Black Hills National Forest, Mystic Ranger District, South Dakota, Mitchell Project, 29609-29610 [06-4759]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 23, 2006 / Notices
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
environmental data to allow the agency
to make an informed decision.
Both Rural Development and FSA
provide forms and/or other guidance to
assist in the collection and submission
of necessary information. The
information is usually submitted via
U.S. Postal Service or hand delivery to
the appropriate Agency office.
The information is used by the
Agency official who is processing the
application for financial assistance or
request for approval. Having
environmental information on the
Applicant’s proposed project and the
construction and operation activities
enables the Agency official to determine
the magnitude of any potential
environmental impacts and to take such
impacts into consideration during
planning and decision-making as
required by NEPA. The analysis of
potential environmental impacts of an
Applicant’s proposed project and Rural
Development or FSA’s decision is a full
disclosure process, and therefore, can
involve public information meetings
and public notification.
Estimate of Burden: Public reporting
burden for this collection of information
is estimated to average 4.3 hours per
response.
Respondents: Individuals, nonFederal agency governments, farmers,
ranchers, business owners, for-profit or
non-profit institutions, and
organizations.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
6,308.
Estimated Number of Responses per
Respondent: 1.
Estimated Number of Responses:
6,328.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on
Respondents: 27,399 hours.*
(* Note: This estimate is not exact due
to rounding).
Copies of this information collection
can be obtained from Renita Bolden,
Regulations and Paperwork
Management Branch, at (202) 692–0035.
Comments
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Agencies,
including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
Agencies’ estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 May 22, 2006
Jkt 208001
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology.
Comments may be sent to Renita
Bolden, Regulations and Paperwork
Management Branch, Support Services
Division, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP
0742, 1400 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–0742. All
responses to this notice will be
summarized and included in the request
for OMB approval. All comments will
also become a matter of public record.
Dated: May 9, 2006.
Russell T. Davis,
Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
Dated: May 5, 2006.
Jackie J. Gleason,
Acting Administrator, Rural BusinessCooperative Service.
Dated: May 12, 2006.
Teresa C. Lasseter,
Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
[FR Doc. 06–4744 Filed 5–22–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Black Hills National Forest, Mystic
Ranger District, South Dakota, Mitchell
Project
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Forest Service will
prepare an environmental impact
statement on a proposal to use multiple
vegetation treatments focused on
creating a landscape condition more
adapted to fire and that reduces
potential for high severity wildfire near
at-risk communities and in the
wildland-urban interface. The proposal
is being planned for the 25,200 acre
Mitchell Project Area that includes
about 18,300 acres of National Forest
System land and about 6,900 acres of
interspersed private land. The project
area generally extends from west of Hill
City, South Dakota to Keystone, South
Dakota (just north of Mount Rushmore
National Memorial). This project will be
conducted as an authorized project
under Section 102 of the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA).
Actions proposed for the Mitchell
Project Area include the following:
• Restoring natural fuel breaks by
removing conifers from hardwood
stands such as aspen, bur oak, birch and
by expanding and/or creating meadows
(est. 1,400 acres).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29609
• Reducing the amount of existing
and created forest fuels by use of
various treatment methods (e.g.,
chipping, burning); creating fuel breaks
(est. 40 miles); and prescribed burning
(est. 9,000 acres).
• Thinning the ponderosa pine forest
by using commercial timber harvest to
thin commercial size trees and other
methods to thin smaller trees of noncommercial size (est. 9,400 acres).
DATES: Comments concerning the scope
of the analysis would be most useful if
received by 30-days following the date
of this notice. The draft environmental
impact statement is expected to be
available for public review by October
2006 and the final environmental
impact statement is expected to be
completed by March 2007.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
Robert J. Thompson, District Ranger,
Black Hills National Forest, Mystic
Ranger District, Mitchell Project Area,
803 Soo San Drive, Rapid City, South
Dakota 57702. Telephone Number: (605)
343–1567. E-mail: comments-rockymountain-black-hills-mystic@fs.fed.us.
with ‘‘Mitchell’’ as the subject.
