Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, California, South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS/EIR, 2882-2887 [E8-668]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2882-2887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-668]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


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

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

[[Page 2883]]


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

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to South Shore Project, Lake Tahoe 
Management Unit, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. 
Electronic comments must be submitted in a format such as an email 
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 
Action or further information may be addressed to South Shore Project, 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, 
CA 96150. Telephone or e-mail contacts for the project are the 
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 
proposed treatment areas, is available on the LTBMU Web site, at http:/
/www.fs.fed.us/r5/ltbmu/projects, under South Shore Fuels Reduction and 
Healthy Forest Restoration Project Proposed Action--July 2007.

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

[[Page 2884]]

proposed within Wilderness, and treatments would not create any new 
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 
the South Shore area where fire suppression operations can be safely 
and effectively conducted in order to protect homes and communities 
from wildfires. (Fire Planning Process for the Urban-Wildland Interface 
in the City of South Lake Tahoe (Citygate Associates 2004); Community 
Wildfire Protection Plan for Lake Valley Fire Protection District, 
2004; Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Fallen Leaf Fire 
Department, 2004, Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Tahoe-Douglas 
Fire Protection District, 2004; Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment, USDA 
Pacific Southwest Research Station General Technical Report 175, 2000; 
South Shore Watershed Assessment, USDA Forest Service, 2004; Fuel 
Reduction and Forest Restoration for the Lake Tahoe Basin Wildland 
Urban Interface, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2007).
    2. There is a need for restoration of forest health in the South 
Shore area where stands of trees have become overly dense and surface 
fuels have accumulated to such a degree that uncharacteristic wildfires 
with sustained crown fire and long range spotting could quickly develop 
causing severe resource damage and threatening human life and property. 
In addition, overly dense forest stands often suffer stress from 
drought and competition for nutrients, which subjects them to 
widespread forest dieback from insects and diseases.
    3. There is a need for restoration of meadows and aspen stands in 
the South Shore area in order to reduce the potential for catastrophic 
wildfire to spread through these areas, promote maintenance of meadows 
and aspen stands consistent with the TRPA and Pacific Southwest 
Research Station ``Aspen Community Mapping and Condition Assessment 
Report'' (USDA Forest Service, PSW-GTR-185), and provide wildlife 
habitat for species that are dependent on meadows and/or aspen.
    In meeting the aforementioned needs the proposed action must also 
achieve the following purposes:
    1. Meet wildlife habitat condition requirements for sensitive 
species of native (and desired non-native, for example rainbow trout) 
plants and animals, consistent with the Forest Plan and TRPA goshawk 
disturbance zones.
    2. Achieve management direction in the LTBMU Management Plan as 
amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment where the ``desired 
condition'' is for forests that ``are fairly open and dominated 
primarily by larger, fire tolerant trees'' within the WUI.
    3. Assure that treatments in streamside environment zones (SEZs) 
favor riparian species while providing for large woody debris 
recruitment and stream shading needs.
    4. Meet Water Quality Standards in the Water Quality Control Plan 
for the Lahontan Region.
    5. Meet scenic quality objectives and stabilize scenic resources 
over the long-term in concert with achieving the desired conditions of 
stands that ``are fairly open and dominated primarily by larger, fire 
tolerant trees.''
    6. Meet air quality standards for the Lake Tahoe basin.
    7. Prevent post-treatment establishment of user-created motorized 
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 
Project (South Shore project) would implement vegetative treatments to 
modify dense vegetation conditions on National Forest System lands 
within the project area, including Forest Service owned urban parcels 
containing Stream Environment Zones (SEZs) or parcels in excess of 5 
contiguous acres in size. The South Shore project would use vegetative 
treatments to help restore a healthy, diverse, fire-resilient forest 
structure by reducing stand densities and fuel loads. The desired 
vegetative and fuels conditions would be stand densities that are 
within a range of 100-150 square feet basal area per acre. Treatments 
would retain tree species that are more drought-tolerant, and resistant 
to insects, diseases, and air pollution. Treatments would also retain 
tree species that have higher rates of survival after wildfire. Desired 
surface and ladder fuels would be less than 15 tons per acre so that 
the probability of crown fire ignition is reduced. The openness and 
discontinuity of crown fuels both horizontally and vertically would 
result in low probability of sustained crown fire. Within the 21 
watersheds in the South Shore project area (90,000 acres), 
approximately 12,000 acres would be prioritized for treatment based on 
their proximity to places where people live and work (Defense and 
Threat Zones of the WUI). Existing fuel hazard levels, and other 
resource concerns such as watershed recovery, wildlife habitat 
requirements, and visual quality objectives will also factor into 
prioritization. Mechanical or hand fuels treatments are selected based 
on soil type, slope, and water quality concerns such as delivery of 
sediments to surface water. Treatment methods would include: Whole tree 
yarding, cut-to-length, biomass chipping, mastication, and prescribed 
burning, depending on the vegetation removal needs. Prescribed burning 
would be used to reduce fuels, remove slash created by treatment 
activities, and to re-introduce fire's ecological function. Scheduling 
of prescribed burn activities would comply with air quality standards 
and restrictions. Riparian conservation areas (RCAs), SEZs, meadows, 
and aspen stands needing fuels treatments would be evaluated for 
mechanical treatments, or would receive hand treatments. Treatment 
options would consider ground based mechanical treatments whenever 
slope, soils, and access allow (including SEZ areas).
    Mechanical and hand thinning of both uplands and SEZs in National 
Forest urban lots would follow the same design features as described 
for vegetation and fuels objectives. Hand thinning of urban lots may 
remove trees up to 30'' diameter at breast height (DBH) where necessary 
to meet fuels objectives and fuelwood utilization is feasible. On urban 
lots where fuelwood access is limited or impossible, hand thinning 
would be limited to trees up to 14'' DBH. Due to the close proximity of 
homes, roads, utilities and other improvements associated with 
development adjacent to urban lots, dead, dying, and diseased trees of 
all sizes often present a hazard to life and property. All trees 
identified as a hazard to life and property on National Forest urban 
lots would be removed regardless of diameter, including trees greater 
than 30'' DBH.
    Sensitive plant locations would be flagged for avoidance where they 
may be negatively affected by project activities, buffered from 
mechanized equipment, and treated by hand to reduce hazardous fuels. 
Burn piles would not be located within the flagged sensitive plant 
area. Treat or flag noxious weed locations for avoidance where feasible 
prior to project implementation. Noxious weed prevention practices, 
such as washing equipment if the previous location is either unknown or 
is infested with weeds, would be implemented in compliance with the 
state and SNFPA (2004) standards.
    Hazardous fuel reduction treatments are designed for WUI wildlife 
habitat areas to meet fuel objectives to change fire behavior and 
retain needed habitat

