[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66602-66604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-27737]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Boise National Forest; Idaho; Upper Middle Fork Payette River
Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Revised notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact
statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Cascade Ranger District of the Boise National Forest will
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a resource
management project in the Middle Fork of the Payette River drainage.
The project involves 864 acres of timber stand treatment in the 15,881-
acre project area, less than a mile of road construction, nearly 3
miles of road reconstruction, and less than a mile of road
decommissioning. The entire project area is located within watersheds
that drain directly into the Middle Fork of the Payette River or its
tributaries. The project area is located 12 miles east of Cascade,
Idaho, and about 100 miles north of Boise, Idaho.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be
postmarked within 30 days following publication of this announcement in
the Federal Register. The draft environmental impact statement is
expected in January 2003 and the final environmental impact statement
is expected in April 2003.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Keith Dimmett, Cascade Ranger
District, P.O. Box 696, Cascade, ID 83611.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Dimmett, Project Leader, Cascade
Ranger District at the address mentioned above or by calling (208)382-
7430.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFMA planning for this project was
initiated in the spring of 2001 with the Upper Middle Fork Payette
River Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS). A letter
announcing plans to complete the EAWS and soliciting comments was
mailed to interested individuals and/or groups in March of 2001.
A notice of intent to prepare an EIS for a similar project in the
same location appeared on page 24097 of the Federal Register on May 11,
2001. This revised notice is being provided due to minor changes since
the original notification,
[[Page 66603]]
changed on-the-ground conditions, and because of the time that has
elapsed since the original notice of intent. In July 2001 the Forest
Supervisor elected to delay the Upper Middle Fork Payette River Project
until a variety of road restoration measures aimed at reducing road-
related sedimentation and enhancing bull trout habitat in the project
area were implemented. A large portion of those restoration activities
were implemented in the summer of 2002 as part of the Middle Fork Roads
Restoration Project, with the remaining activities scheduled for
implementation in the summer of 2003.
Roughly 70 percent of the project area occurs within one of two
inventoried roadless areas (IRA's). A portion of the Peace Rock IRA
occupies an estimated 8,947 acres, and a section of the Stony Meadows
IRA another 2,357 acres of the project area. A large portion of the
project area also occurs within Management Area 43 (Peace Rock). The
Proposed Action does not include any management activities within
either IRA or within Management Area 43. Instead, management activities
associated with the Proposed Action have been confined to the roaded
portion of the project area, consisting of roughly 4,302 acres. The
Middle Fork Payette River originates within, and runs through the
center of the project area. The Forest Plan discloses that that segment
of the river from Railroad Pass to the Middle Fork Bridge on the
409 road is potentially eligible for inclusion in the National
Wild and Scenic River system as a ``wild'' river. However, in June of
1991 the Forest Plan corrected to show that this segment of the river
is potentially eligible as a ``recreational'' river.
Purpose and Need for Action
Two primary objectives have been identified for the project: (1)
Reduce current and future stand susceptibility to western spruce
budworm, Douglas-fir beetle, and/or mountain pine beetle, and; (2)
improve long-term stand growth to or near levels indicative of healthy,
sustainable forests.
Proposed Action
The Proposed Action would treat an estimated 864 acres in the
15,881 acre project area. Proposed activities would occur within a
portion of the 67,637 acre Gold Fork/Clear Creek Management Area 53. An
estimated 4.0 MMbf of timber would be harvested using ground-based (683
acres), skyline (24 acres), and helicopter (157 acres) yarding systems.
The Proposed Action would employ a variety of silvicultural
prescriptions including commercial thin (169 acres), improvement cut/
sanitation (427 acres), seed cut shelterwood (92 acres), final removal
shelterwood (141 acres), and clearcut with reserve trees (35 acres).
The existing transportation system would be improved to facilitate log
haul and reduce sedimentation with individual sections of 2.9 miles of
road being reconstructed. An estimated 0.7 miles of specified road and
0.2 miles of temporary road would be constructed to facilitate harvest.
In addition, 0.9 miles of the 409F road, currently closed
year-round would be decommissioned.
Possible Alternatives
One alternative to the Proposed Action, a No Action Alternative,
has been discussed thus far. Other alternatives will likely be
developed as issues are identified and information received.
Responsible Official
Suzanne C. Rainville, Acting Forest Supervisor, Boise National
Forest, 1249 South Vinnell Way, Boise, ID 83709.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The Boise National Forest Supervisor will decide the following.
Should roads be built and timber harvested within the project area at
this time, and if so; where within the project area, and how many miles
of road should be built; and which stands should be treated and what
silvicultural systems should be used? What design features and/or
mitigation measures should be applied to the project? Should the
decommissioning of existing roads be implemented at this time?
Scoping Process
The agency invites written comments and suggestions on the scope of
the analysis. In addition to this notice, a proposed action letter will
be sent to interested government officials, agencies, groups, and
individuals. No public meetings are currently planned.
Preliminary Issues
Preliminary concerns with the Proposed Action include: (1)
Potential impacts on sediment delivery to area streams; (2) potential
impacts on bull trout, and; (3) potential impacts on the visual quality
of the area.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides
the development of the environmental impact statement. Specific written
comments on the proposed action will be most helpful.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review
A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for
comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement
will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency
publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of
draft environmental impact statements must structure their
participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is
meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRCD, 435 U.S. 519,
533 (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,
409 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.
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.
[[Page 66604]]
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, Section 21)
Dated: October 21, 2002.
Suzanne C. Rainville,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 02-27737 Filed 10-31-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M