Nez Perce National Forest; Idaho County, ID; Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot Project, 10954-10956 [06-1982]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
10954
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2006 / Notices
OMB Number: 0596–0164.
Expiration Date of Approval: June 30,
2006.
Type of Request: Extension with
Revision.
Abstract: The Protection Act of 1922
(16 U.S.C. 594) authorizes the Forest
Service to fight fires on National Forest
System lands. The individuals that
perform firefighter jobs are subjected to
strenuous working conditions requiring
long hours of arduous labor. It is
imperative they be in peak physical
condition to avoid injury to themselves
or their coworkers.
Current or prospective firefighters
must complete the Health Screening
Questionnaire (HSQ) when seeking
employment as a new firefighter with
the Forest Service or seeking
recertification as a firefighter. The
information collected pertains to an
individual’s health status and health
history in an effort to determine if any
physical conditions exist or have
developed that might result in injury or
death during fitness testing or when
fighting a wildfire. Forest Service
employees will evaluate the collected
information to determine if the
individual seeking certification or
recertification may begin a fitness
program to train for the arduous level
‘‘Pack Test’’ of the Work Capacity Tests.
If Forest Service employees determine,
based on the collected information, that
an individual may not be physically
able to train for the arduous level of the
Work Capacity Test, the agency will
require the individual to undergo a
physical examination from a physician.
Information collected will be
evaluated by a human resource
specialist within the specific unit office
to ensure that individuals applying for
a position or seeking recertification
meet the fitness requirements of the
position. Forest Service employees will
collect general information about the
current health of the individual such as
height, weight, current level of fitness
activity, previous serious health
injuries, diseases, or heart conditions,
and special current conditions such as
allergies and diabetes. The form will be
revised to exclude the words ‘‘or over
the counter’’ from the second item
under ‘‘Section A’’ under subhead
‘‘Other Health Issues.’’ We make this
change because prescription
medications indicate a condition being
treated by a physician, and therefore,
represent an indication of the
individual’s health. Individuals
determined in sufficient health will be
asked to complete the ‘‘Work Capacity
Tests,’’ which would include testing the
level of an individual’s aerobic fitness,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Mar 02, 2006
Jkt 208001
level of muscular strength, and muscle
endurance.
Failure to collect this data will result
in a higher number of unwanted
injuries, or even deaths, during the
‘‘Work Capacity Test’’ and while
working on wildland fires. If the data is
not collected annually, there will be no
way to determine if an individual’s
condition has changed since the
previous year.
The information provided by an
individual will be placed in the person’s
Official Employee Medical File and any
release of the information will be in
accordance with the Privacy Act (5
U.S.C. 552a) and the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Data
gathered in this information collection
is not available from other sources.
Estimate of Annual Burden: 5
Minutes.
Type of Respondents: Current
employees requesting certification or
recertification as a firefighter (Incident
Qualifications and Certification Card)
and applicants seeking Forest Service
firefighter positions.
Estimated Annual Number of
Respondents: 15,000.
Estimated Annual Number of
Responses per Respondents: 1.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on
Respondents: 1,250 hours.
Comment Is Invited
Comment is invited on: (1) Whether
this collection of information is
necessary for the stated purposes and
the proper performance of the functions
of the agencies, including whether the
information will have practical or
scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including the use of
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology.
All comments received in response to
this notice, including names and
addresses when provided, will be a
matter of public record. Comments will
be summarized and included in the
request for Office of Management and
Budget approval.
Dated: February 17, 2006.
Robin L. Thompson,
Associate Deputy Chief, S&PF.
[FR Doc. E6–3080 Filed 3–2–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Nez Perce National Forest; Idaho
County, ID; Meadow Face Stewardship
Pilot Project
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare a
supplemental environmental impact
statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
(Authority: 40 CFR 1502.9)
SUMMARY: The Forest Service will
prepare a supplemental environmental
impact statement (‘‘SEIS’’) for the
Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot Project
on the Nez Perce National Forest,
Clearwater Ranger District, in Idaho
County, Idaho, for the purpose of
completing the cumulative effects
analysis referred to in United States
District Court Judge Edward J. Lodge’s
March 31, 2005 unpublished order in
Friends of the Clearwater v. Lohn, Case
No. CV04–384–C–EJL (D. Idaho). The
court in that case issued a preliminary
injunction against further timber
harvesting under the Meadow Face
Project until the Forest Service complies
with the requirements for a cumulative
effects analysis under the National
Environmental Policy Act (‘‘NEPA’’).
