[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42625-42626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-20249]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Forest Recovery Act Forest Plan 
Amendment

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact 
statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lassen National 
Forest, Plumas National Forest, and Tahoe National Forest will prepare 
a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) in response to a 
recent United States District Court Decision in CALIFORNIANS FOR 
ALTERNATIVES TO TOXICS v. MICHAEL DOMBECK NO. CIV. S-00-605 LKK/PAN. 
This supplemental EIS will address maintenance of defensible fuels 
profile zones (DFPZs) in the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Forest 
Recovery Act Pilot Project Area.

DATES: The public is not asked to provide any additional information at 
this time. A draft supplemental environmental impact statement will be 
circulated for public review in October 2001. The comment period for 
the supplemental draft environmental impact statement will extend 45 
days from the date its availability is published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact David Arrasmith, Team Leader, 
USDA Forest Service, 801 I Street, Room 419, Sacramento, CA 95814. 
Phone number (916) 492-7559.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In October 1998, Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest 
Recovery Act (HFQLG Act) became law as part of the Department of the 
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The HFQLG Act 
required the Forest Service to conduct a 5-year pilot project to 
implement certain resource protection measures and management 
activities on the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests. Based on 
the direction in the HFQLG Act, the Forest Service prepared an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluating the impacts of, among 
other things, the creation of fuelbreaks, or defensible fuel profile 
zones (DFPZs), over the 5-year pilot project period. IN August 1999, 
the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Supervisors issued the Record of 
Decision (ROD) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for 
pilot project implementation.
    In a recent court decision, based on a lawsuit filed by the 
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics (CAT), the Forest Service was 
directed to undertake supplementation of the EIS to analyze the need 
for, and environmental effects of, maintaining DFPZs in the HFQLG 
Forest Recovery Act Pilot Project Area.

[[Page 42626]]

Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose of and need for action is to undertake supplementation 
of the Final EIS for the HFQLG Act pilot project in accordance with 
United States District Court Decision in CALIFORNIANS FOR ALTERNATIVES 
TO TOXICS v. MICHAEL DOMBECK NO. CIV. S-00-605 LKK/PAN. This 
supplementation will disclose options for maintaining DFPZs and analyze 
the likely environmental impacts of DFPZ maintenance.
    In proposing the alternatives, the agency is responding in part to 
an underlying purpose outlined in the Quincy Library Group Community 
Stability Proposal, November 1993, as referenced in the Act (Title IV, 
Section 401(b)(1) and to concerns identified by the Public as required 
by law. The underlying need for the pilot project is to fulfill the 
Secretary of Agriculture's statutory duty under the Act, consistent 
with applicable Federal law.

Proposed Action

    The Forest Service proposes to establish guidelines for maintaining 
DFPZs in the HFQLG Act pilot project area.

Scoping Process

    This Notice of Intent will not initiate any additional scoping 
processes. The Judge's order in CALIFORNIANS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO TOXICS 
v. MICHAEL DOMBECK identifies the scope of the supplemental draft EIS 
and significant environmental issues related to the proposed action. No 
additional public comment is invited on this proposal to prepare the 
supplemental draft EIS.

Decision To Be Made and Responsible Official(s)

    The Forest Supervisors of the Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National 
Forests will decide whether or not to amend management direction in 
their land and resource management plans to address DFPZ maintenance 
within the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Pilot Project Area.
    The responsible officials are Forest Supervisors Mark J. Madrid, 
Plumas National Forest, PO Box 11500, Quincy, CA 95971-6025, Edward C. 
Cole, Lassen National Forest, 2550 Riverside Drive, Susanville, CA 
96130 and Steven T. Eubanks, Tahoe National Forest, 631 Coyote Street, 
Nevada City, CA 95959-6003.

Coordination With Other Agencies

    The Forest Service is the lead agency with responsibility to 
prepare this supplemental draft EIS; however, the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, U.S.D.I Fish and Wildlife Service, California 
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and California Department 
of Fish and Game will be asked to participate as cooperating agencies 
(40 CFR part 1501.6), as needed. Each agency will participate as 
resources and competing demands permit. Other agencies and local and 
county governments will be invited to participate, as appropriate.

Commenting

    A supplemental draft environmental impact statement is expected to 
be available for public review and comment in October 2001, and a final 
environmental impact statement in January 2002. The comment period for 
the supplemental draft environmental impact statement will extend 45 
days from the date its availability is published 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. 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 that 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 impact statement, 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 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 the Agency 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 
supplemental 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: July 31, 2001.
Mark J. Madrid,
Forest Supervisor, Plumas National Forest.
    Dated: July 27, 2001.
Jack T. Walton,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Lassen National Forest.
    Dated: July 25, 2001.
Steven T. Eubanks,
Forest Supervisor, Tahoe National Forest.
[FR Doc. 01-20249 Filed 8-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M