Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Project EIS

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Project EIS

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Regions 4 and 5

will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to amend eleven

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans and the Regional

Guides for the Intermountain and Pacific Southwest Regions in response

to changed circumstances and new information resulting from the report

of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, the Sierra Nevada Science

Review, and the Summary of Existing Management Direction. The Land and

Resource Management Plans to be amended encompass the Humboldt-Toiyabe,

Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, Sequoia,

and Inyo National Forests, and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit.

DATES: The public is asked to provide any additional information they

believe the Forest Service may still not have at this time, and to

submit any issues (points of concern, debate, dispute or disagreement)

regarding potential effects of the proposed action or alternatives by

January 9, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Steve Clauson, EIS Team Leader,

USDA Forest Service, Sierra Nevada Framework Project, Room 419, 801

``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Contact Steve Clauson, EIS Team Leader, USDA Forest Service, Sierra

Nevada Framework Project, Room 419, 801 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA

95814. Phone number--916-492-7554.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In the Pacific Southwest Region, Region 5 of the Forest Service, a

Sierra Nevada-wide planning effort was initiated in 1992 to protect the

California spotted owl (CASPO). This planning responded to Forest

Service research on the status and viability of the California spotted

owl (CASPO Technical Report, 1992). The CASPO report recommended

interim management guidelines be adopted to protect California spotted

owl populations while a more comprehensive management plan was

developed. An environmental assessment to implement interim guidelines

was prepared and a Decision Notice approving implementation of interim

guidelines was signed on January 13, 1993. To develop a comprehensive

management plan, the Forest Service prepared a draft environmental

impact statement (EIS) for the comprehensive management of California

spotted owl in 1995. A revised draft EIS was scheduled for release in

1996, however new scientific information came to light and work was

suspended pending the report of a Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) that

was chartered to review the revised draft EIS. The work of the FAC was

influenced by the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP), which

produced four volumes of scientific assessments including several

papers exploring possible management strategies, and made available

large databases and maps for the Sierra Nevada.

The Federal Advisory Committee concluded that the revised draft EIS

was inadequate in its current form as either an owl or ecosystem

management EIS (``Final Report of the California Spotted Owl Federal

Advisory Committee'', USDA, December 1997). The FAC report identified

specific critical shortcomings and offered recommendations to address

inconsistencies with scientific information, flaws in some key elements

of the analysis process, and the need for a more collaborative planning

process. The Forest Service has redirected the EIS effort in response

to the FAC report and other information.

On July 24, 1998, a team of scientists from the USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, produced the Sierra Nevada

Science Review (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research

Station, July 24, 1998), a review of current scientific information

with attention to issues of urgent priority at Sierra Nevada Range-wide

scale. A companion document, the Summary of Existing Management

Direction, released on August 11, 1998, summarized existing management

direction related to issues brought forward in the Science Review. This

new scientific information has implications for existing forest plans,

social values, and environmental trends in the Sierra Nevada.

The report of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project concludes: ``Most

of the problems of the Sierra can be solved, although the timeframe and

degree of solution will differ depending on the problem.'' (``Sierra

Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress'', Davis: University

of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996.) For

many of these problems, a range-wide or multi-forest planning approach

is needed.

The Land and Resource Management Plans for the eleven national

forests in the Sierra Nevada Range and Modoc Plateau were developed in

the 1980's and early 1990's. These plans were independently prepared

and adopted in response to concerns at the scale appropriate for each

forest. Given the science that recently emerged concerning issues that

go beyond the individual forest and ownership boundaries, there is an

urgent need to amend the plans to reflect this new information and

achieve range-wide consistency. In response to this need, on July 10,

1998 Regional Forester G. Lynn Sprague, in cooperation with Region 4,

committed to developing new management direction, where necessary, to

address concerns on the Sierra Nevada national forests (63 FR 37314).

This EIS is part of the overall Sierra

[[Page 64453]]

Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration, which will

continue to develop solutions to interagency issues and encourage

communication on management of wildlands in the Sierra Nevada Range.