The court stated, quoting Lands Council
v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2005),
that the final environmental impact
statement (‘‘FEIS’’) for the Meadow Face
Project ‘‘should have provided adequate
data of time, type, place and scale of
past timber harvest and should have
explained in sufficient detail how
different project plans and harvest
methods affected the environment.’’
Friends of the Clearwater, unpub. ord. at
31 (quoting Lands Council, 395 F.3d
1019 at 1028). Regarding the FEIS’s
analysis of cumulative effects from
grazing, the court stated as follows:
The Forest Service’s analysis of grazing
* * * does not specifically describe the
history of grazing in the Project Area, i.e., by
providing a catalog of where, and how much,
grazing has occurred in the Watershed, or
where and the extent to which it is occurring
now. The agency’s failure to provide
adequate data of time, type, place and scale
of past, present and reasonably foreseeable
grazing activities in the Project Area
precludes the public and the decision maker
from having necessary information to
evaluate the alternatives presented in the
FEIS.
Id. at 32. The Forest Service hereby
gives notice that it will prepare a SEIS
in response to the court’s preliminary
injunction order.
DATES: Comments concerning the
cumulative effects analysis must be
received by April 17, 2006.
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2006 / Notices
Send written comments to
Darcy Pederson, District Ranger, 1005
Highway 13, Grangeville, ID 83530,
Attn: Meadow Face Stewardship.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Harper, Interdisciplinary Team
Leader, Clearwater Ranger District, at
the address above, or via telephone at
(208) 983–1963.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot Project
was initially scoped on August 15, 2000.
The Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS
was published in the Federal Register,
66 FR 13700, on March 7, 2001. The
Draft EIS was sent out for a 45-day
comment period in April of 2001. The
Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS
was published in the Federal Register,
66 FR 37956, on July 20, 2001. A Notice
of Availability for the Final EIS was
published in the Federal Register, 67 FR
40923, on June 7, 2002. The Record of
Decision (‘‘ROD’’) was signed by the
Nez Perce National Forest Supervisor on
February 11, 2003. The supervisor
selected Alternative 4B as displayed in
the FEIS, with some modifications
described on page 12 of the ROD, for
implementation.
On June 14, 2004, several
environmental groups (led by Friends of
the Clearwater out of Moscow, Idaho)
filed a lawsuit against D. Robert Lohn
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration); William T. Hogarth
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration); the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration;
Donald L. Evans (Secretary of the
Department of Commerce); Gail Kimbell
(Northern Regional Forester, USDA
Forest Service); Ann N. Veneman
(Secretary of the Department of
Agriculture); and the United States
Forest Service; Plaintiffs include
Friends of the Clearwater, Alliance for
the Wild Rockies, Idaho Sporting
Congress, and the Ecology Center.
Plaintiffs sought a preliminary
injunction against the Meadow Face
Project, and on March 31, 2005, the
court issued an order enjoining ‘‘further
timber harvesting * * * until the Forest
Service complies with the requisite
NEPA cumulative effects analysis.’’
Friends of the Clearwater, unpub. ord. at
57.
ADDRESSES:
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Purpose and Need for Action
The Final Environmental Impact
Statement (February 2002) provided a
detailed description of the purpose and
need for action. It was noted that the
existing condition of aquatic and soil
resources and vegetation in the analysis
area does not meet the desired condition
and/or departs from the historic range.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Mar 02, 2006
Jkt 208001
The project was proposed to begin
remediation of the effects of past
actions, and to return various resource
conditions to within the historic range
of variability. The purpose and need for
action from the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (February 2002)
remains unchanged. The purpose for
preparing the proposed SEIS is to
complete the cumulative effects analysis
referred to by the court in Friends of the
Clearwater.
Proposed Action
The FEIS (February 2002) and ROD
(February 2003) provided a detailed
description of the original proposed
action (Alternative 2). Alternative 2
focused on activities that would
improve aquatic and vegetative
elements of the analysis area. The
proposal was formulated to address
conditions and changes needed to
achieve the desired conditions and
specific goals and objectives described
in the Nez Perce Forest Plan.