[[Page 2885]]

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

Possible Alternatives

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

[[Page 2886]]

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

Lead and Cooperating Agencies

    The USDA Forest Service and the LWQCB will be joint lead agencies 
in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.5(b), and are responsible for the 
preparation of the EIS/EIR. The Forest Service will serve as the lead 
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 
EIS/EIR is Terri Marceron, Forest Supervisor, Lake Tahoe Basin 
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 
and implement the proposed action, an alternative to the proposed 
action, or take no action to reduce hazardous fuels and restore healthy 
forest conditions on approximately 12,500 acres in the South Shore area 
of the LTBMU. Once the decision is made, the LTBMU will publish a 
record of decision to disclose the rationale for selection of an 
alternative for implementation.

Scoping Process

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

Permits or Licenses Required

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

Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides 
the development of the environmental impact statement. In accordance 
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 
administrative review process whereby a person may seek relief for 
issues concerning this proposal before the responsible official makes 
her final decision. To be eligible to request an administrative review, 
a person must comment during scoping or the public comment period on 
the draft environmental impact statement by providing specific written 
comments that relate to the proposed action.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review

    A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for 
comment. The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be 
filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be 
available for public review by April 2008. EPA will publish a notice of 
availability of the draft EIS/EIR in the Federal Register. The comment 
period on the draft EIS/EIR will extend 45 days from the date the EPA 
notice appears in the Federal Register. At that time, copies of the 
draft EIS/EIR will be distributed to interested and affected agencies, 
organizations, and members of the public for their review and comment. 
It is very important that those interested in the management of the 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit participate at that time.
    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 environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised 
until after completion of the final environmental impact statement 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 these 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 environmental impact statement.

[[Page 2887]]

    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. Comments received, including 
the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part 
of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public 
inspection.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 
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