DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Jarbidge Canyon Analysis; Humboldt-Toiyabe National
Forest, Elko
County, Nevada

AGENCY: USDA Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental
impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service will
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate
the environmental
effects of several alternatives for road
reconstruction and maintenance
and potential watershed and aquatic habitat
improvement projects in the
Canyon of the West Fork of the Jarbidge River. The
Forest Service will
prepare the EIS in cooperation with the Bureau of Land
Management, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental
Protection agency, Elko
County Commission, Nevada Division of Wildlife, Nevada
Division of
Environmental Quality.

DATES: Written comments concerning the scope of the
analysis should be
received by April 15, 2002, to ensure timely
consideration.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Jarbidge EIS
Team, Humboldt-
Toiyabe National Forest, 2035 Last Chance Road, Elko,
NV 89801.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions
about the project and
the preparation of the EIS to Jim Winfrey, Project
Team Leader,
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, P.O. Box 539, Ely,
NV 89301.
Telephone: 775-289-3031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under the settlement agreement in United States v.
John Carpenter
et al. The Forest Service agreed not to contest Elko
County's claim
that it has a right of way for the South Canyon Road.
In exchange, Elko
County agreed no to do any roadwork on the South
Canyon Road without
Forest Service authorization. In addition, Elko County
proposed several
road and watershed improvement projects to protect and
enhance the west
fork of the Jarbridge River. The Forest Service agreed
to complete any
necessary analysis under NEPA and ESA to authorize
proposed work by
Elko County.
The Forest Service has received no specific
proposals from Elko
County. However, the Forest Service believes that is
it is important to
begin analyzing alternatives for road reconstruction
and watershed
improvements so they can be implemented as soon as
practicable. Elko
County will be invited to participate as a cooperating
agency and can
submit a proposal and it will be included in this
analysis.
The proposed projects are located between the
Idaho/Nevada
Stateline and south to the Upper Fox Creek Bridge on
the Jarbidge
River. The approximate length of the road in the
project area is 11
miles. By combining the analysis of the proposed
projects along the
length of the river the Forest will be better
positioned to address
cumulative effects of these projects on the river
environment. This
project area was defined in the Settlement Agreement.
Within the
project area there are opportunities for improvements
to the
terrestrial and aquatic environment that will be
addressed.
Preliminary internal scoping and comments received
in two earlier
analyses have identified two issues, which will be
addressed in the
analysis process. The following list of issues is not
intended to be
all-inclusive: (1) The presence of bull trout that are
federally listed
as threatened. (2) The location of most of the
proposed work within the
flood plain of the river. These issues, and others
identified during
the scoping process will be used to develop
alternatives to the
proposed action. In addition, the No Action
alternative will be
considered in the analysis.

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of and need for action is to improve
water quality and
aquatic habitat while preserving and improving access
along the road.
This environmental document will disclose the
environmental effects of
the projects considered for implementation.

Proposed Action

To implement a set of proposed projects designed
to improve the
environment of the Jarbidge River Watershed. These
projects are
primarily focused on reconstructing portions of the
road in the canyon
bottom to reduce the direct input of sediment into the
river from the
road, to increase shade along the river and increase
woody debris. The
proposed action will be to authorize Elko County,
where necessary, and
allow the Forest Service to proceed with
implementation of these
projects.

Decision To Be Made and Responsible Official

The Responsible official will decide how Elko
County may be
authorized to reconstruct the South Canyon Road; and
determine which
road and watershed improvement projects to implement
in a manner that
adequately protects the surrounding land and aquatic
resources
The Forest Service is the lead agency for this
project and Robert
L. Vaught; Forest Supervisor is the responsible
official. Applicable
laws, Forest Service regulations and the Humboldt
National Forest Land
and Resource Management Plan (1986 as amended) will be
taken into
account throughout the analysis.

Scoping Process

As part of the scoping process, the Forest Service
is seeking
information and comments from Federal, State, County
and local agencies
and other individuals or organizations that may be
interested in or
affected by the proposed actions. Scoping meetings
will be held between
5 pm and 7 pm at the Forest service offices in Elko
NV, March 18; Twin
Falls ID, March 19; Boise ID, March 20; and Reno NV,
March 21. This
input will be used in preparation of the draft EIS and
final EIS. The
Scoping process will last 45 days from the publication
of this NOI in
the Federal Register.

Coordination With Other Agencies

Several government agencies will be invited to
participate in this
project as cooperating or participating agencies.
These agencies
include, but are not limited to, Bureau of Land
Management, DOI U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection, Nevada Division
of Wildlife, and
Elko County. Participation by Elko

[[Page 10122]]

County will be required in the implementation of these
projects.

Commenting

The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and be available for review in
July 2002. At
that time, EPA will publish a Notice of Availability
of the Draft EIS
in the Federal Register. The comment period of the
Draft EIS will be at
least 45 days from the date the EPA's Notice of
Availability appears 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 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 draft environmental impact
stage but that
are not raised until after completion of the final
environmental impact
statement 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 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 draft EIS should be as specific as
possible. It is also
helpful if comments refer to specific pages or
chapters of the draft
EIS. Comments may also address the adequacy of the
draft EIS or the
merits of the alternatives formulated or 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.

Robert L. Vaught,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 02-5277 Filed 3-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M

Elko county was riding there ass because they were just sitting on there hands. No work without there approval so just sit back and do nada. I just moved from Elko and i can assure you that the Elko co. commissioners would not let that happen and that is why its going forward. We need to be assertive like that everywhere.