With the record of decision of
February 11, 2003, the Nez Perce
National Forest Supervisor selected
Alternative 4B as displayed in the FEIS,
with some modifications for
implementation. The decision included
the following activities: Maintain 102
miles of road (12.5 deferred
maintenance), construct 12 miles of
temporary road, decommission 91 miles
of road, convert 5 miles of road to trail,
construct 0.1 mile of new OHV trail,
maintain dispersed campsites where
roads are decommissioned, rehabilitate
about 3 miles of stream, harvest timber
on up to 3,735 acres, prescribe burn
7,100 acres, replace 45 culverts, apply
dust abatement to 5 miles of road, treat
200 acres of existing noxious weeds,
restore native plant species in McComas
Meadows, restore 550 acres of
compacted soils, stabilize the Meadow
Creek Slide, and install improvements
at McComas/Blacktail Junction, Camp
58, and Quartz Ridge dispersed
recreation sites. Additionally, the Forest
Supervisor decided to make three site
specific amendments to the Nez Perce
Forest Plan.
A portion of the timber harvest
covered by the Record of Decision (Yew
Rock Timber Sale) commenced on
March 26, 2004 and was ordered to be
ceased following the court’s preliminary
injunction order of March 31, 2005. To
date, the following activities have been
implemented in the Environmental
Impact Statement project area:
replacement of two culverts,
stabilization of three sites along an
irrigation ditch, decommissioning of 23
miles of road, treatment of noxious
weed on 141 acres, maintenance of 34
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10955
miles of road, development of one rock
source, timber harvest on 730 acres, and
construction of 8.6 miles of temporary
road.
Responsible Official
The responsible official for this
project is Jane Cottrell, the Nez Perce
National Forest Supervisor. Comments
regarding the cumulative effects
analysis for this project should be sent
to the address and contacts identified
above and should be submitted within
45-days of publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. A Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (SEIS) is expected to be
available by late May 2006 and the Final
SEIS is expected in late summer 2006.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The Forest Supervisor will decide
whether to continue implementation of
Alternative 4B, as planned, or whether
to modify or terminate implementation
of the alternative in light of the revised
cumulative effect analysis.
Scoping Process
The U.S. Forest Service uses the
scoping process required by the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) for all major Federal actions.
NEPA requires a systematic,
interdisciplinary approach to ensure
integrated application of the natural and
social sciences and the environmental
design arts in any planning and
decision-making that affects the human
environment (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(A)).
Recently, the Council on
Environmental Quality issued guidance
on the preparation of cumulative effects
analyses. Memorandum from James L.
Connaughton, Chairman, Council on
Environmental Quality, to Heads of
Federal Agencies (June 24, 2005). To
determine what information is
necessary for a cumulative effects
analysis, the CEQ Guidance
recommends agencies use scoping to
determine the extent to which
information is ‘‘relevant to reasonably
foreseeable significant adverse
impacts,’’ is ‘‘essential to a reasoned
choice among alternatives,’’ and can be
obtained without exorbitant cost. Id.
(quoting 40 CFR 1502.22). Based on
scoping, agencies have discretion to
determine whether, and to what extent,
information about the specific nature,
design, or present effects of a past action
is useful for the agency’s analysis of the
effects of a proposal for agency action
and its reasonable alternatives. Id.
The CEQ Guidance further states
agencies ‘‘should be guided in their
cumulative effects analysis by the
scoping process, in which agencies
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
10956
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2006 / Notices
identify the scope and ‘significant’
issues to be addressed in an
environmental impact statement.’’ Id. at
2 (quoting 40 CFR 1500.1(b), 1500.4(g),
1501.7, 1508.25). ‘‘With respect to past
actions, during the scoping process and
subsequent preparation of the analysis,
the agency must determine what
information regarding past actions is
useful and relevant to the required
analysis of cumulative effects.’’ Id. at 3.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the
scoping process which guides the
development of the supplemental
environmental impact statement.
Comments regarding the revised
cumulative effects analysis will be
accepted for 45 days after this
notification in the Federal Register.
These comments will help the Forest
Service determine the scope of the
requisite cumulative effects analysis,
and what information regarding past
actions is useful and relevant. Send
written comments to Darcy Pederson,
District Ranger, 1005 Highway 13,
Grangeville, Idaho 83530, Attn: Meadow
Face Stewardship.
