```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45218-45219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22587]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Forest Service

Basalt Mountain Timber Sale Analysis, White River National 
Forest; Eagle County, Colorado

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS).

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service will 
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to disclose effects of 
alternatives to harvest live and dead Engelmann spruce, sub-alpine fir, 
lodgepole pine, aspen and associated road construction and 
reconstruction within the Basalt Mountain Timber Sale planning area, on 
the Sopris Ranger District of the White River National Forest.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing by October 12, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Kevin Riordan, District Ranger, 
Sopris Ranger District, White River National Forest, PO Box 309, 
Carbondale, CO 81623. The Forest Supervisor Martha J. Ketelle, P.O. Box 
948, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 is the Responsible Official for the 
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Timothy M. Snowden, Project Coordinator, Sopris Ranger District, 620 
Main Street, Carbondale, CO 81623, (970) 963-2266.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  On July 9, 1996 the White River 
National River Forest solicited comments for a Draft Environmental 
Assessment for the proposed action under Pub. L. 104-19. The 
Interdisciplinary Team has determined that the proposed action and 
alternatives to that action represent a roadless area entry. 
Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is required as per 
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 20.6. The proposed action 
is to harvest approximately 6.0 million board feet from 
approximately 1,400 acres of live and dead sawtimber and poletimber 
using ground-based yarding, and to construct and reconstruct 
approximately 14.2 miles of specified road.

    The proposed action is consistent with programmatic management 
direction contained in the Rocky Mountain Regional Guide for Standards 
and Guidelines (1983) and in the Land and Resource Management Plan for 
the White River National Forest (LMP, 1984). The LMP allocated the 
proposed timber sale area to wood fiber production and utilization of 
sawtimber products, with a small portion of the sale area being 
allocated to managing for the habitat needs of one or more management 
indicator species. Both allocations allow for timber harvest.
    The site specific environmental analysis documented in the EIS will 
assist the Responsible Official in determining which actions are needed 
to meet the following objectives: promote long term ecosystem health by 
returning age, class and species diversity in the forest vegetation, 
control and prevent forest disease and insect infestations, provide for 
recreation and visual quality, maintain or enhance quality wildlife 
habitat, reduce accumulated natural fuel loading and provide wood 
products for the nation. Based on initial agency scoping and public 
comment the preliminary issues

[[Page 45219]]

include the effects of vegetation management on area wildlife and 
wildlife habitat, recreation use, wildfire risk, and the transportation 
system. Preliminary alternatives include, but are not limited to;
    1. No Action, no vegetation management would be proposed except 
existing firewood and Christmas tree gathering.
    2. Alternatives based on the White River National Forest LMP.
    a. Generate 6 million board feet of saw timber treating 1380 acres, 
including 6.4 miles of new road construction (to be closed after sale), 
and recruiting 500 acres for future old growth forest.
    b. Generate 2.5 million board feet of saw timber treating 653 
acres, including 4.6 miles of new road construction (to be closed after 
sale), and recruiting 972 acres for future old growth.
    c. Generate 7 million board of saw timber treating 1452 acres, 
including 7 miles of new road construction (3.9 miles to remain open 
after sale), 500 acres for future old growth recruitment.
    d. Generate 3 million board feet of saw timber treating 712 acres, 
including 0.2 miles of new road construction (to be closed after sale), 
and 972 acres for future old growth recruitment.
    3. Alternatives yet to be developed.
    Alternatives will be carefully examined for their potential impacts 
on the physical, biological, and social environments so that tradeoffs 
are apparent to the decisionmaker.
    The decision to be made by the Forest Supervisor, based on the 
pending analysis to be documented in this EIS are:
    Should the vegetation in the Basalt Mountain area be managed for 
timber harvest at this time? And, if so; Should road construction be 
allowed for timber harvest in this area?
    How does the inclusion of parts of the proposed sale in former 
roadless area surveys influence the current and long term LMP direction 
of managing the area for wood fiber production? Which alternative best 
fits the White River LMP prescription and ecosystem health priorities 
of the Forest Service?
    Permits and licenses required to implement the proposed action 
will, or may, include the following: consultation with U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service for compliance with Section 7 of the Threatened & 
Endangered Species Act; review from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, 
and clearance from the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office.
    Public participation will be fully incorporated into preparation of 
the EIS. The first step is the scoping process, during which the Forest 
Service will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from 
Federal, State, and local agencies, and other individuals or groups who 
may be interested or affected by the proposed action. No public 
meetings are planned for this project. Public comments received during 
initial scoping and those raised during public review of the Draft 
Environmental Assessment for this project will be incorporated into 
this EIS. The Forest Service predicts the draft environmental impact 
statement will be filed during the winter of 1997/1998 and the final 
environmental impact statement and record or decision during the spring 
of 1998.
    The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will 
be forty-five 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 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 forty-five 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: August 19, 1997.
Martha J. Ketelle,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 97-22587 Filed 8-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-BW-M
```