[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16758-16759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-8317]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Statement

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 
and Pacific Southwest Regions will prepare and consider a supplemental 
environmental impact statement (SEIS) for a proposal to amend the 
Record of Decision (ROD) for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, 
which was signed on January 12, 2001. Specifically, the proposed action 
responds to changed circumstances and new information identified during 
a year-long review of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. The 
proposed action would amend the Land and Resource Management Plans for 
the Humboldt-Toiyabe, Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado, 
Stanislaus, Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests, the Lake Tahoe 
Basin Management Unit. As done for the original ROD, the Regional 
Forester for the Pacific Southwest Region has delegated authority to 
adopt any changes on behalf of the Regional Forester for the 
Intermountain Region.

DATES: Scoping is not required for supplements to environmental impact 
statements (40 CFR 1502.9(c) 4(4)). There was extensive public 
involvement in the development of the proposed action and the Forest 
Service is not inviting comments at the time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen S. Morse, Interdisciplinary 
Team Leader, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 1323 Club 
Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592. Phone: (707) 562-8822.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Over the past decade, the Forest Service has conducted large-scale 
land and resource management planning efforts for the Sierra Nevada 
bioregion. In 1992, the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research 
Station published The California Spotted Owl: A Technical Assessment of 
its Current Status (CASPO Technical Report), which initiated a Sierra 
Nevada-wide planning effort to address concerns about declining 
California spotted owl populations. In January 1993, the Forest Service 
completed an environmental assessment that proposed guidelines for 
California spotted owl conservation based on measures described in the 
CASPO Technical Report. On January 13, 1993, the Regional Forester 
decided to adopt these guidelines for the Pacific Southwest Region as 
an interim measure to protect California spotted owl habitat until a 
long-term conservation strategy could be developed.
    The Forest Service analyzed options for a long-term California 
spotted owl strategy in a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) 
released in February 1995 and a revised draft EIS released in 1996. In 
1997, the Secretary of Agriculture chartered a Federal Advisory 
Committee (FAC) to review the revised draft EIS. The FAC concluded that 
the revised draft EIS was insufficient as either a California spotted 
owl management plan or as a broader ecosystem management plan.
    In early 1998, the Chief of the Forest Service directed the 
Regional Forester of the Pacific Southwest Region to develop an 
ecosystem strategy for conserving California spotted owls, old forest 
ecosystems, and other forest resources, considering the recommendations 
of the FAC committee and recent scientific information presented in the 
Sierra Nevada Ecosystems Management Report (SNEP) to Congress, 
published between June 1996 and March 1997. The SNEP Report included 
four volumes of scientific assessments for the Sierra Nevada bioregion, 
with accompanying large database and maps. In November 1998, the Forest 
Service published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS to amend Land 
and Resource Management Plans for 11 national forests in the Sierra 
Nevada and Modoc Plateau and Regional Guides for the Intermountain and 
Pacific Southwest Regions to address five problem areas: old forest 
ecosystems and associated species; aquatic, riparian, and meadow 
ecosystems; fire and fuels; noxious weeds; and lower westside hardwood 
ecosystems. In May 2000, the draft EIS for the Sierra Nevada Forest 
Plan Amendment (SNEPA) was released. The final EIS for the SNFPA was 
released in January 2001 and the Record of Decision was signed on 
January 12, 2001.
    As the Forest Service was preparing the Notice of Intent for the 
SNFPA, the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act 
(HFQLG Forest Recovery Act) became law in October 1998 as part of the 
Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The 
HFQLG Forest Recovery 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 HFQLF Forest Recovery Act, the 
Forest Service prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) 
evaluating the impacts of the pilot project. 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. Subsequently, the pilot project area was 
included in the SNFPA and management direction for the pilot project 
was changed to reflect the January 12, 2001 decision.
    On November 16, 2001, the Chief of the Forest Service completed his 
review of 234 appeals of the SNEPA ROD. The Chief affirmed the SNFPA 
ROD. However, in his appeal decision, the Chief instructed the Regional 
Forester of the Pacific Southwest Region to re-evaluate the SNFPA 
decision in light of recent and repeated severe fire seasons and a need 
to aggressively manage