Early Notice of Importance of Public
Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review
A draft supplemental environmental
impact statement will be prepared after
consideration of responses to this
scoping and completion of the requisite
cumulative effects analysis. The
comment period on the draft
supplemental environmental impact
statement will be 45 days from the date
the Environmental Protection Agency
publishes the notice of availability in
the Federal Register.
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 supplemental
environmental impact statement must
structure their comments so they are
meaningful and alert the 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 supplemental
environmental impact statement stage,
but that are not raised until after
completion of the final supplemental
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). It is very
important that those interested in the
cumulative effects analysis for the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Mar 02, 2006
Jkt 208001
Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot Project
participate by the close of the 45-day
comment period on the draft
supplemental environmental impact
statement 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
supplemental environmental impact
statement.
To assist the Forest Service in
completing the final supplemental
environmental impact statement,
comments on the draft supplemental
environmental impact statement will
need to be as specific as possible. It is
also helpful if comments refer to
specific pages or chapters of the draft
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.
Comments received in response to
this scoping notice as well as comments
received on the subsequent
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement, including the names and
addresses of those who comment, will
be considered part of the public record
on this proposal and will be available
for public inspection.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22;
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section
21)
Dated: February 10, 2006.
Jane L. Cottrell,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 06–1982 Filed 3–2–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
The Harris Springs Guard Station
will become available for rent August 7,
2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brenda Tracy, Assistant Forest Public
Staff Officer, USDA Forest Service,
Shasta-Trinity National Forest, 3644
Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement
Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108–447) directs
the Secretary of Agriculture to publish
a six month advance notice in the
Federal Register whenever new
recreation fee areas are established. The
intent of this notice is to inform publics
of a new fee site.
The Shasta-Trinity National Forest
currently has three other cabin/lookout
rentals. These rentals are popular and
often fully booked throughout their
rental season. A business analysis of the
Harris Springs Guard Station has shown
that people desire having this sort of
recreation experience on the ShastaTrinity National Forest. A market
analysis indicates that the $35/per night
fee is both reasonable and acceptable for
this sort of unique recreation
experience.
People wanting to rent the Harris
Springs Guard Station will need to do
so through the National Recreation
Reservation Service, at https://
www.reserveusa.com or by calling 1–
877–444–6777. The National Recreation
Reservation Service charges a $9 fee for
reservations.
DATES:
Dated: February 3, 2006.
Valerie Guardia,
Deputy Director, Recreation, Wilderness and
Heritage Resources.
[FR Doc. 06–2024 Filed 3–2–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Notice of New Fee Sites on the ShastaTrinity National Forest
Forest Service
AGENCY:
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of new fee site—Harris
Springs Guard Station.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Shasta-Trinity National
Forest will begin charging a $35 fee for
the overnight rental of the Harris
Springs Guard Station. Rentals of other
cabins and lookouts on the ShastaTrinity National Forest have shown that
visitors appreciate and enjoy the
availability of historic rental facilities.
Funds from the rental will be used for
the continued operation and
maintenance of the Harris Springs
Guard Station.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
RIN 0596–AC02
Directive for Environmental
Management Systems
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of issuance of agency
final directive.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Forest Service is issuing
a final directive to Forest Service
Manual 1330, Environmental
Management Systems (EMS), to provide
overall guidance to Forest Service line
officers and employees on how to
include EMS in carrying out national
forest land management planning
regulations at 36 CFR part 219, subpart
A, published in the Federal Register on
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10954-10956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1982]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Nez Perce National Forest; Idaho County, ID; Meadow Face
Stewardship Pilot Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact
statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Authority: 40 CFR 1502.9)
SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare a supplemental environmental
impact statement (``SEIS'') for the Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot
Project on the Nez Perce National Forest, Clearwater Ranger District,
in Idaho County, Idaho, for the purpose of completing the cumulative
effects analysis referred to in United States District Court Judge
Edward J. Lodge's March 31, 2005 unpublished order in Friends of the
Clearwater v. Lohn, Case No. CV04-384-C-EJL (D. Idaho). The court in
that case issued a preliminary injunction against further timber
harvesting under the Meadow Face Project until the Forest Service
complies with the requirements for a cumulative effects analysis under
the National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA''). The court stated,
quoting Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2005), that
the final environmental impact statement (``FEIS'') for the Meadow Face
Project ``should have provided adequate data of time, type, place and
scale of past timber harvest and should have explained in sufficient
detail how different project plans and harvest methods affected the
environment.'' Friends of the Clearwater, unpub. ord. at 31 (quoting
Lands Council, 395 F.3d 1019 at 1028). Regarding the FEIS's analysis of
cumulative effects from grazing, the court stated as follows:
The Forest Service's analysis of grazing * * * does not specifically
describe the history of grazing in the Project Area, i.e., by
providing a catalog of where, and how much, grazing has occurred in
the Watershed, or where and the extent to which it is occurring now.
