North Shore Project, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU), Washoe County, Nevada; Placer County, California

[[Page 29820]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

North Shore Project, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU),

Washoe County, Nevada; Placer County, California

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice, intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact

statement on a proposal to implement ecosystem management principles on

approximately 7,000 acres of National Forest System lands, north of

Lake Tahoe, within the Lake Tahoe Basin. Proposed activities include

harvest of approximately twenty to thirty million board feet of both

merchantable and unmerchantable wood products. Dead and dying trees

would be cut, and thinning of live trees is also proposed to improve

forest health and to reduce fire danger. The proposed action also uses

prescribed fire and analyzes post sale treatments, including watershed

improvement projects. Stream and riparian area enhancement and wildlife

habitat improvements are also planned.

DATES: Agencies and the public are invited to participate at any stage

of the process; however, the Forest Supervisor requests that

individuals concerned with the scope of the analysis comment by July 1,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments concerning the DEIS should be sent to the

responsible official, Forest supervisor, LTBMU, 870 Emerald Bay Road,

Suite 1, South Lake Tahoe, California, 96150.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions concerning the proposed action and alternatives to Joe

Oden, Interdisciplinary team Leader, at (916) 573-2600 or the above

address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action would harvest dead,

dying, and diseased trees over approximately 7,000 acres of an 24,000-

acre study area. Trees would be thinned from overstocked stands, over

about 6,000 acres, some of which overlap the salvage acreage, and some

of which is separate. Some of the 20 to 30 million board feet removed

would be useful lumber; much of the timber removed would have no

commercial value.

Trees would be removed from slope less than thirty percent by

tractor skidding systems. Trees would be flown from slopes over thirty

percent by helicopter. No new permanent roads would be constructed;

however, construction of additional temporary access roads and landing

sites may be required, as well as reconstruction and restoration of

existing roads.

The proposed action includes treatments that would follow tree

removal activities. This would include (but is not limited to) site

preparation, planting, treatment of slash generated by the project,

fuel treatment adjacent to residential areas, closing of temporary and

unneeded roads, and restoration of landings. The use of prescribed fire

will be analyzed, both as a post-harvest treatment and as a means to

reintroduce fire to the ecosystem on untreated areas. Wildlife habitat

would be improved by thinning stands of small lodgepole pines and

underburning older brushfields.

Heritage (historic archaeological) resources are dispersed

throughout the study area. Most are the remains of 19th century

logging. Sites determined to be significant will be protected. In

addition to mitigation negotiated with the Advisory Council of Historic

Preservation, a key component of the analysis is to seek and address

enhancement opportunities for representative heritage properties.

Watershed restoration projects and road closures are also included

in the proposed action if they are, in the language of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA--. ``connected'', ``cumulative'' or are

``ripe for decision''.

These actions are proposed to promote stable ecosystems as

described in ``desired condition'' portions of the Forest Plan and the

North Shore Ecosystem Report.

Beginning in the 1850's many of the 200-500 year old pine trees

around Lake Tahoe were harvested in support of silver mining activities

of the Comstock Lode. Earlier, the forest had consisted of diverse

species that better resisted drought and insect attacks. After logging

slowed in the 1890's, the area began to revegetate naturally. But a new

and different forest grew to replace the old. In the absence of

frequently recurring fires, dense thickets of moisture-loving fir trees

replaced much of the open pine forest that has been cut. The drought

that begin in 1987 weakened and killed many of the fir trees that had

sprouted after the massive Comstock cutting.

Forty years of fire suppression has dramatically increased the

density of trees and the amount of dead wood, both standing and on the

ground. Members of the public have expressed concern over the large

numbers of dead trees and the amount of forest fuels now present. Many

requests have been made for projects to remove timber to reduce safety

hazards, fire danger, and to improve visual quality. Such projects

would reduce the ``fuel loading'' and could decrease the risk and

severity of a catastrophic fire. Additionally, thinning of overstocked

stands can be an effective way to reduce the risk of future

catastrophic insect and disease outbreaks.