[[Page 16759]]

excessive fuel loading. Incompatibilities between the HFQLG Forest 
Recovery Act and the SNFPA were another area of concern. The Chief's 
appeal decision was subject to discretionary review by the Secretary of 
Agriculture, however, a review was not concluded.
    On December 31, 2001, the Regional Forester chartered the Sierra 
Nevada Forest Plan Amendment River Team (Team) to evaluate any needed 
changes to the SNFPA ROD relative to the areas of concern identified in 
the Chief's appeal decision as well as other issues raised in the 
appeals, specifically the impacts of the decision on grazing permit 
holders, recreation users and permit holders, and local communities. 
Over the course of a year-long review, the Team worked with staffs from 
national forests and ranger districts; an interagency team with members 
from Federal, State, and local agencies, former members of the SNFPA 
interdisciplinary team; scientists; and various various interest groups 
to gain insights and new information relative to the SNFPA ROD. The 
Team developed recommendations consistent with the Regional Forester's 
charter to ``develop flexible solutions primarily focused on improving 
local decision-making capabilities, while meeting our obligations under 
applicable laws.'' In March 2003, the Team released its findings and 
recommendations in a report entitled ``Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 
Amendment Management Review and Recommendations'' (USDA Forest Service 
Pacific Southwest Region, R5-MB-012), March 2003).

Purpose and Need for Action

    Based upon the new analysis and information provided by the review 
and the knowledge gained by field managers charged with implementing 
the decision, the Regional Forester proposes to change selected 
elements of the SNFPA. The proposal builds on the strengths of the 
SNFPA ROD and retains its goals, land allocations, acres of treatment 
and the same priority to protect communities. The proposed changes 
respond to the Chief's direction: (1) Identify ways to more 
aggressively treat fuel loading in the Sierra Nevada while providing 
short and long-term protection of wildlife and other resource values, 
(2) improve consistency with the National Fire Plan, and (3) achieve 
greater harmony between the SNFPA and the HFQLG Forest Recovery Act. In 
addition, the proposed action allows for a wider array of tools and 
techniques to be used to achieve the desired conditions for a given 
location. This will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of fuels 
treatments and provide more opportunities to balance uses such as 
grazing and recreation with habitat protection for sensitive species.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action replaces select standards and guidelines in the 
existing fire and fuels management strategy with direction that 
provides the flexibility needed at the local level to effectively 
modify wildland fire behavior. In addition, the basic strategy is 
broadened to include other management objectives such as addressing 
forest health issues, restoring and maintaining ecosystem structure and 
composition, and restoring ecosystems after severe wildfires. The 
resulting integrated vegetation management strategy is designed to be 
sufficiently aggressive to minimize risk in the urban-wildland 
interface areas and adequately address the threats to wildlife from 
catastrophic wildfires. This objective is balanced with the need to 
provide for short-term and long-term protection for wildlife and other 
resource values.
    The proposed action builds some flexibility into standards and 
guidelines for willow flycatcher habitat, Yosemite toad habitat, great 
gray owl protected activity centers, and grazing utilization to better 
reflect the wide array of site conditions encountered in the field and 
the management opportunities they may provide.
    The proposed action clarifies management intent for off-highway 
vehicles, limits the requirement for limited operating periods to 
vegetative management projects only, and clarifies how several of the 
riparian standards and guidelines apply to recreation activities, uses 
and projects. These changes are proposed to more closely align written 
direction with management intent and to allow local managers to develop 
mitigation measures for small and varied recreation-related projects on 
a project- and site-specific basis.

Responsible Official

    The responsible official is Regional Forester Jack A. Blackwell, 
USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, 
CA 94592.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The Record of Decision for the SEIS will amend the Land and 
Resource Management plans for the Humboldt-Toiyabe, Modoc, Lassen, 
Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National 
Forests, the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review

    A draft SEIS is expected to be available for public review and 
comment in May 2003; and a final environmental impact statement in 
October 2003. The comment period for the draft SEIS will be 90 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 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, 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 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.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 
1909.15, Sec)

Gilbert Espinosa,
Deputy Regional Forester.
[FR Doc. 03-8317 Filed 4-4-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M