From: Subject: FR Doc E8-668 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:11:55 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20081800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-668.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 FR Doc E8-668 
[Federal Register: January 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 11)]
[Notices]              =20
[Page 2882-2887]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16ja08-31]                        =20

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

=20
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, California, South Shore Fuel=20
Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS/EIR

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

[[Page 2883]]


ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a joint environmental impact=20
statement/report.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the USDA Forest Service, Lake=20
Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU), together with the Lahontan=20
Regional Water Quality Control Board will prepare a joint Environmental=20
Impact Statement (EIS/EIR) and Environmental Inpact Report (EIR) to=20
disclose the impacts associated with the following proposed action:=20
Reduction of hazardous fuels and restoration of healthy forest=20
conditions on approximately 12,500 acres within the South Shore area of=20
the LTBMU, extending from the southeast shore of Cascade Lake eastward=20
to the border between the States of California and Nevada and extending=20
from the southern shore of Lake Tahoe southward to include the=20
California State Highway 89 corridor.
    This project is proposed under authority of the Healthy Forest=20
Restoration Act of 2003. The Forest Service is the lead Federal agency=20
for the preparation of this EIS/EIR in compliance with the National=20
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and all other applicable laws,=20
executive orders, regulations, and direction. The Lahontan Regional=20
Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB) is the lead State of California=20
agency for the preparation of the EIS/EIR in compliance with the=20
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and all other applicable=20
laws and regulations. Both agencies have determined an EIS/EIR is=20
needed to effectively analyze the proposal and evaluate impacts.
    Reduction of hazardous fuels would be accomplished by thinning to=20
remove ladder fuels and reduce over-crowding in forest stands, removal=20
of excessive fuel loads on the ground, mastication, chipping, and=20
prescribed burning. Resoration of Healthy forest conditions would be=20
accomplished by removal of conifer encroachement from meadows and aspen=20
stands, retention of Jeffrey and sugar pine species to restore a=20
historic species mix more resistant to fire, and thinning to improve=20
resistance to crown fire, drought, insects, and disease.

DATES: The comment period on the proposed action will extend 30 days=20
from the date this Notice of Intent is published in the Federal=20
Register. Because there have been no changes to the proposed action=20
since it was initially scoped in July 2007, previously submitted=20
comments on this project will be retained; those who previously=20
submitted comments on this project need not repeat their comments.
    Completion of the joint Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft=20
Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/DEIR) is expected in April 2008 and=20
the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental Impact=20
Report (FEIS/FEIR) is expected in August 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to South Shore Project, Lake Tahoe=20
Management Unit, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.=20
Electronic comments must be submitted in a format such as an email=20
message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc) to =

comments-pacificsouthwest-ltbmu@fs.fed.us.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for copies of the Proposed=20
Action or further information may be addressed to South Shore Project,=20
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe,=20
CA 96150. Telephone or e-mail contacts for the project are the=20
Interdisciplinary Team Co-leaders: Duncan Leao (phone 530-543-2660, e-
mail 
dleao@fs.fed.us); or Sue Rodman, (phone 530-621-5298, e-mail srodman@fs.fed.us ). The complete =
proposed action, including a map of=20


proposed treatment areas, is available on the LTBMU Web site, at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=3DleavingFR.h=
tml&log=3Dlinklog&to=3Dhttp://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ltbmu/projects=