Public Involvement

During 1998, nearly 1,000 people participated in 37 community based

workshops to provide their perspectives on the Science Review, the

Summary of Existing Management Direction, and other information

relevant to the EIS. The majority of the workshops took place in Sierra

Nevada communities. A Tribal Summit was held in Tahoe City and a state-

wide workshop was held in Davis. Other meetings were held in San

Francisco, Los Angeles, and Carson City, Nevada. Written comments were

submitted at the workshops, on the Internet, and in letters.

People attending the September and October workshops were asked to

respond to two questions: (1) Is there other new science relevant to

Sierra Nevada national forest management that would cause us to add to

or modify the findings in the Science Review, and (2) in light of the

Science Review and other new information, what changes would you

suggest for management direction in the Sierra Nevada national forests?

Responses to these questions, together with the agency's analysis of

the new science, information, and legal requirements, were used in

framing the proposed action and possible alternatives presented in this

Notice of Intent.

In addition to problems or concerns to be addressed in the EIS,

many additional concerns surfaced in September and October that are not

appropriate to address in the proposed action. Concurrent with this

Notice of Intent, the Forest Service has produced a ``Design Paper''

that documents the agency's proposal for addressing concerns outside

the scope of the proposed action. The Design Paper is available on the

Internet at www.r5.fs.red.us or by request to the Sierra Nevada

Framework Project at the address given in the For Further Information

section.

Public comments received during this period reflect a wide range of

social perspectives. Participants largely agreed on broad conservation

principles. There were, however, many different perspectives on how the

principles might be implemented. The wide variation of community

responses confirmed the need to include local residents, as well as

regional and national interests, in the design and refinement of

alternatives. Numerous suggestions were made encouraging the Forest

Service to work with other federal agencies, Indian Tribes, state and

local governments, and organizations to solve Sierra Nevada-wide

problems. The recommendations and suggestions received during meeting

will be reviewed again during the scoping period.

Each Sierra Nevada national forest will continue dialogues with

interested members of the public and other agencies throughout the

environmental analysis process. Each forest will host community

discussions to explain and hear responses to this Notice of Intent.

Workshops will be designed to receive suggestions and recommendations

regarding the proposed actions as well as information that could help

frame alternatives. Specific locations and dates of the meetings will

be posted on the Internet at www.r5.fs.fed.us and in the newspapers of

record for each Sierra Nevada national forest.

Scope

The selection of problems for inclusion in the EIS was based on the

following criteria: (1) New scientific information is available about

the extent, intensity, or duration of the problem, (2) geographic scale

is broad, (3) public perception or environmental risk, as judged by the

science community, indicates action should be taken now, and (4) the

problem is not well addressed elsewhere.

A single EIS amending the eleven forest plans is proposed because:

(1) Some problems may only be treatable at a range-wide scale, (2) the

public, Indian Tribes, other governmental agencies, and the Forest

Service need to consider ways to meet environmental goals common to the

eleven forests economically and efficiently, and (3) implementation can

be made more accountable and consistent.

Problems that did not meet these criteria will be addressed in the

associated activities of the Sierra Nevada Framework. For example,

concerns surrounding the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep can be more

immediately resolved within the scope of the existing forest plans by

increased attention from the five affected national forests in the

southern Sierra Nevada.

Problem identified for action in this EIS are:

1. Old forest ecosystems and associated species. Old forest

ecosystems have declined in quality, amount and connectivity throughout

the Sierra Nevada over the past hundred years. Habitats and/or

populations of some animals associated with old-forests, including

forest carnivores and the California spotted owl, have declined. No

regionally consistent direction for old-forest conservation exists.

2. Aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystems. These ecosystems are

the most degraded of all habitats in the Sierra Nevada. Many aquatic

and riparian-dependent species (willow flycatcher and amphibians in

particular) and communities are at risk. No regionally consistent

direction exists to deal with this urgent problem.