Electronic comments must be readable
in Word, Rich Text or pdf formats.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Phillip Grumstrup, Project Coordinator,
Black Hills National Forest, Mystic
Ranger District, at above address, phone
(605) 343–1567.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
actions proposed are in direct response
to management direction provided by
the Black Hills National Forest Land
and Resource Management Plan (Forest
Plan). The site specific actions are
designed, based on Forest Plan
Standards and Guidelines, to move
existing resource conditions in the
Mitchell Project Area toward meeting
Forest Plan Goals and Objectives.
Located within the project area are: The
cities of Keystone and Hill City, U.S.
Highway 16 and 385 corridors, U.S.
Highway 16A, access to Keystone and
the Mount Rushmore National
Memorial, and interspersed private
lands surrounded by National Forest
System lands. Anticipated issues
include: Protection of local
communities, private and public lands,
infrastructure and access from severe
wildfire; associated fire and fuels hazard
reduction needs in the wildand-urban
interface; support and opposition to
forest thinning using commercial timber
harvest; impacts of vegetation treatment
and multiple forest uses on wildlife
habitat. The range of alternatives
analyzed in the EIS is expected to be
consistent with sec. 104 of the HFRA.
E:\FR\FM\23MYN1.SGM
23MYN1
29610
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 23, 2006 / Notices
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the Mitchell Project is
to reduce risk to local communities and
resources from severe wildfire and
restore resource conditions to a healthy,
resilient fire-adapted ecosystem across
the project area. There is a need to
reduce potential for large-scale severe
wildfire and to facilitate effective
wildfire suppression/protection in this
wildland-urban interface setting. This
project is focused on implementing
management actions that move toward
achieving:
• Desired conditions and objectives
embodied in Goal 10 of the Forest
Plan—Establish and maintain a mosaic
of vegetative conditions to reduce the
occurrences of stand-replacing fire
* * * and to facilitate * * * firefighting
capbility adjacent to at-risk
communities, sensitive resources, and
non-federal land * * *.
• Desired conditions and objectives
embodied in Goal 7 of the Forest Plan—
Emphasize cooperation with
individuals, organizations and other
agencies while coordinating planning
and project implementation.
• Goals and Objectives applicable to
Forest Plan Management Area (MA)
4.1—Limited Motorized Use and Forest
Product Emphasis; MA 5.1—Resource
Production Emphasis; and MA 5.4—Big
Game Winter Range Emphasis.
• Goals of the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 (HR
1904) and other National level
initiatives and policy that emphasize
reducing the probability and occurrence
of severe wildfire in fire adapted
ecosystems especially near at-risk
communities and the wildland-urban
interface.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Proposed Action
Proposed actions include the
following:
• Restore natural fuel breaks to help
reduce the potential for large-scale,
intense wildfire spread. Treatment
includes removing conifers from
hardwood stands such as aspen, bur
oak, birch and by expanding and/or
creating meadows (est. 1,400 acres).
• Reduce the amount of existing
forest fuels and fuels created by
vegetation treatment activities.
Treatment includes lopping, chipping,
crushing, piling and burning; creating
up to 40 miles of fuels breaks along
roads and private property boundaries;
and prescribed burning of up to 9,000
acres to reduce fuel levels.
• Thinning the ponderosa pine forest
on about 9,400 acres to reduce potential
for spreading crown fires by reducing
the density of pine, providing fuel
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 May 22, 2006
Jkt 208001
breaks, lessening insect and disease risk
and improving forest health and vigor.
This will be accomplished by using
commerical timber harvest to thin
commerical size trees and other
methods to thin smaller trees of noncommercial size.
Responsible Official
Craige Bobzien, Forest Supervisor,
Black Hills National Forest, 25041 N.
Highway 16, Custer, SD 57730.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The decision to be made is whether or
not to implement the proposed action or
possible alternative at this time.