, under South Shore Fuels Reduction and=20

Healthy Forest Restoration Project Proposed Action--July 2007.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal was developed through=20
coordination and collaboration with the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and=20
California, the City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department, Lake Valley=20
Fire Protection District, Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District,=20
Fallen Leaf Fire Department, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control=20
Board (LRWQCB), Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), and the public=20
during February and March of 2007. The Proposed action was mailed to=20
interested and affected parties in July of 2007. Field trips to a=20
series of 3 sites for an on-the-ground look at types of areas proposed=20
to receive fuel treatments by the South Shore Fuel Reduction and=20
Healthy Forest Restoration project were hosted by members of the=20
Interdiciplinary Team on a Tuesday and a Saturday in August of 2007,=20
along with an evening open house to provide the public an opportunity=20
to ask questions and gather information about this project.
    It is clear that existing conditions within the project area have=20
the potential for fire to spread rapidly within the wildland urban=20
intermix (WUI), communities, infrastructure, and other natural=20
resources. Without treatment, hazardous fuels will increase annually,=20
adding to an already high risk for catastrophic wildfire. This proposal=20
will reduce fuel hazards and restore ecosystem health through=20
vegetation treatments. All of the proposed treatment areas are within=20
the WUI, in close proximity to homes, communities, and vital egress=20
routes. Over 80 percent of the proposed treatments are within the WUI=20
Defense Zone, defined as the zone within approximately a quarter mile=20
of the places where people live and work. A primary objective of these=20
fuel treatments would be reduction of hazardous fuels in order to=20
change fire behavior, resulting in lower fire intensity and reduced=20
rates of spread. While it is not possible to eliminate wildfire from=20
the Sierra Nevada ecosystem, effective hazardous fuel reduction=20
provides defensible space where fire suppression crews can work to=20
reduce wildfire threat to communities. Streamside environment zones=20
(SEZ) need thinning of live trees and removal of dead trees and=20
hazardous ground fuels to reduce the potential for negative effects of=20
a catastrophic wildfire in these environmentally sensitive areas.=20
Wildlife habitat for sensitive species such as California spotted owl,=20
Northern goshawk, osprey, and bald eagle are currently at risk for loss=20
due to wildfire, and would benefit from thinning to change fire=20
behavior while retaining forest habitat structure characteristics=20
needed for wildlife. Providing healthy wildlife habitat and restoration=20
of a forest structure with increased resistance to drought, disease,=20
and insects are objectives that also reduce tree mortality and the rate=20
of hazardous fuel build-up. Treatment prescriptions would modify fire=20
behavior, provide defensible space for adjoining developed private=20
lands, and where applicable, restore riparian vegetation communities=20
(meadows, aspen stands, willow, etc.) through the removal of=20
encroaching conifers. Urban lots owned by the National Forest System=20
exhibit the same fuel loads and need for treatment as other areas in=20
the Lake Tahoe Basin. Removal of hazardous fuels and thinning of dense=20
stands is needed to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire and=20
to provide defensible space for private land adjoining these urban=20
lots. Urban lots with stream environment zones (SEZ) where conifer=20
encroachment and fuels build up exists, and urban parcels in excess of=20
5 acres contiguous land base are included for treatment in the South=20
Shore project area. No activities are

[[Page 2884]]

proposed within Wilderness, and treatments would not create any new=20
roads in Inventoried Roadless Areas.

Purpose and Need for Action

    The following needs have been identified for this proposal:
    1. There is a need for defensible space adjacent to communities in=20
the South Shore area where fire suppression operations can be safely=20
and effectively conducted in order to protect homes and communities=20
from wildfires. (Fire Planning Process for the Urban-Wildland Interface=20
in the City of South Lake Tahoe (Citygate Associates 2004); Community=20
Wildfire Protection Plan for Lake Valley Fire Protection District,=20
2004; Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Fallen Leaf Fire=20
Department, 2004, Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Tahoe-Douglas=20
Fire Protection District, 2004; Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment, USDA=20
Pacific Southwest Research Station General Technical Report 175, 2000;=20
South Shore Watershed Assessment, USDA Forest Service, 2004; Fuel=20
Reduction and Forest Restoration for the Lake Tahoe Basin Wildland=20
Urban Interface, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2007).
    2. There is a need for restoration of forest health in the South=20
Shore area where stands of trees have become overly dense and surface=20
fuels have accumulated to such a degree that uncharacteristic wildfires=20
with sustained crown fire and long range spotting could quickly develop=20
causing severe resource damage and threatening human life and property.=20
In addition, overly dense forest stands often suffer stress from=20
drought and competition for nutrients, which subjects them to=20
widespread forest dieback from insects and diseases.
    3. There is a need for restoration of meadows and aspen stands in=20
the South Shore area in order to reduce the potential for catastrophic=20
wildfire to spread through these areas, promote maintenance of meadows=20
and aspen stands consistent with the TRPA and Pacific Southwest=20
Research Station ``Aspen Community Mapping and Condition Assessment=20
Report'' (USDA Forest Service, PSW-GTR-185), and provide wildlife=20
habitat for species that are dependent on meadows and/or aspen.
    In meeting the aforementioned needs the proposed action must also=20
achieve the following purposes:
    1. Meet wildlife habitat condition requirements for sensitive=20
species of native (and desired non-native, for example rainbow trout)=20
plants and animals, consistent with the Forest Plan and TRPA goshawk=20
disturbance zones.
    2. Achieve management direction in the LTBMU Management Plan as=20
amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment where the ``desired=20
condition'' is for forests that ``are fairly open and dominated=20
primarily by larger, fire tolerant trees'' within the WUI.
    3. Assure that treatments in streamside environment zones (SEZs)=20
favor riparian species while providing for large woody debris=20
recruitment and stream shading needs.
    4. Meet Water Quality Standards in the Water Quality Control Plan=20
for the Lahontan Region.
    5. Meet scenic quality objectives and stabilize scenic resources=20
over the long-term in concert with achieving the desired conditions of=20
stands that ``are fairly open and dominated primarily by larger, fire=20
tolerant trees.''
    6. Meet air quality standards for the Lake Tahoe basin.
    7. Prevent post-treatment establishment of user-created motorized=20
or non-motorized routes or trails.
    8. Address public safety during implementation of the project.

