# Giant Multi-Resource Management Project, Placer County, CA > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-14231 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Notice - **Published:** June 2, 1997 - **Citation:** 62 FR 29706 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Giant Multi-Resource Management Project, Placer 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, wildlife habitat improvement projects, creation of an interpretive trail, planting riparian vegetation, closing of dispersed camping sites, decommissioning of roads, creation of scenic overlooks, and seasonal road closures for wildlife protection within the North Shirttail Canyon watershed in accordance with the requirements of 36 CFR 219.19. It is located in all or part of section 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, and 18, TSN, R11E and portions of sections 12, 13, and 24, T15N, R10E, Placer County, MDM, CA 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 23, 1997. ADDRESSES: Written comments concerning the project should be directed to Rich Johnson, District Ranger, Foresthill Ranger District, 22830 Foresthill Road, Foresthill CA 95631. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Bradford, Environmental Coordinator, Foresthill Ranger District, Foresthill, CA 95631, telephone (916) 478-6254. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Giant Analysis Area is located in the North Shirttail Canyon watershed. It lies primarily east of Sugar Pine Reservoir, west of Humbug Canyon, north of Big Reservoir, and south of the North Fork American River. 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. Another alternative will implement all of the actions being proposed. It also means that the needs of people and environmental values will be considered in a such way that this area will represent a diverse, healthy, productive, and sustainable ecosystem. The proposed actions include: (1) Commercial timber harvesting on approximately 1100 acres of plantations and natural stands. (2) Creation of two scenic overlooks, one near Sugar Pine Reservoir and one near the North Fork American River. (3) Wildlife habitat improvement through thinning of black oak clumps and through burning or masticating of shrubfields. (4) Closing six dispersed camping sites to restore riparian habitat and restore potential red-legged frog habitat. (5) Protect deer winter range by installing gates and implementing a seasonal road closure. (6) Restore native riparian vegetation in conifer plantations through planting riparian species. (7) Establish a \1/4\ mile long interpretive trail along North Shirttail Canyon. (8) Precommercial thin in conifer plantations using chain saw and track-laying masticating machines on approximately 580 acres. (9) Prune plantation trees on approximately 350 acres. 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). The following list of issues has been identified through initial scoping: (1) to what extent will harvesting affect water quality? (2) What affect will timber harvesting have on the Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) trail system in the project area.? [[Page 29707]] (3) To what extent can 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 Sugar Pine Reservoir be affected? What will the visual character be resulting from the proposed activities? (5) What affect will the proposed activities have on long-term soil productivity? (6) to what extent will air quality in the Sacramento Valley be affected by proposed activities? (7) What affect will including harvest of <10'' diameter trees have on the potential to sell harvested trees in a commercial timber sale? 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 Foresthill 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 comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency 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 draft EIS is expected to be available for public review by the end of July, 1997. The final EIS is expected to be available by the end of September, 1997. The responsible official is John H. Skinner, Forest Supervisor, Tahoe National Forest, PO Box 6003, Nevada City, CA 95959. Dated: May 16, 1997. John H. Skinner, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 97-14231 Filed 5-30-97; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-14231. Public record. Not legal advice.