[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 147 (Friday, July 31, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40876-40877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20084]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Big Bend Ridge Vegetation Management Project, Targhee National 
Forest, Fremont County, ID

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Supervisor of the Targhee National Forest gives 
notice of the agency's intent to prepare an environmental impact 
statement for the Big Bend Ridge Vegetation Management Project. After 
conducting a Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) assessment and a 
Landscape Assessment, Forest Service personnel found several concerns 
with various ecosystems that comprise the Big Bend Ridge Project Area. 
These included:
    <bullet> Presence of dense stands of mature Douglas-fir trees that 
are susceptible to insect, disease and fire outbreaks. These dense 
stands are losing their crowns.
    <bullet> Consistent lack of Douglas-fir seedling establishment.
    <bullet> Lack of rejuvenation of bigtooth and mountain maple plant 
communities.
    <bullet> Lack of rejuvenation and the decline in seral aspen plant 
communities.
    <bullet> Decline in potential forage values for big game.
    <bullet> Increased risks associated with wildfire along the 
adjacent and expanding urban interface.
    An interdisciplinary team developed a proposal to address these 
concerns. The Big Bend Ridge Vegetation Management Project proposes to:
    <bullet> Commercially thin (thinning from below--larger diameter 
trees would be left) approximately 2,500 acres (about 9 million board 
feet) of densely stocked Douglas-fir stands (thinning would also 
regenerate seral aspen communities that occur in these treatment 
areas). Approximately 70% of the harvest would be done with cable or 
helicopter yarding methods; the remainder being done with crawler 
tractors or rubber-tired skidders.
    <bullet> Establish a 200 acre demonstration area to test and 
monitor the use of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments in 
establishing Douglas-fir seedlings.
    <bullet> Use prescribed fire and hand methods, as a demonstration 
project, to treat and monitor rejuvenation of 100 acres of big tooth 
and mountain maple plant communities.
    <bullet> Use prescribed fire to rejuvenate aspen and reduce fuels 
and fire hazards along the wildland urban interface on 700 acres of 
mixed conifer and seral aspen plant communities.
    <bullet> Use prescribed fire to improve 900 acres of big-game range 
(treatment areas would also benefit urban interface considerations).
    Areas treated silviculturally, 3.3 miles of non-system road 
reconstruction and 3 miles of non-system road construction. Big Bend 
Ridge Project Area is located 5 miles north of Ashton, Idaho and 
contains 30,000 acres of National Forest lands on the Ashton/Island 
Park Ranger District, Alternatives to this proposal, including No-
Action, will be developed by an interdisciplinary team to respond to 
significant issues generated during the scoping process. A more 
detailed description of the proposed action is available from the 
Ashton/Island Park Ranger District; see address below.

DATES: Send written comments and suggestions on the issues concerning 
the proposed action by August 31, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Adrienne Keller, District Ranger, 
Ashton/Island Park Ranger District, P.O. Box 858, Ashton, ID 83420.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Jenkins, phone (208) 558-7301 
or Duane Monte, phone (208) 624-3151--Interdisciplinary Team Leaders.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Revised Forest Plan (RFP) for the 
Targhee National Forest was approved in 1997. Management direction for 
the Big Bend Ridge Project Area is primarily for timber management with 
emphasis on big game security (Management Prescriptions 5.1.4[a] & 
5.2.4[c]). Management on the remainder of the project area is governed 
by prescriptions 2.2--Research Natural Areas; 2.8.3--Aquatic Influence 
Zone; 5.1[c]--Timber Management; and 5.2.1--Visual Quality Improvement.
    Initial public involvement will include mailing a project 
description and maps to interested parties to solicit comments on the 
proposal. Preliminary issues include: Access management, elk security/
vulnerability, visuals, urban interface, and forest health.
    Additional opportunity to comment on the project will occur on the 
draft Environmental Impact Statement (draft EIS). The draft EIS is 
expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency and 
available for public review in mid December 1998.
    The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date 
the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of availability appears in 
the Federal Register. At the same time, copies of the draft EIS will be 
distributed to interested and affected agencies, organizations, tribes, 
and members of the public for their review and comment. It is very 
important that those interested in the proposed action 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 the 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 reviewers' position and 
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 
553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could have been raised 
at the draft stage but that are raised until after completion of the 
final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the 
courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, (9th Circuit, 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 meaningful 
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. 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.
    The final EIS is scheduled to be completed in March 1999. In the 
final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to comments 
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 decisions on this 
proposal.

[[Page 40877]]

Responsible Official

    Jerry B. Reese, Forest Supervisor, is the responsible official. As 
responsible official, he will document the selected alternative for the 
Big Bend Ridge Vegetation Management Project EIS and his rationale in a 
Record of Decision.
    The decision for the Big Bend Ridge Vegetation Management Project 
will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR Part 215).

    Dated: July 17, 1998.
Jerry Reese,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 98-20084 Filed 7-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M