3. Fire and Fuels. Wildland fire is both a major threat to life,

property and natural resources and a critical natural process in the

Sierra Nevada. Fire management planning is outdated and not integrated

into forest plans.

4. Noxious weeds. There is a rapid spread of invasive, exotic plant

species that threaten to crowd out native plants and compromise

wildland values. Noxious weeds are spreading throughout California and

gaining ground at higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada.

5. Lower westside hardwood forest ecosystems. Increasing urban

development in lower elevations in the Sierra Nevada has fragmented and

decreased the amount of hardwood forests. The public has expressed a

desire to maintain the remaining extent of hardwood forests for their

ecological roles, biodiversity, aesthetics, cultural resources, and for

resource uses such as firewood and forage.

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of the proposed action is to improve national forest

management direction for five broad problems: (1) Conservation of old-

forest ecosystems, (2) conservation of aquatic, riparian, and meadow

ecosystems, (3) increased risk of fire and fuels buildup, (4)

introduction of noxious weeds, and (5) sustaining hardwood forests.

Resolution of these problems will influence and be influenced by

social, cultural and economic values. The need is to ensure that

national forest management direction accounts for current scientific

thinking and public expectations, and is consistent among the eleven

national forests in practices, procedures, definitions, standards and

guidelines.

Current forests plan direction does not reflect the shift in public

values and expectations for goods and services from the Sierra Nevada

national forests. As the five problem areas are addressed, there is a

need to ensure that changes in the level of natural resource products,

services, and values, e.g., forage, timber, wildlife, fish, recreation,

wilderness, or water, are identified to respond to public concerns with

the certainty of

[[Page 64454]]

future forest management products and services. In some cases, the lack

of certainty has contributed to false expectations about the capability

to provide products and services without diminishing long-term

productive capability and without violating legal requirements for

clean water, clean air, biological diversity, and endangered species.

Three processes are needed to address the problems identified

above: adaptive management, landscape analysis, and collaborative

interaction with the public.

Adaptive Management. The purpose is to adjust management direction

based on results gained through experience. The need is for monitoring

protocols that provide timely, accurate information on outcomes

achieved by implementing current management direction. As stated in the

report of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: ``All strategies for

improvements are in some ways experiments. Learning as we go and

adjusting as necessary work best when we give as much care and planning

to measuring the response to new management strategies as we do to

implementing them.''

Landscape Analysis. The purpose is to consider how management

direction at the scale of the forest plan or higher can be applied

given landscape conditions at the watershed or subwatershed scale. The

need is to identify a suitable set of landscape analysis protocols so

that treatment needs can be identified and project priorities set.

Public Interaction and Collaboration. The purpose is to ensure that

citizens can meaningfully participate in the design, implementation and

monitoring of management direction. Past planning efforts have followed

a traditional model that has public input to the planning process only

at prescribed intervals with little collaboration. As the report of the

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project concludes: ``Collaboration among

various agencies, private interests, and public at large in the Sierra

is the most significant principle that emerges from the SNEP

strategies.''

The following are the specific purposes, by problem area, for

taking action.

Old Forest Ecosystems and Associated Species. The purpose of the

proposed action is to protect, increase, and perpetuate old forest and

hardwood ecosystem conditions including their structure, composition,

function, and to ensure the maintenance of biological diversity of

these ecosystems including the viability of associated species while

meeting people's needs and concerns. This will include reversing the

declining trends in abundance of old-forest ecosystems and habitats for

species that use old-forests.

Aquatic, Riparian, and Meadow Ecosystems. The purpose of the

proposed action is to protect and restore aquatic, riparian and meadow

ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada national forests. This direction will

ensure the proper functioning, such as stable streambanks and

shorelines, of key ecosystem processes, such as nutrient cycling, and

continued supplies of high quality water and will ensure the

maintenance of biological diversity and the viability of species

associated with these ecosystems. The purpose is to: (1) Improve

consistency of existing conservation programs, strategies and

practices, and (2) establish through landscape analysis, a consistent

assessment of watershed condition to determine priorities for the

allocation of limited personnel and funds.

