[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 107 (Friday, June 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35317-35318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13797]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Management Direction for the John Muir, Ansel Adams, Dinkey Lakes 
and Monarch Wilderness; Inyo, Sierra and Sequoia National Forests

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare a Revised Environmental Impact 
Statement.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the USDA, Forest Service will 
prepare a revised draft environmental impact statement (EIS) to 
establish management direction for the John Muir, Ansel Adams, Dinkey 
Lakes and Monarch Wilderness areas. The Sierra and Inyo National 
Forests administer the John Muir and Ansel Adams Wildernesses; the 
Sierra National Forest administers the Dinkey Lakes Wilderness; and the 
Sierra and Sequois National Forests administer the Monarch Wilderness. 
These Wildernesses are located in Fresno, Inyo, Madera, and Mono, 
California. The decision to revise the draft EIS was based on the high 
level of interest and concern apparent from the public comments to the 
original draft. The proposed action has been more clearly defined, 
otherwise it remains unchanged from that described in the original NOI 
published in the August 12, 1992 issue of the Federal Register (57 FR 
36061).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding the 
proposed action and revised EIS to Mary Beth Hennessy, Wilderness 
Specialist, Inyo

[[Page 35318]]

National Forest (760) 873-2400; or Teri Drivas, Recreation & Lands 
Officer, Sierra National Forest, (559) 297-0706.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Inyo, Sierra, and Sequoia National 
Forests propose to amend their respective Forest Land and Resource 
Management Plans (LRMPs) to incorporate new management direction for 
the John Muir, Ansel Adams, Dinkey Lakes, and Monarch Wilderness areas. 
The National Environmental Policy Act will guide the planning process 
with implementation scheduled for summer, 2001. The revised draft EIS 
address three topics associated with overall forest level management 
direction for the three wildernesses: (1) Visitor Use; (2) Commercial 
Services and; (3) Recreational Packstock Management.
    The analysis will consider a range of alternatives including no-
action, which is the current management direction contained in each 
national forest's LRMP. The new management direction will be 
programmatic and would provide direction for the implementation of 
wilderness area decisions for the next 10 to 15 years. The management 
changes reflect Forest Service directives, changing social values, 
agency emphasis on ecosystem sustainability, new information, and 
research findings.
    The draft EIS will be filed with the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and is expected to be available for public review by July 
2000. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 90 days from the date 
the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register. 
The final EIS is expected to be completed March 2001.
    The Forest Service believes, it is important to give reviewers 
notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the 
environmental review process. First, reviewers of a draft EIS 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 GN 
versus NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections 
that could have been raised at the draft stage maybe waived or 
dismissed by the court if not raised until after completion of the 
final EIS. City of Angoon versus Hodel, 803 F.2d. 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 
1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. versus Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 
1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very 
important that those interested in the 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 be considered and responded to in the final EIS. To be 
most helpful, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as 
possible and may address the adequacy of the statement or the merit of 
the alternatives discussed. 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.
    In the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to 
comments and responses received during the comment period that pertain 
to the environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS and 
applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in making the 
decision regarding the proposal. Forest Supervisors of the Inyo, 
Sierra, and Sequoia National Forests are the Responsible Officials. As 
Responsible Officials they will decide whether to implement the 
proposal or a different alternative. The Responsible Officials will 
document the decision and the reasons for the decision in the Record of 
Decision (ROD). The decision will be subject to Forest Service Appeal 
Regulations (36 CFR part 217).

Jeffery E. Bailey,
Forest Supervisor, Inyo National Forest.

Alan M. Quan,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Sierra National Forest.
Arthur L. Gaffery,
Forest Supervisor, Sequoia National Forest.
[FR Doc. 00-13797 Filed 6-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M