Scoping Process
Comments and input regarding the
proposal will be received via direct
mailing from the public, other groups
and agencies during the initial public
comment period in May and June 2006.
Comments submitted based on this NOI
will be most useful if received within 30
days from the date of this notice.
Response to the draft EIS will be sought
from the interested public beginning in
October 2006.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent provides
information that the agency will prepare
an environmental impact statement in
response to public comment and
feedback during the May and June 2006
scoping period. Comments received will
assist the planning team to identify key
issues and opportunities used to refine
the proposal or possible alternative and
mitigation measures. Comments on the
DEIS will be requested during the 45
day comment period following the
Notice of Availability, expected to be
published in the Federal Register in
November 2006 (See discussion below).
Early Notice of Importance of Public
Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review
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 draft environmental impact
statements 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
statement stage but that are not raised
until after completion of the final
environmental impact statement may be
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 45day 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 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.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22;
Forest Service handbook 1909.15, Section 21)
Dated: May 17, 2006.
Brad Exton,
Deputy Forest Supervisor, Black Hills
National Forest.
[FR Doc. 06–4759 Filed 5–22–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Long Ridge Project, Clearwater
National Forest, Idaho County, ID
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service,
will prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to disclose the
environmental effects of timber harvest
and watershed restoration activities in
the Long Ridge project area on the
Lochsa Ranger District of the Clearwater
National Forest. The Long Ridge project
area is located in the Musselshell Creek
drainage, a tributary to Lolo Creek,
approximately 8 air-miles southeast of
the town of Pierce, Idaho.
DATES: This project will be scoped
beginning in May 2006. Comments that
are received during the scoping period
will be used to develop alternatives to
E:\FR\FM\23MYN1.SGM
23MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 23, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29609-29610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4759]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Black Hills National Forest, Mystic Ranger District, South
Dakota, Mitchell Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact
statement on a proposal to use multiple vegetation treatments focused
on creating a landscape condition more adapted to fire and that reduces
potential for high severity wildfire near at-risk communities and in
the wildland-urban interface. The proposal is being planned for the
25,200 acre Mitchell Project Area that includes about 18,300 acres of
National Forest System land and about 6,900 acres of interspersed
private land. The project area generally extends from west of Hill
City, South Dakota to Keystone, South Dakota (just north of Mount
Rushmore National Memorial). This project will be conducted as an
authorized project under Section 102 of the Healthy Forests Restoration
Act of 2003 (HFRA). Actions proposed for the Mitchell Project Area
include the following:
Restoring natural fuel breaks by removing conifers from
hardwood stands such as aspen, bur oak, birch and by expanding and/or
creating meadows (est. 1,400 acres).
Reducing the amount of existing and created forest fuels
by use of various treatment methods (e.g., chipping, burning); creating
fuel breaks (est. 40 miles); and prescribed burning (est. 9,000 acres).
Thinning the ponderosa pine forest by using commercial
timber harvest to thin commercial size trees and other methods to thin
smaller trees of non-commercial size (est. 9,400 acres).
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis would be most
useful if received by 30-days following the date of this notice. The
draft environmental impact statement is expected to be available for
public review by October 2006 and the final environmental impact
statement is expected to be completed by March 2007.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Robert J. Thompson, District
Ranger, Black Hills National Forest, Mystic Ranger District, Mitchell
Project Area, 803 Soo San Drive, Rapid City, South Dakota 57702.
Telephone Number: (605) 343-1567. E-mail: comments-rocky-mountain-
black-hills-mystic@fs.fed.us. with ``Mitchell'' as the subject.
