[Federal Register: June 3, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 106)]
[Notices]               
[Page 38247-38248]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03jn02-24]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

 
North Kennedy-Cottonwood Stewardship Project, Boise National 
Forest, Gem and Valley Counties, ID

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Emmett Ranger District of the Boise National Forest will 
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a resource 
management project within the Squaw Creek drainage. The entire project 
area is within the Kennedy and Pine Creek subwatersheds, which are 
tributaries to Squaw Creek. The project area is located about 50 miles 
north of Boise, Idaho.
    The Forest Service invites written comments and suggestions on the 
scope of the analysis. The agency also hereby gives notice of the 
environmental analysis and decisionmaking process that will occur on 
the proposal so interested and affected Federal, State, tribal, and 
local agencies, as well as individuals and organizations are aware of 
how they may participate and contribute to the final decision. The 
information received will be used in preparing a final EIS.

DATES: Written comments concerning the proposed project should be 
postmarked within 30 days from the date of publication of this 
announcement in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to John Erickson, District 
Ranger, Emmett Ranger District, 1805 Highway 16, Emmett, ID 83617.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: terry Hardy, Project Team Leader, by 
telephone at 208-373-4235.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed Action: Two primary objectives have 
been identified for the project: (1) modify travel and access 
management in the North Kennedy-Cottonwood project area by improving 
road conditions and decreasing the open road density. These actions 
would decrease big game vulnerability, restore fish habitat 
connectivity, and reduce sediment delivery from roads to streams while 
enhancing motorized recreational vehicle opportunities, and (2) restore 
seral, shade intolerant species (e.g., ponderosa pine) by adjusting 
tree

[[Page 38248]]

stocking levels, stand structure, and species composition to conditions 
more consistent with the long-term disturbance regimes characteristic 
of the North Kennedy-Cottonwood project area. These action would 
promote the late- and early-seral forest structures that have declined 
within the project area and reduce the current and future stand 
susceptibility to forest insects.
    The Proposed Action would eliminate yearlong travel by full-size 
motorized vehicles on 21 miles of roads, designate and sign 16 miles of 
roads as multiple-use to promote safe operation of motorized all-
terrain vehicles (ATVs), decommission 2.5 miles of classified roads, 
reconstruct approximately 7 miles of classified roads to facilitate 
harvest activities, and replace/remove three culverts that are barriers 
to fish passage. Approximately 1 mile of unclassified roads would be 
improved to provide temporary access to facilitate harvest activities; 
these roads would be closed and revegetated upon completion of 
management activities.
    The Proposed Action provides for vegetation management on 
approximately 4,500 acres in the 8,570-acre project area. The Proposed 
Action would employ a variety of silvicultural prescriptions that 
utilize commercial timber harvest and precommercial thinning. 
Silvicultural prescriptions for the proposed action are shaded fuel 
break (120 acres), commercial/precommercial thinning (3,380 acres), 
shelterwood regeneration (450 acres), and improvement (360 acres). 
Timber would be harvested using ground-based and skyline yarding 
systems. In addition, approximately 200 acres would be planted with 
seedlings to ensure desired species are established in a timely manner.
    Preliminary Issues: A March 2001 scoping letter generated the 
following:
    Issue 1: Too many open roads invite 4x4 vehicles and ATVs to drive 
off designated roads and harass wildlife. All roads that are either not 
graveled or a main access route should be closed after use. If roads 
are closed after use, big game security and vulnerability would be 
improved and the area will recover more quickly than if the public has 
too much access to keep the area disturbed.
    Issue 2: Administrative road closures, as applied in the past, have 
been ineffective. Reclosing rather than obliterating, ineffectively 
closed roads will only prolong the ecological detriment associated with 
roads and illegal access. In addition, proposed road reconstruction, 
especially on those roads involving stream crossings, will not be 
adequate to substantially decrease sediment to area streams. Road 
obliteration/decommissioning of roads would be more effective in 
eliminating future risks to water quality and wildlife.
    Possible Alternatives to the Proposed Action: The following 
alternatives to the proposed action have been discussed thus far and 
will be considered in the draft environmental impact statement: a no 
action alternative; a second action alternative that increases the 
miles of roads in a yearlong closure status and increases miles of 
roads decommissioned.
    Decisions to be Made: The Boise National Forest supervisor will 
decide the following: (1) Should roads be closed, decommissioned and/or 
reconstructed within the North Kennedy-Cottonwood Stewardship project 
area at this time; and if so, where within the project area, and how 
many miles of road should be treated; (2) based on these management 
decisions for roads status, which culverts should be replaced or 
removed to provide habitat connectivity for aquatic species; and (3) 
should commercial thinning, precommercial thinning and timber harvest 
be conducted within the project area; and if so, where within the 
project area and how many acres.
    Public Involvement and Comments: Written comments concerning the 
proposed project should be postmarked within 30 days from the day after 
publication of this announcement in the Federal Register.
    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including the 
names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of 
the public record on this proposal and will be available to public 
inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and 
considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have 
standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR 215 or 217. 
Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the 
agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how 
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. 
Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under 
FOIA, confidentiality might be granted in only limited circumstances, 
such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the 
requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for 
confidentially, and where the request is denied, the agency will return 
the submission and notify the requester the comments may be resubmitted 
with or without name and address within 10 days.
    Schedule: The draft EIS is anticipated to be available for public 
review and comment in June 2002, the final EIS is anticipated to be 
available in September 2002.
    The comment period on the draft EIS 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 draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental 
review of the proposal so it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the 
reviewer's position and contentions, (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corp. v. 
NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978)). Also, environmental objections that 
could be raised at the draft EIS 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 (Ninth 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 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 EIS should 
be 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 EIS or the merits of the alternatives 
formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewer 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 is the responsible official, 1249 South Vinnell 
Way, Suite 200, Boise, Idaho 83709.

    Dated: May 17, 2002.
Paul W. Bryant,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 02-13743 Filed 5-31-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M