale would be given for eliminating an alternative from detailed 
study. The range of alternatives to be considered would include, but 
not be limited to:
    1. Fuels reduction and forest health--Fire is reintroduced through 
(1) thinning to prepare for burning; (2) the creation of DFPZs to 
assist in burning and to maintain fires to one watershed; (3) 
underburning conifer stands; (4) patch burning chaparral stands. Forest 
health is achieved through thinning and by removing mistletoe infested 
trees to reduce the risk of plantation loss from disease. The SOHA will 
not be entered under this alternative.
    2. Fuels reduction, forest health and SOHA enhancement--Under this 
alternative all the activities listed above would occur and in SOHA #14 
desired spotted owl habitat is created by (1) increasing canopy cover 
through conifer regeneration; and (2) maintaining potential nest trees. 
Stand structures within SOHA #14 are managed to provide desired spotted 
owl habitat while providing for the reintroduction of fire.
    3. Fuels reduction, forest health and SOHA enhancement activities 
are conducted while maintaining or enhancing landscape level 
connectivity and stand level structure (denning, resting and foraging 
habitat) for the fisher.
    The public will be invited to participate in the scoping process, 
and review of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). Comments 
from the public and other agencies will be used in preparation of the 
DEIS. The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be 
available for public review and comment in March 2001 and a final 
environmental impact statement in June 2001. The comment period on the 
draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the 
Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in 
the Federal Register.
    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; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have 
standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR 215.
    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 
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 state 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, 409 F. Supp. 1334 (E.D. Wis. 
1980). Because of these 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 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: December 5, 2000.
James L. Boynton,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 00-31535 Filed 12-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M