[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 246 (Friday, December 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67303-67304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-32342]


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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Dome Peak Timber Sale Analysis, White River National Forest; 
Routt 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 Dome Peak Timber Sale planning 
area, on the Eagle Ranger District of the White River National Forest.

DATES: Written comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be 
received on or before March 1, 1997.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Van Norman, Project Coordinator, 
Holy Cross Ranger District, 24747 U.S. Highway 24, P.O. Box 190, 
Minturn, CO 81645, (970) 827-5715.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 28, 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 a roadless area entry. Therefore, 
and Environmental Impact Statement is required as per Forest Service 
Handbook 1909.15, Section 20.6. The proposed action proposes to harvest 
approximately 2.5 million board feet from approximately 650 acres of 
dead Engelmann spruce using a combination of ground-based and 
helicopter yarding and to construct approximately 1.1 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 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. Alternatives 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 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 habitat, and overall biological 
diversity; wetlands and riparian areas; scenic quality; air quality; 
roadless area resource values; recreation resource values, range 
resource values, and social and economic values. 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 alternatives 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 will be analyzed 
which would harvest approximately 0.4 million board feet of dead 
Engelmann spruce from approximately 100 acres using ground-based 
yarding and to construct

[[Page 67304]]

approximately 1.1 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 Threatened & 
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 spring of 1997 and the final 
environmental impact statement during the summer of 1997.
    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.
    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 environmental impact 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.)
    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 
the 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 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: December 13, 1996.
Ben DelVillar,
Deputy Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 96-32342 Filed 12-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-BW-M