Fire and Fuels. The purposes are to: (1) bring greater consistency

in fire and fuels management across the national forests and coordinate

management strategies with other ownerships and with objectives for

Forest Service management of other resources, (2) adjust the goals and

objectives in the national forest land management plan direction to

reflect the role and consequence of wildland fire, and (3) set

priorities for fire management actions to balance the need to restore

fire regimes while minimizing the threat fire poses to structures,

lives and resources.

Noxious Weeds. The purpose is to provide a strategy to control the

rapid spread of invasive exotic plant species, to contain existing weed

populations and, where possible, to eradicate them.

Lower Westside Hardwood Forest Ecosystems. The purpose of the

proposed action is to provide a management strategy that will result in

a sustainable hardwood forest ecosystem in the lower westside of the

Sierra Nevada, including the structure, composition, and function to

ensure maintenance of biological diversity.

Proposed Action

The proposed action responds to the needs identified above, the

reports of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project and the Sierra Nevada

Science Review, and concerns raised during public workshops held

earlier this year. It also responds to the USDA Forest Service Natural

Resource Agenda (on the Internet at www.fs.fed.us/news/agenda), the

Final Report of the California Spotted Owl Federal Advisory Committee

and the Clean Water Action Plan (delivered to Vice President Gore by

EPA and USDA on February 19, 1998).

The proposed action, while addressing the five problem areas,

integrates multiple uses such as recreation, grazing, timber

harvesting, and public access to the national forest into the actions.

Sustainable levels of products and services, reflective of shifting

public values and expectations, are an integral part of the proposed

action. Employment, economic prosperity, community vitality, and the

health of resource-based industries were concerns voiced during public

comment. They are relevant to all aspects of the proposed action and

will be evaluated as alternatives are prepared.

The proposed action calls for application of adaptive management

principles to adjust management direction to future events, changing

knowledge, or dynamic social views. Adaptive management involves: (1)

Establishing desired outcomes and steps towards achieving them, (2)

monitoring to generate new information, (3) adjusting management

objectives, and (4) adjusting strategies in response to the new

information. The proposed action will contain a monitoring strategy to

provide the critical information needed to trigger management

adaptations.

The proposed action also calls for analysis of environmental

conditions and management possibilities at the watershed and sub-

watershed scale to: (1) Link decisions at the project scale to larger

scale decisions, (2) link forest plans to the efforts of other

agencies, (3) prioritize treatments within the watershed or sub-

watershed, and (4) facilitate local collaborative stewardship.

The proposed action will be implemented using a collaborative

process to ensure coordination and consideration of the needs of other

federal agencies, Indian Tribes, state and local governments and

individuals. This involvement will help shape national forest land

management direction so that ecosystems are restored and maintained

while providing the management consistency that allows for a

sustainable level of multiple uses, including recreation, grazing,

timber, water, mining, and others.

This process will also assure redemption of the government's trust

responsibilities with Indian Tribes and consideration of their

expertise, cultural needs; and traditional and contemporary uses.

Section 401 of the 1999 Department of the Interior and Related

Agencies

[[Page 64455]]

Appropriations Act (the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest

Recovery Act), 112 Stat. 2681, directs the Secretary to implement a

pilot project on certain federal lands within the Plumas, Lassen and

Tahoe National forests. The Forest Service will be issuing a Notice of

intent for an environmental impact statement to begin implementation of

section 401. We will coordinate the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Project Environmental Impact Statement with the environmental impact

statement to implement section 401. We would like comments from the

public and interested groups concerning the relationship between the

two environmental impact statements.

The description of the proposed action for each problem area

includes alternative strategies, where they have been identified, that

could accomplish the purpose and need for action.