Proposed Action

    The South Shore Fuels Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration=20
Project (South Shore project) would implement vegetative treatments to=20
modify dense vegetation conditions on National Forest System lands=20
within the project area, including Forest Service owned urban parcels=20
containing Stream Environment Zones (SEZs) or parcels in excess of 5=20
contiguous acres in size. The South Shore project would use vegetative=20
treatments to help restore a healthy, diverse, fire-resilient forest=20
structure by reducing stand densities and fuel loads. The desired=20
vegetative and fuels conditions would be stand densities that are=20
within a range of 100-150 square feet basal area per acre. Treatments=20
would retain tree species that are more drought-tolerant, and resistant=20
to insects, diseases, and air pollution. Treatments would also retain=20
tree species that have higher rates of survival after wildfire. Desired=20
surface and ladder fuels would be less than 15 tons per acre so that=20
the probability of crown fire ignition is reduced. The openness and=20
discontinuity of crown fuels both horizontally and vertically would=20
result in low probability of sustained crown fire. Within the 21=20
watersheds in the South Shore project area (90,000 acres),=20
approximately 12,000 acres would be prioritized for treatment based on=20
their proximity to places where people live and work (Defense and=20
Threat Zones of the WUI). Existing fuel hazard levels, and other=20
resource concerns such as watershed recovery, wildlife habitat=20
requirements, and visual quality objectives will also factor into=20
prioritization. Mechanical or hand fuels treatments are selected based=20
on soil type, slope, and water quality concerns such as delivery of=20
sediments to surface water. Treatment methods would include: Whole tree=20
yarding, cut-to-length, biomass chipping, mastication, and prescribed=20
burning, depending on the vegetation removal needs. Prescribed burning=20
would be used to reduce fuels, remove slash created by treatment=20
activities, and to re-introduce fire's ecological function. Scheduling=20
of prescribed burn activities would comply with air quality standards=20
and restrictions. Riparian conservation areas (RCAs), SEZs, meadows,=20
and aspen stands needing fuels treatments would be evaluated for=20
mechanical treatments, or would receive hand treatments. Treatment=20
options would consider ground based mechanical treatments whenever=20
slope, soils, and access allow (including SEZ areas).
    Mechanical and hand thinning of both uplands and SEZs in National=20
Forest urban lots would follow the same design features as described=20
for vegetation and fuels objectives. Hand thinning of urban lots may=20
remove trees up to 30'' diameter at breast height (DBH) where necessary=20
to meet fuels objectives and fuelwood utilization is feasible. On urban=20
lots where fuelwood access is limited or impossible, hand thinning=20
would be limited to trees up to 14'' DBH. Due to the close proximity of=20
homes, roads, utilities and other improvements associated with=20
development adjacent to urban lots, dead, dying, and diseased trees of=20
all sizes often present a hazard to life and property. All trees=20
identified as a hazard to life and property on National Forest urban=20
lots would be removed regardless of diameter, including trees greater=20
than 30'' DBH.
    Sensitive plant locations would be flagged for avoidance where they=20
may be negatively affected by project activities, buffered from=20
mechanized equipment, and treated by hand to reduce hazardous fuels.=20
Burn piles would not be located within the flagged sensitive plant=20
area. Treat or flag noxious weed locations for avoidance where feasible=20
prior to project implementation. Noxious weed prevention practices,=20
such as washing equipment if the previous location is either unknown or=20
is infested with weeds, would be implemented in compliance with the=20
state and SNFPA (2004) standards.
    Hazardous fuel reduction treatments are designed for WUI wildlife=20
habitat areas to meet fuel objectives to change fire behavior and=20
retain needed habitat