The agency's failure to provide adequate data of time, type, place
and scale of past, present and reasonably foreseeable grazing
activities in the Project Area precludes the public and the decision
maker from having necessary information to evaluate the alternatives
presented in the FEIS.
Id. at 32. The Forest Service hereby gives notice that it will prepare
a SEIS in response to the court's preliminary injunction order.
DATES: Comments concerning the cumulative effects analysis must be
received by April 17, 2006.
[[Page 10955]]
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Darcy Pederson, District Ranger,
1005 Highway 13, Grangeville, ID 83530, Attn: Meadow Face Stewardship.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Harper, Interdisciplinary Team
Leader, Clearwater Ranger District, at the address above, or via
telephone at (208) 983-1963.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot Project
was initially scoped on August 15, 2000. The Notice of Intent to
prepare the EIS was published in the Federal Register, 66 FR 13700, on
March 7, 2001. The Draft EIS was sent out for a 45-day comment period
in April of 2001. The Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS was
published in the Federal Register, 66 FR 37956, on July 20, 2001. A
Notice of Availability for the Final EIS was published in the Federal
Register, 67 FR 40923, on June 7, 2002. The Record of Decision
(``ROD'') was signed by the Nez Perce National Forest Supervisor on
February 11, 2003. The supervisor selected Alternative 4B as displayed
in the FEIS, with some modifications described on page 12 of the ROD,
for implementation.
On June 14, 2004, several environmental groups (led by Friends of
the Clearwater out of Moscow, Idaho) filed a lawsuit against D. Robert
Lohn (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration); William T.
Hogarth (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration); the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Donald L. Evans (Secretary of
the Department of Commerce); Gail Kimbell (Northern Regional Forester,
USDA Forest Service); Ann N. Veneman (Secretary of the Department of
Agriculture); and the United States Forest Service; Plaintiffs include
Friends of the Clearwater, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Idaho
Sporting Congress, and the Ecology Center. Plaintiffs sought a
preliminary injunction against the Meadow Face Project, and on March
31, 2005, the court issued an order enjoining ``further timber
harvesting * * * until the Forest Service complies with the requisite
NEPA cumulative effects analysis.'' Friends of the Clearwater, unpub.
ord. at 57.
Purpose and Need for Action
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (February 2002) provided a
detailed description of the purpose and need for action. It was noted
that the existing condition of aquatic and soil resources and
vegetation in the analysis area does not meet the desired condition
and/or departs from the historic range. The project was proposed to
begin remediation of the effects of past actions, and to return various
resource conditions to within the historic range of variability. The
purpose and need for action from the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (February 2002) remains unchanged. The purpose for preparing
the proposed SEIS is to complete the cumulative effects analysis
referred to by the court in Friends of the Clearwater.
Proposed Action
The FEIS (February 2002) and ROD (February 2003) provided a
detailed description of the original proposed action (Alternative 2).
Alternative 2 focused on activities that would improve aquatic and
vegetative elements of the analysis area. The proposal was formulated
to address conditions and changes needed to achieve the desired
conditions and specific goals and objectives described in the Nez Perce
Forest Plan.
With the record of decision of February 11, 2003, the Nez Perce
National Forest Supervisor selected Alternative 4B as displayed in the
FEIS, with some modifications for implementation. The decision included
the following activities: Maintain 102 miles of road (12.5 deferred
maintenance), construct 12 miles of temporary road, decommission 91
miles of road, convert 5 miles of road to trail, construct 0.1 mile of
new OHV trail, maintain dispersed campsites where roads are
decommissioned, rehabilitate about 3 miles of stream, harvest timber on
up to 3,735 acres, prescribe burn 7,100 acres, replace 45 culverts,
apply dust abatement to 5 miles of road, treat 200 acres of existing
noxious weeds, restore native plant species in McComas Meadows, restore
550 acres of compacted soils, stabilize the Meadow Creek Slide, and
install improvements at McComas/Blacktail Junction, Camp 58, and Quartz
Ridge dispersed recreation sites. Additionally, the Forest Supervisor
decided to make three site specific amendments to the Nez Perce Forest
Plan.
