[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 93 (Monday, May 16, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-11820] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: May 16, 1994] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Eastside Forest Restoration Project, Tahoe National Forest, Sierra County, CA AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for proposed timber harvest, plantation thinning, fire hazard reduction, watershed restoration, and wildlife habitat improvement projects for areas in the Feather River Watershed and Truckee River Watershed. The project area is located within portions of T.19N., R.14, 15, 16, & 17E., T.20N., R.14, 15, 16, & 17E., and T.21N., R.15, 16, and 17E., MDB&M. The agency invites comments and suggestions on the scope of the analysis. In addition, the agency gives notice of the full environmental analysis and decision-making process that will occur on the proposal so that interested and affected people are aware of how they may participate and contribute to the final decision. DATES: Comments should be made in writing and received by June 30, 1994. ADDRESSES: Written comments concerning the project should be directed to Steve Bishop, District Ranger, Sierraville Ranger District, P.O. Box 95, Sierraville, CA 96126. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Bishop, District Ranger, or Barbara Bonefeld, Public Services Director, Sierraville Ranger District, Sierraville, CA 96126, telephone (916) 994-3401. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Eastside Analysis Area is about 85,000 acres in size. Most of the area is in the Feather River Watershed, with a small portion in the Truckee River Watershed. It is located two miles south of Sierraville, southwest to Webber Lake, east to the crest of the Bald Mountain Range, and north to approximately 4 miles south of Loyalton. The area is dominated by eastside pine stands with catastrophic insect-induced mortality resulting from several years of severe drought. The extensive mortality and overstocked timber stands have resulted in poor forest health and an extreme fire hazard. There are opportunities to treat these stands in order to improve forest health and reduce the fire hazard, while concurrently accomplishing watershed restoration and wildlife habitat improvement goals. In preparing the environmental impact statement, the Forest Service will identify and analyze a range of alternatives that address the issues developed for this area. One of the alternatives will be no treatment. Other alternatives will consider differing levels of implementation of California spotted owl standards and guidelines, salvage and sanitation treatments, group selection harvests, plantation thinning, thinnings from below, fuelbreak construction, plantation protection from fire, watershed restoration, road obliteration, wildlife habitat improvement, and new road construction and reconstruction. An ecological approach will be used to achieve multiple-use management of the Eastside area. It also means that the needs of people and environmental values will be blended in such a way that this area would represent a diverse, healthy, productive, and sustainable ecosystems. Public participation will be important during the analysis, especially during the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies and other individuals or organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. This input will be used in preparation of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). The scoping process includes: 1. Identifying potential issues. 2. Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth. 3. Eliminating insignificant issues or those which have been covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis. 4. Exploring additional alternatives. 5. Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and connected actions). 6. Determining potential cooperating agencies and task assignments. The following list of issues has been identified through initial scoping: (1) To what extent will future options for the management of California spotted owls be maintained? (2) To what extent can the potential for large catastrophic wildfires be reduced within the project area? (3) To what extent can the forest health be improved within the project area? In addition, what level of timber commodities could result from forest health improvement projects? (4) To what extent will the view from Highway 49 and Highway 89 be affected? What will the visual character be resulting from the proposed activities and to what extent will these activities affect views from private land within the study area? (5) To what extent will water quality in the Feather River and the Truckee River watersheds be affected by the proposed activities? (6) To what extent will air quality in the Sierra Valley and Truckee areas be affected by proposed activities? (7) To what extent will long term soil productivity be affected by proposed activities? Comments from other Federal, State, and local agencies, organizations, and individuals who may be interested in, or affected by the decision, are encouraged to identify other significant issues. Public participation will be solicited through mailing letters to potentially interested or affected mining claim owners, private land owners, and special use permittees on the Sierraville Ranger District; posting information in local towns; and mailing letters to local timber industries, politicians, school boards, county supervisors, and environmental groups. Continued participation will be emphasized through individual contacts. Public meetings used as a method of public involvement during preparation and review of the draft environmental impact statement will be announced in newspapers of general circulation in the geographic area of such meetings well in advance of scheduled dates. The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by the end of January, 1995. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 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 EIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final EIS 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 the 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 EIS. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft EIS. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS 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. The final EIS is expected to be available by May, 1995. The responsible official is John H. Skinner, Forest Supervisor, Tahoe National Forest. Dated: May 4, 1994. John H. Skinner, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 94-11820 Filed 5-13-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M