1. Old Forest Ecosystems and Associated Species (Including Forest

Carnivores and California Spotted Owl)

The desired condition for Sierra Nevada national forests is to

support old forests, which vary by vegetation type at a variety of

scales, from individual old conifer or hardwood trees and snags to

entire landscapes. Old forest habitat is present in sufficient

locations, connectivity, quantities, and quality to sustain viable

populations of old forest associated species and allow for seasonal

migration of animals. Old forest ecosystems, including associated

wildlife, fish, and plant populations, will be resilient to natural

disturbance processes such as fire, which serve to sustain ecosystem

composition, structure, and function. Management of old forest

ecosystems integrates hardwoods and complements the aquatic

conservation, fire and fuels, and noxious weeds strategies. Human uses

of forests, e.g. recreation, resource uses, and Native American uses,

are retained as important considerations for management of old forest

ecosystems.

The proposed action is to develop both processes and management

standards and guidelines for the California spotted owl and forest

carnivores to be integrated with strategies for old forests, aquatic

ecosystems, and fire and fuel. These processes, standards, and

guidelines would address habitat conservation, modeling, mapping and

assessment, and analysis of effects of management actions.

The proposed action is to: (1) Develop consistent old forest

definitions by forest type, (2) set mapping standards, (3) adapt

management to changing conditions, and (4) standardize large-scale

monitoring of old forest ecosystems. The expected result of this action

is to increase the acreage supporting old forests and habitat for

species that occur there. Two contrasting approaches may be applied to

achieve the desired condition.

Landscape Reserve Alternative. The landscape reserve alternative

would allocate land as old forest emphasis areas. These reserves would

occur over all forest types and include hardwoods as well as conifer-

dominated communities. Little to no entry for commercial timber harvest

or road building would be allowed in these areas. Prescribed fire would

be the primary tool to attain protection and restoration goals. The old

forest emphasis areas would be large enough to absorb large-scale

natural disturbances, and geographically connected by riparian areas

protected in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy to facilitate animal

dispersal and contribute toward the continued existence of wide-ranging

animals.

Old forest emphasis areas would be selected based upon the

following criteria: existing concentrations of old trees; known

locations of wildlife, fish and plant populations that require these

habitats; low road denisty; habitat for riparian/aquatic species;

representativeness of soils, geology, climatic and vegetation

conditions; existing wilderness and wild and scenic rivers; likelihood

of long-term sustainability given estimated fire conditions.

Outside the old forest emphasis areas, individual large old conifer

and hardwood trees, large snags, and concentrations of old trees would

be protected wherever they occur in the landscape, except where they

pose a safety hazard. Lands would be available for commercial timber

harvest and other uses.

Whole Forest Alternative. The whole forest alternative designates

the entire hardwood and conifer-dominated forest landscape in the

Sierra Nevada for succession towards old forests. Individual large old

conifer and hardwood trees and large snags would be protected wherever

they occur in the landscape, except where they pose a safety hazard. In

roadless areas, concentrations of old trees would be protected by

constructing no new roads, and conducting no commercial timber harvest.

In roaded areas, concentrations of old trees would primarily be

maintained using prescribed fire. Elsewhere in roaded areas, commercial

timber harvest, other mechanical treatments, and prescribed fire would

be used to accelerate succession toward old forest conditions.

The main differences between the landscape reserve and whole forest

alternatives are that under the landscape reserve alternative the

location of those reserves would not change over time and no commercial

timber harvest would be permitted within the reserves, regardless of

current condition. Under the Whole Forest Strategy, no timber harvest

would be permitted in existing concentrations of old trees, regardless

of location. Two points are common to both strategies: (1) The goal is

to increase acreages supporting old forest, and (2) concentrations of

old trees would move across the landscape over time in response to

large-scale natural or human-generated disturbances.