[[Page 2885]]

charcteristics. Within northern goshawk Protected Activity Centers=20
(PACs) and California spotted owl PACs fuel treatements are designed to=20
result in at least: (1) Two tree canopy layers; (2) dominant and co-
dominant trees with average diameters of 24 inches DBH; (3) 60 to 70=20
percent canopy cover; (4) an average of five to eight snags per acre=20
larger than 20 inches DBH and of variable decay classes; and (5) 15=20
tons of coarse woody debris (CWD) per acre larger than 20 inches in=20
diameter (at the large end) and of variable decay classes. Within=20
California spotted owl Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs), and TRPA goshawk=20
disturbance zones fuel reduction treaments are designed to result in at=20
least: (1) Two tree canopy layers; (2) dominant and co-dominant trees=20
with average diameters of 24 inches DBH; (3) 50 to 70 percent canopy=20
cover; (4) an average of three to six snags per acre larger than 20=20
inches DBH and of variable decay classes; and (5) 10 tons of coarse=20
woody debris per acre larger than 20 inches in diameter (at the large=20
end) and of variable decay classes. Within TRPA bald eagle wintering=20
habitat area located near Taylor Creek and Tallac Creek adjacent to=20
wetland, wet meadow, and open water habitats, fuel reduction treatments=20
are designed to result in: (1) Late successional forest type, with an=20
emphasis on Jeffrey pine-dominated stands; (2) retention of trees that=20
are larger in diameter and taller than the dominant tree canopy, with=20
an emphasis on trees greater than 40 inches DBH and greater than 98=20
feet tall and on dead topped trees with robust, open branch structures;=20
(3) an average of six snags per acre larger than 20 inches DBH and of=20
variable decay classes. Within osprey habitats adjacent to Fallen Leaf=20
Lake and Lower Echo Lake fuel reduction treatments are designed to=20
result in: (1) Retention of all known standing osprey nest trees; and=20
(2) retention of an average of three trees per acre that are larger in=20
diameter and taller than the dominant tree canopy, with an emphasis on=20
dead topped trees with robust, open branch structures.
    Within streamside zones with an overload of standing and down=20
fuels, such as stream reaches that exceed 75% stream shading from dead=20
and down or ladder fuels, hazardous fuel reduction is designed to=20
maintain sufficient shade to ensure that daily mean water temperatures=20
do not increase. Shaded bank conditions on trout streams would be=20
maintained by retaining at least 50% of the stream bank site potential=20
for herbaceous and shrub cover and at least 25% of the site potential=20
for tree cover. Where natural tree cover is less than 20%, 80% of the=20
potential would be retained. Thirty-five to 70% of the stream would be=20
shaded from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Large woody debris would remain in place=20
unless stream channel stability needs dictate removal, and for streams=20
lacking large woody debris for fish habitat, trees larger than 12'' DBH=20
would be placed into the stream in locations prescribed by the LTBMU=20
Fisheries Biologist.
    Mechanical treatments in RCAs/SEZs are designed to occur at the=20
time of year when soils are sufficiently dry and to avoid impacts to=20
fish migration and/or spawning. Mechanical treatment techniques that=20
are successful in the Heavenly Valley Creek SEZ Demonstration project,=20
the Celio Ranch Project (private land), or other successful projects=20
that occur in RCAs and SEZs would be used for South Shore SEZ areas.=20
Use of equipment that is lighter on the land, rubber-tired equipment,=20
equipment that operates on a bed of slash, and other innovative=20
technologies would reduce impacts to soils. Best Management Practices=20