The environmental analysis provides the decisionmaker--the LTBMU

Forest Supervisor--with an evaluation of what will happen if nothing is

done, and what may result from the proposed action and other

alternatives. Such disclosure will allow a reasoned choice between

management options. If an alternative other than No Action is selected

the work should proceed without delay. Delaying the removal of dead,

dying, or diseased trees can reduce their commercial value. The

anticipated high cost of implementation could deter potential bidders

as the soundness of the trees declines. Consequently, project

implementation is expected to begin during the spring or summer of

1996.

Over sixty agencies, organizations, and individuals were notified

of this proposed project through the LTBMU NEPA Status Report. Public

meetings were held on March 10, 13 and 24, as part of the scoping

process. Some people also provided written comments. Tahoe Regional

Planning agency staff was briefed about the project on March 13, 1995.

Participants in the planning process will be sent copies of the

draft EIS for the public comment period. Availability of the draft EIS

will also be noticed in the Federal Register and the Tahoe Daily

Tribune, the LTBMU's newspaper of record. Written comments received by

July 1, 1994 will be addressed in the draft EIS.

The ``no action'' alternative (Alternative 1) proposes a

continuation of the current types of management activities currently

conducted in the study area, without imposing impacts from proposed

fuels treatments, logging, wildlife or streamzone enhancements, or

watershed improvement work.

Alternative 3 emphasizes fuels treatments to reduce the threat of

intense wildfires. It harvests dead, dying, diseased, and overcrowded

trees over approximately 3,600 acres, concentrating on areas of high

tree mortality and areas adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Removal

of 15 to 20 MMBF of both merchantable and unmerchantable material is

anticipated. This alternative includes all components of the proposed

action, except when modified as described: Tree removal activities and

prescribed underburning would be located adjacent to proposed

fuelbreaks to maximize fire defensible space

strategies. [[Page 29821]]

Alternative 4 represents a ``wildlife habitat emphasis.'' It

includes harvests of dead, dying, diseased, and overcrowded trees over

approximately 3,000 acres, for the purpose of improving wildlife

habitat. Removal of about 10 MMBF of both merchantable and

unmerchantable material is anticipated. This alternative includes all

components of the proposed action, except as modified: while treatment

of activity fuels will occur, the use of prescribed fire as a

management tool will be limited to improving wildlife habitat; a

greater level of road closures would be implemented to reduce

disturbance to wildlife.

Implementation of this project requires permits from the Tahoe

Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and the California Regional Water

Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region. Additionally, encroachment

permits from the California and Nevada Departments of Transportation

will be required for project implementation. Consultation with both the

California and Nevada State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) and

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in accordance with

the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)

is required. Concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is

needed if the Forest Service Biological Assessment results in a ``may

affect'' determination.

The decision on this analysis, pursuant to NEPA, is made by Lake

Tahoe Basin Management Unit Forest Supervisor, Robert Harris, as the

Forest Service is the lead agency under NEPA. There is no other joint

lead agency and no cooperating agencies under NEPA.

The draft EIS is anticipated to be filed with the Environmental

Protection Agency and made available to the public for comment in

September 1995. The final EIS and its Record of Decision is expected in

January 1996. The decision will be appealable under Forest Service

regulations found at 36 CFR 215.

The comment period for the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date

the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of availability appears in

the Federal Register. The public will also be informed of the

availability of the DEIS by news releases issued to the media in the

Lake Tahoe region. It is very important that those interested in this

proposed action participate at that time. To be the most helpful,

comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible and may

address the adequacy of the statement or the merits of the alternatives

discussed (see the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for

implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA at 40 CFR 1503.3).

In addition, Federal court decisions have established that

reviewers of draft EIS' must structure their participation in the

environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and

alerts an agency to the reviewers' position and contentions. ``Vermont

Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC,'' 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978).

Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage

may be waived if not raised until after completion of the final EIS.

``City of Angoon v. Hodel,'' (9th Circuit, 1986) and ``Wisconsin

Heritages, Inc. v. Harris,'' 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980).

The reason for this is to ensure that substantive comments and

objections are made available for the Forest Service at a time when it

can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final.

Dated: May 23, 1995.

Robert E. Harris,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 95-13725 Filed 6-5-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M