2. Aquatic, Riparian, and Meadow Ecosystems

The desired condition of the Sierra Nevada national forests will be

to provide sustainable aquatic, riparian and meadow ecosystem

compositions, structures and functions. Structures include vegetation,

flows and stream/lake bottoms. Fire and flooding, and processes such as

nutrient cycling, water and sediment flows are within a desired range

of variability. Land use activities, such as recreation, hydro-power,

grazing, mining, timber harvest, transportation system maintenance and

fuel treatments will be managed to enhance and restore the health of

these ecosystems. Habitat to support populations of native and desired

non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate species will be well-

distributed. Watersheds will be connected to each other, allowing fish

and wildlife populations to move between them.

The proposed action is to implement an Aquatic Conservation

Strategy. This includes a broad-scale assessment to identify the

highest quality watersheds, and rare and imperiled wildlife and plant

habitats for protection.

Important components of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy will be

the integration of existing management practices (i.e., collaboration,

restoration, existing watershed conservation practices, adaptive

management, monitoring and research), landscape analysis to assess

watershed conditions, and establishment of emphasis watersheds and

habitats. Criteria for designation of emphasis watersheds and habitats

include the presence of native aquatic species; a low level or lack of

exotic species; watershed condition; and distribution of, rarity of,

and risk to aquatic habitat.

The strategy will include specific standards and guidelines for at-

risk frog

[[Page 64456]]

and amphibian species. This group includes both foothill (Rana boylii)

and mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa), California red-legged

frog (Rana aurora draytoni), Cascade frog (Rana cascade), northern

leopard frog (Rana pipiens), and Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus). The

standards and guidelines will address protecting both occupied and

potential habitat from the adverse effects of grazing, mining,

reservoir construction, urbanization and other activities.

The willow flycatcher is currently listed by the State of

California as an endangered species. Three subspecies occur within

California. Two of these subspecies occur in the Sierra Nevada

(Empidonax traillii brewsteri and E. t. adastus) and are listed as

Region 5 Sensitive Species. Standards and guidelines for these species

will be a subject of the proposed action. A separate subspecies of

willow flycatcher (E. t. extimus) is listed as federally endangered,

occurs at the southern end of the Sierra Nevada, and is not expected to

be addressed or affected by this proposed action.

The proposed action is to protect known and potential willow

flycatcher habitat from livestock grazing and other management

activities through habitat management guidelines. Specific guidelines

could include preventing cattle and sheep grazing in willow flycatcher

habitat during the breeding season and managing grazing intensity to

avoid adverse impacts to vegetation needed for nesting and foraging.

Also included in the guidelines will be measures to: (1) Promote

the improvement and expansion of suitable habitat, (2) minimize the

likelihood of nest parasitism by brownheaded cowbirds, and (3) require

annual surveys to monitor breeding success and habitat conditions.

Two alternative approaches may be applied to implement the Aquatic

Conservation Strategy, however both of these approaches will include

the strategy for amphibian species and willow flycatcher as described

above.

Range-wide Standards. Under this approach, Sierra Nevada-wide

standards and guidelines will be developed to be consistent across the

province, forest, watershed and project scales. These include

delineation of riparian reserves; location, maintenance and engineering

of roads; design of timber harvest units; and grazing, recreation, and

fuels treatments.

Site Specific Standards. Under this approach, management activities

will be determined only after a landscape analysis identifies actions

that are most appropriate and effective. In the absence of site

specific standards, range-wide standards and guidelines will apply.

3. Fire and Fuels

The desired condition is to have a cost-effective fire management

program that protects natural resources, life, and property from the

effects of unwanted wildland fire. Fuels are maintained at levels

commensurate with minimizing resource loss from fire while meeting

other requirements for overall ecosystem health. Fire, under prescribed

conditions, is one of the most important tools for restoration and

sustainability of ecosystem diversity and productivity. Fire management

is coordinated with the National Park Service, Bureau of Land

Management, Indian Tribes, Fish and Wildlife Service, California

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and other agencies and

jurisdictions.

The proposal is to implement a fire management plan for each of the

eleven national forests that demonstrates consistency with the Federal

Wildland Fire Policy and coordinates with the California Fire Plan

prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

A fire management plan is a strategic plan that defines a program to

manage wildland and prescribed fires and documents implementation

strategies for the fire management program in the approved forest plan.

