[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 5, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67384-67386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-28051]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Tahoe National Forest; Sierra County, CA; Cottonwood Fire 
Vegetation Management Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest, gives notice 
of the Agency's intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) to disclose the environmental effects of applying registered 
herbicides to approximately 13,500 acres of National Forest System 
land. The application will reduce competition from overgrown vegetation 
that is adversely affecting the survival and growth of conifer 
seedlings on the Sierraville Ranger District. The project proposes to 
apply glyhosate (trade name Accord or equivalent) and triclopyr (trade 
name Garlon 4 or equivalent), using backpack sprayers, in the spring 
and summer months when herbicide treatments are most effective. The 
acres identified for application would be treated over a five- to 
seven-year time period.
    The purpose of the project is to help ensure survival, and 
stimulate vigor and growth of sufficient numbers of conifer seedlings 
in order to accelerate the development of a biologically and 
structurally diverse forest. Following a wildfire in 1994 that 
destroyed much of the forest stand structure, shrub and

[[Page 67385]]

grass have re-occupied the area, competing with conifer seedlings for 
limited resources. This competition is prolonging the time it will take 
for the native conifer forest to re-establish. Restoring the area to a 
conifer forest sooner will develop a more fire resistant and healthy 
forest in less time. Alternative, non-herbicide methods to control 
competing vegetation have been attempted over the past eight years, but 
success has been limited due to cost and inability to treat enough 
area. Because of this, the Forest Service believes the least impacting 
and most cost effective method to reduce competing vegetation is 
through prudent and careful application of registered herbicides.

DATES: Comments concerning the proposed action should be received by 
November 19, 2002. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is 
expected to be completed in January 2003, and the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (FEIS) is expected to be completed in April 2003.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Deborah Walker, Sierraville Ranger 
District, PO Box 95, Sierraville, CA 96126, or by sending electronic 
mail (e-mail) to [email protected]. For further information, mail 
correspondence to Jeff Leach, NEPA Coordinator, Sierraville Ranger 
District, PO Box 95, Sierraville, CA 96126.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions and comments about the 
proposed action should be directed to Deborah Walker or Jeff Leach at 
the above address, or by phone at 530-994-3401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Action

    In 1994, the Cottonwood Fire burned more than 46,000 acres of 
forest land on the Tahoe and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests. In 
1995, the Tahoe National Forest prepared an environmental document 
authorizing the use of manual and mechanical release methods to 
accelerate conifer growth and development by controlling shrubs, 
grasses, and forbs. Since that time conifer seedlings have either been 
planted or naturally regenerated in the area. Even though this area 
historically supported large conifer trees, the site is now 
predominately occupied by shrubs, such as snowbrush and manzanita. The 
project area is considered a Sierra Nevada east-side pine type, where 
moisture is the most limiting factor in determining plant survival. 
Shrubs and trees currently occupy the same depth of rooting zone in the 
soil profile. These particular shrub species have the ability to 
extract soil moisture more effectively than do the trees, especially 
under dry conditions. This ability to extract soil water under 
extremely dry conditions gives shrubs a competitive advantage over 
young seedlings, so there is a need to control shrubs before tree 
mortality becomes too severe.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action is to:
    1. Apply the herbicides glyphosate and triclopyr to selected units 
in the Cottonwood burn area on a total of 13,500 acres. Treated areas 
would encompass less than 30% of the total burn area.
    2. Include a surfactant to improve the herbicide effectiveness and 
a colorant to aid in identifying treated areas.
    3. Use backpack sprayers to apply the registered herbicides during 
the spring and summer months.
    4. Treat between 1,500 acres and 3,600 acres a year over a five- to 
seven-year period. Re-treatment may be necessary on up to one-third of 
the project area, depending on herbicide effectiveness.
    5. Treat individual target plants uniformly over the entire area, 
except near stream channels, where a spot application would be used.
    6. Establish a no-treatment zone along all stream channels of 25 
feet on either side and around wet areas (seeps, springs, and fens) of 
50 feet.
    7. Avoid treating areas not productive for growing trees, areas 
that were unburned or lightly burned, sites that have a predominance of 
cheatgrass, known sensitive plant occurrences, or areas that have been 
selected as cover habitat for wildlife species.

Possible Alternatives

    Alternatives being considered at this time include: (1) Proposed 
action; (2) no action alternative that would not implement the proposed 
action or allow for manual and mechanical release; and (3) continue 
with manual and mechanical release treatments exclusively. Additional 
alternatives to this proposal would be based on significant issues 
identified during the scoping process.

Responsible Official

    The District Ranger, Sierraville Ranger District, Tahoe National 
Forest, is the responsible official making the decision and can be 
reached at PO Box 95, Sierraville CA 96126. As the responsible 
official, the District Ranger will document the decision and reasons 
for the decision in the Record of Decision, which will be published 
along with the final EIS. That decision will be subject to Forest 
Service appeal regulations (36 CFR part 215).

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The decision to be made is whether to implement the Cottonwood Fire 
Vegetation Management Project as described above, modify the proposal 
in response to an unresolved issue based on comments received during 
public scoping, or not take any action at this time.

Scoping Process

    Public participation is viewed as an integral part of the 
environmental analysis. The Forest Service will be seeking points of 
dispute, debate, or disagreement from Federal, State, and local 
governmental agencies as well as from individuals or organizations that 
may be potentially interested or affected by the proposed action. A 
scoping letter will be mailed to persons who have expressed interest in 
the proposed action based on notification in the Tahoe National Forest 
Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions and by notification through a 
published legal notice in the Mountain Messenger, Downieville, 
California, and the Sierra Booster, Loyalton, California. In addition, 
persons who provided comment on the Cottonwood Fire Vegetation 
Management Environmental Assessment (2000) will be mailed a scoping 
letter.

Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides 
the development of the EIS. Comments submitted during the scoping 
process should be in writing or email, and should be specific to the 
proposed action. The comments should describe as clearly and completely 
as possible any points of dispute, debate, or disagreement the 
commenter has with the proposal. Once scoping letters are received, the 
District shall identify all potential issues, eliminate non-significant 
issues or those covered by another environmental analysis, identify 
issues to analyze in depth, develop additional alternatives to address 
those significant issues, and identify potential environmental effects 
of the proposed action as well as fully analyzed alternatives.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review

    The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in January 
2003. EPA will publish a notice of availability of the

[[Page 67386]]

draft EIS in the Federal Register at that time. The comment period on 
the draft EIS will extend for 45 days from the date the EPA notice 
appears in the Federal Register. At that time, copies of the draft EIS 
will be mailed to potentially interested and affected agencies, 
organizations, and individuals for their review and comment and to 
those who provided comment during the scoping period. It is very 
important that those interested in the Cottonwood Fire Vegetation 
Management Project participate by providing comment at that tie.
    The final EIS would be completed in April 2003. In the final EIS, 
the Forest Service is required to respond to substantive comments 
received during the comment period that pertain to the environmental 
consequences discussed in the draft EIS, as well as applicable laws, 
regulations, and policies considered in making the decision regarding 
this proposal.
    The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important 
to give reviewers notice of several court ruling related to public 
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 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 
Environmental Impact Statement stage, but that are not raised until 
after completion of the FEIS, 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, 1338 (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 two-
week 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 FEIS.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the DEIS 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 DEIS 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 of 40 CFR 1503.3 in 
addressing these points.
    Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who 
comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal 
and will be available for public inspection.

    Dated: October 30, 2002.
Steven T. Eubanks,
Forest Supervisor, Tahoe National Forest.
[FR Doc. 02-28051 Filed 11-4-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M