would be implemented during project activities. Burn piles would be=20
located outside of SEZs. Fuel reduction activities are scheduled to=20
reduce the Risk Ratio by providing watershed recovery time between=20
treatments within the same watersheds.
    Within areas of greater than 30 percent slope or soils too wet to=20
withstand mechanical equipment, hand treatments would be used in RCAs/
SEZs needing fuels treatments. Mechanical equipment use would not be=20
allowed in and adjacent to special aquatic features (springs, seeps,=20
vernal pools, fens, and marshes); hand treatments would be used in=20
these areas.
    Chipping and/or mastication would be used to provide soil cover for=20
bare areas such as temporary roads and landings. Heavy equipment=20
operations would be limited to dry soils, and extensive areas of=20
detrimentally compacted soils (temporary roads and large landings)=20
would be treated to reduce compaction. Mechanical treatments would be=20
used to reduce upland hazardous fuels on slopes generally less than 30%=20
and less sensitive soils, while hand treatments would be used to reduce=20
hazardous fuels on slopes generally greater than 30% and sensitive=20
soils. Prescribed fire would be planned to avoid fire intensity and=20
duration resulting in detrimentally burned soils.
    No new permanent road construction would occur. Roads would be=20
maintained and/or restored to Forest Service standards needed to=20
support equipment and trucks needed for activities as well as to=20
protect soil and water quality resources from the impacts of equipment=20
use. Some temporary road construction would be needed. Road BMPs would=20
be implemented during and at the conclusion of project activities. At=20
the conclusion of the project, temporary roads, skid trails, and=20
landings would be closed and stabilized to provide drainage and prevent=20
water accumulation on the roadbed and sedimentation into stream=20
channels.
    Barriers along open areas adjacent to road or trail access (i.e.=20
boulders, split rail fence) and signs would be strategically=20
established to prevent post-treatment establishment of user-created=20
routes within treatment areas. Schedule treatment timing to minimize=20
user disturbance from fuel treatments on Forest Service lands within=20
and surrounding special use permit properties, and avoid peak visitor=20
use recreation times in developed recreation areas, when practical. For=20
public safety, temporary area closures to recreation access would be=20
implemented while fuel reduction activities are in progress.=20
Environmental education and notification of area closures would be=20
provided to the public for the project.
    To protect historic and pre-historic heritage resources, discrete=20
sites would be flagged for mechanical equipment avoidance. Heritage=20
sites would receive hand treatments to reduce hazardous fuels. In order=20
to preserve arborglyphs, conifer invasion in aspen stands would be=20
reduced, and arborglyphs would be protected during prescribed fire.
    Fuel treatments would be used to increase scenic viewing=20
opportunities where existing fuels concentrations prevent attractive=20
views, for example, views of meadows, views of Lake Tahoe, and views of=20
aspen. Cover would be placed on landings, temporary roads, or other=20
cleared areas to blend these areas visually into the surrounding=20
landscape at completion of the project. Fuel reduction treatments would=20
be scheduled to disperse visual impacts both over time and spatially in=20
the landscape. Within foreground views from major travel routes, cut=20
stump heights would be low and burn piles would be located to minimize=20
their visibility. Fuel reduction would be designed to maintain visual=20
variety in the landscape while meeting goals to change wildfire=20
behavior.