All fire plans will be supplemented by a range-wide, interagency

assessment of flammability and fire risk. This assessment will be based

on existing interagency mapping of surface fuels and vegetation, on

fire history (location and size of historical fires), and will be

adjusted using other factors that affect fire behavior such as weather,

climatology, slope and aspect. It displays the likelihood that fires

will occur and suggests how large and intense they could be under

existing conditions.

This assessment will help guide the setting of priorities for

wildland fire management and fire hazard reduction. Priorities should

include location of areas of high resource values, reintroduction of

fire as an ecosystem process, effects on local economies and impacts on

air quality.

Two alternative strategies for priority setting are proposed.

Prescribed Fire and Natural Wildland Fire Use With Focused Use of

Mechanical Treatments. Treat fuel accumulations and restore ecosystems

primarily through the use of prescribed and natural wildlife fire. Use

mechanical treatments along the urban wildland interface and major

transportation routes.

Prescribed Fire and Natural Wildland Fire With Extensive Use of

Mechanical Treatments. Use prescribed and natural wildland fire to

maintain treated areas and to reintroduce fire. Where fuel

accumulations, smoke management restrictions, or other concerns

preclude the use of prescribed fire as a means to deal with fuels

management or the risk of high intensity wildfire, use mechanical

methods to create a network of interspersed shaded fuelbreaks and area-

wide treatments consistent with fire management priorities.

4. Noxious Weeds

The desired condition is for no new populations of noxious weeds.

Existing populations are contained and, where possible, eradicated.

Employees, users of National Forest System lands, adjacent landowners,

and State agencies are aware and informed about noxious weed concerns.

The 1995 Forest Service Manual direction for noxious weed

management will be incorporated into all alternatives developed in the

EIS. Also, because noxious weed control and eradication is a Region-

wide effort, management directions developed for the Sierra Nevada

forests will be integrated at the Regional scale and coordinated with

other land management agencies in California.

Alternatives will contain management direction to minimize the

spread of noxious weed by roadbuilding, livestock use, vehicle use,

equipment use and other carriers. California wildland fire fighting

agencies would be encouraged to inventory and adopt use of weed-free

fire camps. Direction will also be included to ensure weed-free

administration sites and that materials brought onto the national

forests (e.g., sand, gravel, and pack animal's feed) will be weed-free.

All alternatives will include direction to use State certified

``noxious weed-free'' materials as soon as the State program is in

place.

Monitoring and inventory programs for noxious weed populations will

be tied to monitoring that triggers shifting the nature and intensity

of actions. Monitoring results and inventories will be shared across

agencies and national forests. The range-wide efficiency of the control

program would be periodically evaluated.

5. Lower Westside Hardwood Forest Ecosystems

The desired condition is for the lower westside hardwood forests to

be present in sufficient locations, connectivity, quantities, and

quality to provide for public uses, resident wildlife fish and acquatic

species, sensitive plant species

[[Page 64457]]

and seasonal migrants including deer. Fire will be employed to maintain

both old tree dominated forests and a mosaic of hardwood stand ages

across the landscape. Connectivity between lower elevation hardwood and

upper elevation conifer forests will be sufficient to allow for

wildlife migration and for natural processes, such as wildland fire, to

occur. Collaboration with local land owners and governments, and

consultation with tribes and permittees, will be an integral part of

managing these areas.

The proposed action is a management strategy that will ensure lower

westside hardwood forests are sustained. This strategy complements the

old-forest, aquatic conservation, fire and fuels, and noxious weeds

strategies. Individual large trees and snags, and concentrations of old

trees will be protected consistent with the old-forest ecosystem

strategy. A mosaic of hardwood stand ages will be provided through

reintroduction of fire, where possible, or through other fuels

reduction techniques in compliance with the fire and fuels strategy.

