Eastside Forest Restoration Project, Tahoe National Forest, Sierra County, CA

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