[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 166 (Monday, August 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43728-43729]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21684]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service


Prince John Project, Boise National Forest, ID

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: 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 an integrated 
resource management project in the headwaters of Big Creek, a tributary 
of the North Fork Payette River below Cascade Reservoir. The project 
area is located 15 miles east of Cascade, Idaho, and about 100 road 
miles north of Boise, Idaho.
    The agency invites written comments and suggestions on the scope of 
the analysis. The agency also hereby gives notice of the environmental 
analysis and decision-making process that will occur on the proposal so 
interested and affected people are aware of how they may participate 
and contribute to the final decision.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An environmental assessment (EA) for this 
project was released for a 30-day public review and comment period in 
April 1996 under the auspices of Public Law 104-19. Since that time, 
and prior to the release of the Decision Notice, clarification on 
implementation of Public Law 104-19 has made it necessary to prepare an 
EIS for the project (Secretary of Agriculture Glickman, July 2, 1996).

Proposed Action

    Five primary objectives have been identified for the project: (1) 
Salvage the dead and imminently dead trees from the area; (2) achieve 
the desired future condition of a healthy diverse forest in which 
important resource values, including healthy timber stands, are 
sustained; (3) improve big-game forage habitat, thin overcrowded stands 
of plantations, and reduce natural fuel loads through the use of 
prescribed fire; (4) reduce current sediment delivery from existing 
roads by obliterating sections of these roads located immediately 
adjacent to perennial streams; and (5) provide sawlogs and other wood 
products to help sustain local sawmills and economies.
    The proposed action would treat, either with timber harvest or 
prescribed fire, a total of 3,695 acres in the 67,637-acre Gold Fork/
Clear Creek Management Area. An estimated 15 MMBF of timber would be 
harvested through silvicultural treatment of the stands. Approximately 
2,856 acres would be harvested by ground-based (916 acres), cable (772 
acres), or helicopter (1,168 acres) yarding systems. The proposed 
action would employ a variety of silvicultural systems including 
clearcutting with reserve trees (9 percent), irregular shelterwood (74 
percent), and individual tree selection (17 percent). Prescribed fire 
would occur on another 839 acres to improve big-game forage habitat 
(110 acres), thin overcrowded plantations (385 acres), and/or reduce 
natural fuel loads (344 acres). The existing transportation system 
would be improved to facilitate harvest and reduce sedimentation, with 
individual sections of 28 miles of road being reconstructed, 4.7 miles 
of new specified road construction, and 2 miles of temporary road 
construction. An estimated 6.1 miles of existing roads, most of which 
lie immediately adjacent to perennial streams, would be obliterated. 
Portions of the new specified road construction would be necessary to 
access heavily used recreational areas, such as Gold Fork Meadows.

Preliminary Issues

    Anticipated concerns with the proposed action are: (1) The 
project's visual impacts to the area as seen from Forest Highway 22; 
(2) timber harvest and associated road construction could impact the 
undeveloped characteristics and wilderness attributes of the Needles 
and Stony Meadows Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA's); (3) proposed 
activities could result in a low likelihood of persistence of pileated 
woodpecker, northern goshawk, and fisher within the analysis area; and 
(4)

[[Page 43729]]

proposed activities could increase water yield in amounts that would 
decrease bank stability, thus increasing sediment in Johnson Creek and 
lower Big Creek.

Possible Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Three alternatives to the proposed action have been identified: (1) 
A no action alternative; (2) An alternative that would exclude timber 
harvesting and road construction in the IRA's; and (3) an alternative 
that would mitigate increases in water yield and loss of pileated 
woodpecker, northern goshawk, and fisher habitat. Other alternatives 
may be developed as issues are raised and information is received.

Decisions To Be Made

    The Boise National Forest Supervisor will decide the following:
    Should roads be built and timber harvested within the Prince John 
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?
    Should prescribed fire be used within the Prince John Project area 
at this time, and if so; where within the project area; and what 
mitigation/watershed enhancement measures should be applied to the 
project?
    Should the obliteration of portions of roads 497, 497A, 497A2, 
497F, 497J1, and 497L be implemented at this time?

Schedule

    Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), September 1996. Final 
EIS, November 1996.

Public Involvement

    The proposal has been previously scoped by two public meetings. The 
first was at the Cascade Ranger District office on December 6, 1995, 
with the second meeting at the Boise National Forest Supervisor's 
Office on December 7, 1995. In addition, the Cascade Ranger District 
mailed a scoping package in November 1995 to over 180 individuals and/
or groups who may be affected by the decision. Further, the EA was 
released for a 30-day public review and comment period in April 1996 to 
75 interested groups and/or individuals. Comments received from these 
public involvement efforts will be incorporated into the analysis 
process.

Comments

    Written comments concerning the proposed project and analysis are 
encouraged and should be postmarked within 30 days following 
publication of this announcement in the Federal Register. Mail comments 
to Steve Patterson, Cascade Ranger District, Boise National Forest, 
P.O. Box 696, Cascade, ID 83611, telephone, 208-382-7430. Further 
information can be obtained at the same location.
    The comment period on the DEIS 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 
the DEIS 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 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, 1002 (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 section 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 EIS.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the DEIS 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 DEIS 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.

Responsible Official

    David D. Rittenhouse, Forest Supervisor, Boise National Forest, 
1750 Front Street, Boise, ID 83702.

    Dated: August 14, 1996.
Milton D. Coffman,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 96-21684 Filed 8-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M