Management practices for improving connectivity between hardwood and

conifer forests and for reducing the impacts of urban development to

hardwood ecosystems will also be included. Viable populations of plants

and animals associated with hardwood forests would be sustained, to the

extent feasible in light of the fragmentation of these forests. The

monitoring strategy will be designed to ensure the management strategy

is effective in sustaining lower westside hardwood forests.

Proposed Scoping Process

This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process whereby the

Forest Service will identify the scope of issues to be addressed in the

EIS and identify the significant environmental issues related to the

proposed action.

Public comment is invited on the proposal to prepare the EIS.

Comment is also invited on the relationship between the EIS and section

401 of the 1999 Department of Interior and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act (the Herger-Feintstein Quincy Library Group Forest

Recovery Act), 112 Stat. 2681.

Community meetings with interested publics will be hosted by each

Sierra Nevada national forest during scoping, after release of the

Draft EIS, and after release of the Final EIS. Coordination with

Federal and State agencies, Tribal governments, and local governments

will occur throughout the scoping process.

During December 1998, the eleven national forests will each host

workshops designed to explain the Notice of Intent. In January 1999,

community workshops will be held to solicit suggestions,

recommendations, and comments to help frame alternatives to the

proposed action. Workshops will also be held in Los Angeles and San

Francisco. Specific locations and dates of the meetings will be posted

on the Internet at www.r5.fs.fed.us and in the newspaper of record for

each Sierra Nevada national forest.

Decision To Be Made and Responsible Official

The Regional Foresters of Regions 4 and 5 will decide, for their

respective Regions, whether or not, and in what manner, to amend the

Land and Resource Management Plans for the eleven Sierra national

forests; Humboldt-Toiyabe, Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado,

Stanislaus, Sierra, Sequioa, Inyo, and Lake Tahoe Basin Management

Unit. Also, the decision could include a non-significant amendment to

the Regional Guides for the Intermountain and Pacific Southwest

Regions. The responsible officials are Regional Foresters Jack A.

Blackwell, Region 4, USDA Forest Service, Federal Building 324, 25th

Street, Ogden, UT 84401 and G. Lynn Sprague, Region 5, USDA Forest

Service, 630 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94111.

Coordination With Other Agencies

While the Forest Service is the lead agency with responsibility to

prepare this EIS, requests have been made of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and California Department

of Fish and Game to participate as cooperating agencies (40 CFR Part

1501.6). The Environmental Protection Agency and Fish and Wildlife

Service have regulatory responsibilities that could not efficiently be

considered without direct involvement; formal consultation

responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act will be carried out

by having a Fish and Wildlife Service specialist participate as a

member of the interdisciplinary team. Cooperation by the National

Marine Fisheries Service is being sought. Coordination with the

California Department of Fish and Game and the California Department of

Forestry and Fire Protection is necessary because some mission

responsibilities overlap or are closely aligned with the conservation

activities of the Forest Service. Negotiations with the California

Department of Parks and Recreation to seek their cooperation is also

underway. Each agency will continue to participate as resources and

competing demands permit. Other agencies, local and county governments

will be invited to comment, as appropriate.

Commenting

A draft environmental impact statement is expected to be available

for public review and comment in February 1999; and a final

environmental impact statement in July 1999. The comment period on the

draft environmental impact statement will be 90 days from the date of

availability published in the Federal Register by the Environmental

Protection Agency.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names

and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the

public record on this proposed action and will be available for public

inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and

considered. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may

request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by

showing how the Freedom of Information (FOIA) permits such

confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be

aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very

limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest

Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding

the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the

agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the

comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address.

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 the 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 environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised

until after completion of the final environmental stage 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 these court rulings, it

[[Page 64458]]

is very important that those interested in this proposed action

participate by the close of the 90 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 environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues

and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft

environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is

also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the

draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft

environmental impact statement 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.

Dated: November 16, 1998.

Kent Connaughton,

Deputy Regional Forester.

[FR Doc. 98-31022 Filed 11-19-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M