Cottonwood Fire Restoration Project, Tahoe National Forest, Sierra County, CA

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Cottonwood Fire 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, Tahoe

National Forest will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS)

for proposed watershed restoration, timber salvage, fuels reduction,

wildlife habitat improvement, and reforestation activities within the

xx,xxx-acre Cottonwood Fire Restoration Project analysis area located

in the Feather River and Truckee River watersheds. The project area is

located within all or portions of T19N, R15 & 16E, T20N, R15, 16, &

17E; and T21N, R15, 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 November 21,

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,

Sierraville Ranger District, Sierraville, CA 96126, telephone (916)

994-3401, or Martha Twarkins, Project Team Leader, at the above

location or at (916) 478-6293.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice of Intent to prepare the Eastside

Forest Restoration Project EIS was published in the Federal Register on

May 16, 1994 [59 FR 25440-25441]. That 85,000-acre project was proposed

to address the area's extensive tree mortality and overstocked timber

stands. Opportunities were identified to treat those stands in order to

improve forest health and reduce the fire hazard, while concurrently

accomplishing watershed restoration and wildlife habitat improvement

goals.

Significant new circumstances have occurred that bear on the

original proposal. From August 16 through August 31, 1994, the 48,000-

acre Cottonwood Fire burned through the Eastside Forest Restoration

Project analysis area, affecting about 36,300 acres of National Forest

System land and 11,700 acres of lands of other ownership on both the

Tahoe and Toiyabe National Forests.

The fire burned with high-to-moderate intensity on over 90 percent

of the affected area, leaving only skeletons of burned trees and

shrubs. Less than 10 percent of the area burned with low intensity,

leaving partially burned or scattered live trees. This loss of

vegetation has resulted in large areas of exposed soils and, thus,

unstable watershed conditions, large amounts of new fuels, and the loss

of standing timber and future timber growth potential. The fire also

affected other important resources, such as wildlife habitat,

recreation sites, visual quality, historic and pre-historic sites,

fisheries, sensitive plant and animal species, and water quantity and

quality.

The unburned portion (about xx,xxx acres) of Eastside Forest

Restoration Project EIS is being deferred for analysis until the

completion of the Cottonwood Fire Restoration Project EIS; a revised

Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the

remaining area, along with new time schedules, will be placed in the

Federal Register at a later date.

The Cottonwood Fire Restoration Project analysis area is about

xx,xxx acres in size, and includes xx,xxx acres of National Forest

System lands and xx,xxx acres of lands of other ownerships. Most of the

area is in the Feather River watershed, with a small portion in the

Truckee River watershed. It is located east of the town of Sierraville

and Highway 89, north of Sardine Peak and Lewis Mill, west of Babbitt

Peak and the crest of the Bald Mountain Range, and south of the town of

Loyalton. Major drainages within the project area include Cottonwood

Creek, Lemon Canyon, Turner Canyon, Smithneck Creek, Bear Valley Creek,

and Badenaugh Canyon. The project area includes all lands within the

fire boundary on the Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National

Forest; the area burned on the Carson Ranger District of the Toiyabe

National Forest will be analyzed separately.

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 salvage treatments, fuels reduction, 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 Cottonwood Fire area. It

also means that the needs of people and environmental values will be

blended in such a way that this area's desired condition would

represent a diverse, healthy, productive, and sustainable ecosystem.

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. 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 can the potential for future large, catastrophic

wildlife be reduced within the project area?

(2) To what extent can the forest health be restored within the

project area?

(3) What level of timber commodities could result from forest

health restoration projects?

(4) To what extent will erodable and sensitive soils, and thus

long-term soil productivity, be affected by the proposed activities?

(5) To what extent will the view from Highways 49 and 89 be

affected? What visual character will result from the proposed

activities, and to what extent can visual quality be improved in

sensitive areas affected by the fire?

(6) To what extent will vegetative diversity be improved to support

a wide variety of biological communities?

(7) To what extent and at what timing will wildlife habitat be

restored for the large variety of wildlife using the area?

(8) To what extent will watershed conditions be improved and

restored by the proposed activities?

(9) To what extent will air quality in the Sierra Valley and

Truckee areas be affected by the 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

December, 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, 1338 (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 March, 1995. The

responsible official is John H. Skinner, Forest Supervisor, Tahoe

National Forest.

Dated: September 26, 1994.

Larry Gruver,

Acting Forest Supervisor

[FR Doc. 94-24565 Filed 10-4-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M