Possible Alternatives

    Implementation of the South Shore Project would occur entirely=20
within the Wildland Urban Interface of at-risk communities as defined=20
under the

[[Page 2886]]

Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (PL 108-148; 16 U.S.C. 6501 et=20
seq.). The proposed action and no action alternatives are currently=20
being considered, consistent with section 104(c).

Lead and Cooperating Agencies

    The USDA Forest Service and the LWQCB will be joint lead agencies=20
in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.5(b), and are responsible for the=20
preparation of the EIS/EIR. The Forest Service will serve as the lead=20
agency under NEPA. The LWQCB will serve as the lead agency under CEQA.

Responsible Official

    The Forest Service responsible official for the preparation of the=20
EIS/EIR is Terri Marceron, Forest Supervisor, Lake Tahoe Basin=20
Management Unit, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The Forest Supervisor for the LTBMU will decide whether to adopt=20
and implement the proposed action, an alternative to the proposed=20
action, or take no action to reduce hazardous fuels and restore healthy=20
forest conditions on approximately 12,500 acres in the South Shore area=20
of the LTBMU. Once the decision is made, the LTBMU will publish a=20
record of decision to disclose the rationale for selection of an=20
alternative for implementation.

Scoping Process

    The Forest Service has been and will continue to seek information,=20
comments, and assistance from federal, state, and local agencies and=20
other individuals or organizations who may be interested in or affected=20
by the proposed action. The proposed action was originally mailed to=20
interested and affected parties in July of 2007. During this initial=20
scoping phase, it was determined that this proposal could have=20
significant effects on the human environment. Therefore the responsible=20
official elected to prepare a joint environmental impact statement/
environmental impact report in accordance with the National=20
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the California Environmental=20
Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7--Scoping,=20
publication of this notice of intent precedes the scoping period for an=20
EIS/EIR. However, since there have been no changes to the proposed=20
action since it was initially scoped in July 2007, those who previously=20
submitted comments on this project need not resubmit them. Scoping=20
comments submitted previously on this project will be retained and=20
treated the same as those received subsequent to this notice.
    One joint Forest Service and Lahontan Water Quality Control Board=20
scoping meeting is scheduled for January 23, 2008 from 10 a.m. to noon=20
in the Board Room at Lake Tahoe Community College, 1 College Dr., South=20
Lake Tahoe, CA.
    The notice of intent is expected to be published in the Federal=20
Register on January 18, 2008. The comment period on the proposed action=20
will extend 30 days from the date the notice of intent is published in=20
the Federal Register. The draft environmental impact statement/draft=20
environmental impact report is expected to be filed with the=20
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public=20
review by April 2008. EPA will publish a notice of availability of the=20
draft EIS/EIR in the Federal Register. The comment period on the draft=20
EIS/EIR will extend 45 days from the date the EPA notice appears in the=20
Federal Register. At that time, copies of the draft EIS/EIR will be=20
distributed to interested and affected agencies, organizations, and=20
members of the public for their review and comment. It is very=20
important that those interested in the management of the Lake Tahoe=20
Basin Management Unit participate at that time. The final EIS/EIR is=20
scheduled to be completed in August 2008. In the final EIS/EIR, the=20
Forest Service is required to respond to substantive comments received=20
during the comment period that pertain to the environmental=20
consequences discussed in the draft EIS/EIR and applicable laws,=20
regulations, and policies considered in making the decision.=20
Substantive comments are defined as ``comments within the scope of the=20
proposed action, specific to the proposed action, and have a direct=20
relationship to the proposed action, and include supporting reasons for=20
the responsible official to consider'' (36 CFR 215.2). Submission of=20
substantive comments is a prerequisite for eligibility to object under=20
the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003.

Permits or Licenses Required

    Lahontan Water Quality Control Board--2007 Timber Waiver and/or=20
Permit for Waste Discharge.

Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides=20
the development of the environmental impact statement. In accordance=20
with the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-
148; 16 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.), this project is subject to a special=20
administrative review process whereby a person may seek relief for=20
issues concerning this proposal before the responsible official makes=20
her final decision. To be eligible to request an administrative review,=20
a person must comment during scoping or the public comment period on=20
the draft environmental impact statement by providing specific written=20
comments that relate to the proposed action.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent=20
Environmental Review

    A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for=20
comment. The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be=20
filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be=20
available for public review by April 2008. EPA will publish a notice of=20
availability of the draft EIS/EIR in the Federal Register. The comment=20
period on the draft EIS/EIR will extend 45 days from the date the EPA=20
notice appears in the Federal Register. At that time, copies of the=20
draft EIS/EIR will be distributed to interested and affected agencies,=20
organizations, and members of the public for their review and comment.=20
It is very important that those interested in the management of the=20
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit participate at that time.
    The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important=20
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public=20
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of=20
draft environmental impact statements must structure their=20
participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is=20
meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and=20
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,=20
553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the=20
draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised=20
until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may=20
be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d=20
1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490=20
F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings,=20
it is very important that those interested in this proposed action=20
participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that=20
substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest=20
Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to=20
them in the final environmental impact statement.

[[Page 2887]]

    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues=20
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft=20
environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is=20
also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the=20
draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft=20
environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives=20
formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer=20
to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing=20
the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at=20
40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including=20
the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part=20
of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public=20
inspection.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook=20
1909.15, Section 21)

    Dated: January 8, 2008.
Terri Marceron,
LTBMU Forest Supervisor.
 [FR Doc. E8-668 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-P