Electronic comments must be readable in Word, Rich Text or pdf formats.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phillip Grumstrup, Project
Coordinator, Black Hills National Forest, Mystic Ranger District, at
above address, phone (605) 343-1567.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The actions proposed are in direct response
to management direction provided by the Black Hills National Forest
Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The site specific
actions are designed, based on Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, to
move existing resource conditions in the Mitchell Project Area toward
meeting Forest Plan Goals and Objectives. Located within the project
area are: The cities of Keystone and Hill City, U.S. Highway 16 and 385
corridors, U.S. Highway 16A, access to Keystone and the Mount Rushmore
National Memorial, and interspersed private lands surrounded by
National Forest System lands. Anticipated issues include: Protection of
local communities, private and public lands, infrastructure and access
from severe wildfire; associated fire and fuels hazard reduction needs
in the wildand-urban interface; support and opposition to forest
thinning using commercial timber harvest; impacts of vegetation
treatment and multiple forest uses on wildlife habitat. The range of
alternatives analyzed in the EIS is expected to be consistent with sec.
104 of the HFRA.
[[Page 29610]]
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the Mitchell Project is to reduce risk to local
communities and resources from severe wildfire and restore resource
conditions to a healthy, resilient fire-adapted ecosystem across the
project area. There is a need to reduce potential for large-scale
severe wildfire and to facilitate effective wildfire suppression/
protection in this wildland-urban interface setting. This project is
focused on implementing management actions that move toward achieving:
Desired conditions and objectives embodied in Goal 10 of
the Forest Plan--Establish and maintain a mosaic of vegetative
conditions to reduce the occurrences of stand-replacing fire * * * and
to facilitate * * * firefighting capbility adjacent to at-risk
communities, sensitive resources, and non-federal land * * *.
Desired conditions and objectives embodied in Goal 7 of
the Forest Plan--Emphasize cooperation with individuals, organizations
and other agencies while coordinating planning and project
implementation.
Goals and Objectives applicable to Forest Plan Management
Area (MA) 4.1--Limited Motorized Use and Forest Product Emphasis; MA
5.1--Resource Production Emphasis; and MA 5.4--Big Game Winter Range
Emphasis.
Goals of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003
(HR 1904) and other National level initiatives and policy that
emphasize reducing the probability and occurrence of severe wildfire in
fire adapted ecosystems especially near at-risk communities and the
wildland-urban interface.
Proposed Action
Proposed actions include the following:
Restore natural fuel breaks to help reduce the potential
for large-scale, intense wildfire spread. Treatment includes removing
conifers from hardwood stands such as aspen, bur oak, birch and by
expanding and/or creating meadows (est. 1,400 acres).
Reduce the amount of existing forest fuels and fuels
created by vegetation treatment activities. Treatment includes lopping,
chipping, crushing, piling and burning; creating up to 40 miles of
fuels breaks along roads and private property boundaries; and
prescribed burning of up to 9,000 acres to reduce fuel levels.
Thinning the ponderosa pine forest on about 9,400 acres to
reduce potential for spreading crown fires by reducing the density of
pine, providing fuel breaks, lessening insect and disease risk and
improving forest health and vigor. This will be accomplished by using
commerical timber harvest to thin commerical size trees and other
methods to thin smaller trees of non-commercial size.
Responsible Official
Craige Bobzien, Forest Supervisor, Black Hills National Forest,
25041 N. Highway 16, Custer, SD 57730.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The decision to be made is whether or not to implement the proposed
action or possible alternative at this time.
Scoping Process
Comments and input regarding the proposal will be received via
direct mailing from the public, other groups and agencies during the
initial public comment period in May and June 2006. Comments submitted
based on this NOI will be most useful if received within 30 days from
the date of this notice. Response to the draft EIS will be sought from
the interested public beginning in October 2006.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent provides information that the agency will
prepare an environmental impact statement in response to public comment
and feedback during the May and June 2006 scoping period. Comments
received will assist the planning team to identify key issues and
opportunities used to refine the proposal or possible alternative and
mitigation measures. Comments on the DEIS will be requested during the
45 day comment period following the Notice of Availability, expected to
be published in the Federal Register in November 2006 (See discussion
below).
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review
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
draft environmental impact statements 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 statement 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 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.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service handbook
1909.15, Section 21)
Dated: May 17, 2006.
Brad Exton,
Deputy Forest Supervisor, Black Hills National Forest.
[FR Doc. 06-4759 Filed 5-22-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M