[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8924-8925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4839]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service


South Quartzite Salvage Timber Sale Analysis, White River 
National Forest; Garfield County, CO

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 
alternative decisions it may make to harvest dead Engelmann spruce and 
associated road construction within the South Quartzite Salvage Timber 
Sale Planning area, on the Rifle Ranger District of the White River 
National Forest.

DATES: Written comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be 
received on or before April 14, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Veto J. LaSalle, Forest Supervisor, 
White River National Forest, PO Box 948, 9th and Grand Ave., Glenwood 
Springs, Colorado 81602. Mr. LaSalle is the Responsible Official for 
this EIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Robert W. Currie, Project Coordinator, Holy Cross Ranger District, 
24747 U.S. Highway 24, PO Box 190, Minturn, CO 81645, (970) 827-5715.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 16, 1996 the White River National 
Forest released a Draft Environmental Assessment for the proposed 
action and alternatives to that proposed action under Public Law 104-
19. Based on comments received from members of the public, the 
Interdisciplinary Team has determined that the proposed action and 
alternatives to that action represent an inventoried roadless area 
entry. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is required as per 
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 20.6. The proposed action 
proposes to harvest approximately 4.0 to 5.0 million board feet from 
approximately 1,280 acres of dead Engelmann spruce using a combination 
of ground-based (approximately 110 acres) and helicopter yarding 
(approximately 1,180 acres) and to construct approximately 0.9 miles of 
new specified road.

    The proposed action is consistent with governing programmatic 
management direction contained in the Rocky Mountain Regional Guide and 
FEIS for Standards and Guidelines (1983) and in the Final EIS and Land 
and Resource Management Plan for the White River National Forest (LMP, 
1984). The LMP allocated the proposed timber sale area to semi-
primitive motorized and semi-primitive non-motorized use and allows for 
timber harvest. The site-specific environmental analysis provided by 
the EIS will assist the Responsible Official in determining which 
improvements are needed to meet the following objectives: Reduce 
natural fuel loadings and to provide wood products for the nation and 
opportunities for timber related jobs. Alternative will be carefully 
examined for their potential impacts on the physical, biological, and 
social environments so that tradeoffs are apparent to the 
decisionmaker.
    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 in or affected by the proposed action. This 
information will be used in preparing the EIS. 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. Individuals who have provided comments during initial 
scoping, on the Draft Environmental Assessment, and those who provide 
comments on this EIS will receive copies of the Draft EIS for their 
review.
    Preliminary issues include the potential effects of proposed 
actions on the following elements of the biological, physical, and 
social environments: wildlife and wildlife habitat, recreation resource 
values, roadless area resource values, and watershed health resources. 
The direct, indirect, cumulative, short-term, and long-term aspects of 
impacts on national forest lands and resources, and those of connected 
or related effects off-site, will be fully disclosed.
    Preliminary alteratives include the proposed action (described 
above) and No Action, which in this case is deferring treatment of the 
area until the future. A third preliminary alternative could be 
analyzed which would harvest approximately 6.0 to 7.0 million board 
feet of approximately 2,500 acres of dead Engelmann spruce using a 
combination of ground-based and helicopter yarding and to construct 
approximately 3.0 miles of new specified road. Additional alternatives 
may be developed after the significant issues are clarified and 
management objectives are fully defined. The Responsible Official will 
be presented with a range of feasible and practical alternatives.
    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 Endangered 
Species Act, review from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and 
clearance from the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office.
    The Forest Service predicts the draft environmental impact 
statement will be filed during the fall of 1997 and the final 
environmental impact statement during the spring of 1998.
    The Forest Service will seek comments on the draft environmental 
impact statement for a period of 45 days after its publication in the 
Federal Register. Comments will then be summarized and responded to in 
the final environmental impact statement.
    The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers 
notice at this early stage of several court rulings related to public 
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of 
draft environmental impact statement 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 DEIS stage 
but that are not raised until after completion of the Final EIS 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 they 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

[[Page 8925]]

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: February 19, 1997.
Gregory A. Kuyumjian,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 97-4839 Filed 2-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-BW-M