Suitability Study of the North Fork, South Fork and Mills Rivers for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; Pisgah National Forest (National Forests in North Carolina), Henderson and Transylvania Counties, NC

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Suitability Study of the North Fork, South Fork and Mills Rivers

for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; Pisgah

National Forest (National Forests in North Carolina), Henderson and

Transylvania Counties, NC

AGENCY: USDA, Forest Service.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (DEIS) to evaluate the environmental impacts of including

suitable segments of North Fork, South Fork and Mills Rivers classified

as wild, scenic, or recreational rivers in the National Wild and Scenic

Rivers System. The decision to recommend the nomination of suitable

river segments to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System rests with

the Secretary of Agriculture. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (PL 90-

542) reserves to Congress the authority to include rivers in the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

The agency invites written comments on the suitability of these

rivers and recommendations related to classifying and including them in

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. In addition, the agency

gives notice of the full environmental analysis and decision making

process that has been occurring on the proposal so that interested and

affected people are aware of how they may participate and contribute to

the final decision. The Supervisor of the National Forests in North

Carolina is responsible for the preparation of the EIS.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Mills River System Wild and Scenic

River Study, c/o Randle Phillips, Forest Supervisor, P.O. Box 2750,

Asheville, NC 28802.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melinda McWilliams, Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Team Leader, U.S.

Forest Service, P.O. Box 2750, Asheville, NC 28802, 704/257-4253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1982, the Nationwide River Inventory

developed by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior,

identified South Fork and Mills River as potential wild and scenic

study rivers. The 1987 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for

the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah

National Forests determined South Fork and Mills River to be eligible

for designation with potential wild and recreational classifications

for different segments of South Fork and recreational for Mills River.

(That information and additional findings will be documented in this

environmental impact statement.) The rivers were determined to be

potentially suitable for designation pending further study. A follow-up

study to the Forest Plan FEIS was begun in 1989. At the request of

local citizens, through a North Carolina Congressional Delegate, North

Fork was added to the study area. In November 1990, Public Law 101-538

was passed by Congress which designated 34.8 miles of the Mills River

System (North Fork, South Fork and Mills Rivers) as a Wild and Scenic

Study River. This Act excluded the segment of the Mills River from the

confluence of the French Broad River to a point 750 feet upstream from

the centerline of N.C. Highway 191/280.

The Environmental Impact Statement will consider the following

river segments:

North Fork, Bottom of Hendersonville reservoir spillway to South Fork

5.9 miles

South Fork, Pigeon Branch in headwaters to North Fork

25.4 miles

Mills River, Confluence North and South Forks to point 750 feet

upstream from centerline of N.C. Highway 191/280

3.5 miles

The area of consideration for each stream is a corridor a minimum

of \1/4\ mile from each stream bank for the entire length of the study

segment. These corridors include both public and private lands.

Significant issues identified during initial scoping include the

potential for future dams along these rivers based on past proposals

for impoundments, the effects of designation on private lands, and

protection of the free-flowing condition and resource values of these

rivers.

A range of alternatives will be developed based on issues and

concerns raised during the study process. As a minimum, one alternative

will maintain current management with a recommendation of

nondesignation for the three rivers (the no action alternative). Other

potential alternatives include: 1. Recommend designation for all

eligible segments. 2. Recommend designation or nondesignation for

specific segments of each river based on identified issues and 3.

Recommend designation of eligible segments with different

classifications (wild, scenic, recreational) based on identified

issues. The environmental impact statement will disclose the direct,

indirect, and cumulative effects of implementing each alternative.

Public participation is important at several points during the

analysis process. The first point was the scoping process (40 CFR

1501.7). The scoping process includes, but is not limited to: (1)

Identifying potential issues, (2) identifying issues to be analyzed in

depth, (3) eliminating insignificant issues or those that have been

covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis, (4) exploring

additional alternatives, and (5) identifying potential (direct,

indirect, and cumulative) environmental effects of the alternatives.

During the scoping process, the Forest Service sought information,

comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies and

individuals or organizations who may be interested in or affected by

the proposal. News releases were published in local newspapers;

individual letters were distributed to government agencies,

organizations, landowners along the rivers and individuals assumed to

be interested in this action; and several meetings were held in the

local community along the rivers. Informal contacts through phone calls

and visits have also occurred throughout the study. Additional mailings

and media releases will occur when the Draft EIS and Final EIS are

completed and available for public review.

The responsible official is Mike Espy, Secretary of Agriculture,

Administration Bldg., 12th Street and Jefferson Drive, SW., Washington,

DC 20250.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be filed

with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public

review by August 1994. The comment period on the draft environmental

impact statement will be 45 days from the date the EPA 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. Upon release of the

draft environmental impact statement, projected for August 1994,

reviewers 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. vs. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental

objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact

statement stage, but are not raised until after the completion of the

final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the

courts. City of Angoon vs. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986)

and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. vs. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D.

Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that

those interested in this proposal 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 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 and 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 at the National Environmental Policy Act at

40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

After the comment period ends on the draft environmental impact

statement, the comments will be analyzed and considered by the Forest

Service in preparing the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The

final statement is scheduled to be completed by March 1995.

The Secretary of Agriculture will consider comments, responses, and

environmental consequences discussed in the final environmental impact

statement and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making his

recommendation to the President regarding the suitability of these

rivers for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The

decision on the inclusion of a river in the National Wild and Scenic

Rivers System rests with the United States Congress.

Dated: July 29, 1994.

Bertha C. Gillam,

Acting Director of Environmental Coordination.

[FR Doc. 94-20209 Filed 8-16-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M