A portion of the timber harvest covered by the Record of Decision
(Yew Rock Timber Sale) commenced on March 26, 2004 and was ordered to
be ceased following the court's preliminary injunction order of March
31, 2005. To date, the following activities have been implemented in
the Environmental Impact Statement project area: replacement of two
culverts, stabilization of three sites along an irrigation ditch,
decommissioning of 23 miles of road, treatment of noxious weed on 141
acres, maintenance of 34 miles of road, development of one rock source,
timber harvest on 730 acres, and construction of 8.6 miles of temporary
road.
Responsible Official
The responsible official for this project is Jane Cottrell, the Nez
Perce National Forest Supervisor. Comments regarding the cumulative
effects analysis for this project should be sent to the address and
contacts identified above and should be submitted within 45-days of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. A Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is expected to be
available by late May 2006 and the Final SEIS is expected in late
summer 2006.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The Forest Supervisor will decide whether to continue
implementation of Alternative 4B, as planned, or whether to modify or
terminate implementation of the alternative in light of the revised
cumulative effect analysis.
Scoping Process
The U.S. Forest Service uses the scoping process required by the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for all major Federal actions.
NEPA requires a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to ensure
integrated application of the natural and social sciences and the
environmental design arts in any planning and decision-making that
affects the human environment (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(A)).
Recently, the Council on Environmental Quality issued guidance on
the preparation of cumulative effects analyses. Memorandum from James
L. Connaughton, Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality, to Heads of
Federal Agencies (June 24, 2005). To determine what information is
necessary for a cumulative effects analysis, the CEQ Guidance
recommends agencies use scoping to determine the extent to which
information is ``relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse
impacts,'' is ``essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives,''
and can be obtained without exorbitant cost. Id. (quoting 40 CFR
1502.22). Based on scoping, agencies have discretion to determine
whether, and to what extent, information about the specific nature,
design, or present effects of a past action is useful for the agency's
analysis of the effects of a proposal for agency action and its
reasonable alternatives. Id.
The CEQ Guidance further states agencies ``should be guided in
their cumulative effects analysis by the scoping process, in which
agencies
[[Page 10956]]
identify the scope and `significant' issues to be addressed in an
environmental impact statement.'' Id. at 2 (quoting 40 CFR 1500.1(b),
1500.4(g), 1501.7, 1508.25). ``With respect to past actions, during the
scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency
must determine what information regarding past actions is useful and
relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects.'' Id. at 3.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides
the development of the supplemental environmental impact statement.
Comments regarding the revised cumulative effects analysis will be
accepted for 45 days after this notification in the Federal Register.
These comments will help the Forest Service determine the scope of the
requisite cumulative effects analysis, and what information regarding
past actions is useful and relevant. Send written comments to Darcy
Pederson, District Ranger, 1005 Highway 13, Grangeville, Idaho 83530,
Attn: Meadow Face Stewardship.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review
A draft supplemental environmental impact statement will be
prepared after consideration of responses to this scoping and
completion of the requisite cumulative effects analysis. The comment
period on the draft supplemental environmental impact statement will be
45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the
notice of availability in the Federal Register.
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 supplemental environmental impact
statement must structure their comments so they are meaningful and
alert the 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 supplemental
environmental impact statement stage, but that are not raised until
after completion of the final supplemental 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). It is very
important that those interested in the cumulative effects analysis for
the Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot Project participate by the close of
the 45-day comment period on the draft supplemental environmental
impact statement 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 supplemental
environmental impact statement.
To assist the Forest Service in completing the final supplemental
environmental impact statement, comments on the draft supplemental
environmental impact statement will need to be as specific as possible.
It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of
the draft 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.
Comments received in response to this scoping notice as well as
comments received on the subsequent Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will
be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be
available for public inspection.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, Section 21)
Dated: February 10, 2006.
Jane L. Cottrell,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 06-1982 Filed 3-2-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
