Lakeview-Reeder Fuel Reduction Project, Priest Lake Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests; Bonner County, Idaho, 68796-68798 [06-9421]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 28, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68796-68798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9421]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Lakeview-Reeder Fuel Reduction Project, Priest Lake Ranger 
District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests; Bonner County, Idaho

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Priest Lake Ranger District of the Idaho Panhandle 
National Forests is proposing fuel reduction and forest restoration 
activities in the vicinity of the community of Nordman, Idaho and near 
Reeder Bay along Priest Lake. Priorities for treatment are those forest 
stands which not only have significant ground fuel accumulations, 
ladder fuels and/or dense tree canopies, but also are located in a 
geographically strategic site or are adjacent to private property, 
developments, public infrastructure or other important resources. The 
project, as proposed, will reduce hazardous forest fuels in the 
wildland urban interface (WUI), restore forest health and resilience 
and will provide additional resource benefits to water resources and 
grizzly bear core habitat. The USDA Forest Service will prepare an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) to disclose the potential 
environmental effects of implementing project activities on National 
Forest System lands within the project area.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
by December 15, 2006. The draft environmental impact statement is 
expected to be published in May 2007 and the final environmental impact 
statement, in conjunction with a Record of Decision, is expected to be 
published in September 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments and suggestions to David Cobb, Project 
Team Leader, Priest Lake Ranger District, 32203 Highway 57, Priest 
River, Idaho 83856; e-mail address: dcobb@fs.fed.us.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Cobb, Project Team Leader, 
Priest Lake Ranger District, 32203 Highway 57, Priest River, Idaho 
83856; e-mail: dcobb@fs.fed.us; phone 208-433-6854.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose & Need

    The purpose and need for the Lakeview-Reeder Fuel Reduction Project 
addresses the goals and objectives set forth in the Idaho Panhandle 
National Forests' (IPNF) Forest Plan (1987), National Fire Plan, 
Healthy Forest Initiative, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (2003), 
Bonner County, Idaho Wildlife Urban Interface Fire Mitigation Plan and 
the Pend Oreille County, Washington Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 
The purpose and need also responds to ecological recommendations made 
in the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. The two 
primary reasons for proposing this project are to: (1) Reduce hazardous 
forest fuels in the project area to decrease the risk of wildfire 
negatively impacting the communities in the project area, public and 
firefighter safety, public infrastructure, private and National Forest 
System lands and resource values; and (2) Restore, enhance and protect 
forest ecosystem components to improve forest health, increase 
biological diversity, as well as reduce threats from catastrophic 
wildfire and insect and disease infestations.

Proposed Action

    In order to effectively reduce hazardous forest fuels in the 
29,380-acre project area, as well as restore, enhance and protect 
forest ecosystem components, we are proposing the following treatment 
activities. Proposed treatment activities total approximately 8,375 
acres.
    Approximately 2,816 acres could be treated using a commercial 
thinning. Commercial thinning entails removal of some of the 
merchantable trees from a forest stand, in this case, to decrease the 
individuals or species which will likely contribute to ground fuel 
accumulations and to increase spacing between and improve the long-term 
health of residual trees. Following thinning, slash disposal and fuel 
reduction of smaller trees can be performed using the following 
methods: approximately 2,375 acres could be mechanically piled and 
burned and approximately 441 acres could be left unpiled to be 
broadcast burned under prescribed conditions.
    Another approximately 4,177 acres would need to be treated using a 
regeneration harvest. Regeneration treatment involves removal of much 
of the overstory component, enough to create conditions which enable 
proper germination and/or growth of the next generation of trees. 
Following regeneration treatment, slash disposal and further fuel 
reductions could be achieved by mechanically piling and burning 2,579 
acres and broadcast burning 1,598 acres under prescribed conditions.
    Additional treatment activities would include prescribed, broadcast 
burning on approximately 1,279 acres. Prescribed, broadcast burning can 
only be utilized alone as a treatment in certain areas which do not 
have dense quantities of more flammable fuels. Such areas include old 
shrub fields, aspen stands and open, dry-site stands of ponderosa pine 
and Douglas-fir. In these appropriate areas, treatment may or may not 
include slashing of some fuels, followed by broadcast burning of those 
fuels under prescribed conditions.
    Finally, approximately 103 acres can be treated by slashing 
smaller, unmerchantable material, followed by piling and burning. Some 
areas will be conducive to utilizing equipment to perform the slashing, 
while others will require more labor-intensive hand-slashing. In some 
cases (approximately 79 acres), the piling of slash can be performed 
with equipment, while the other approximately 24 acres will require 
hand-piling.
    In order to adequately access the fuel treatment areas, some road

[[Page 68797]]

maintenance, reconstruction and construction activities would also be 
required. The proposed action includes constructing approximately six 
miles of new road, five miles of which would be permanent road and the 
remaining mile would be temporary. The temporary road would be 
obliterated after using it for this project. In addition, eight miles 
of existing roads would be reconstructed and approximately 36.5 miles 
of road would have maintenance activities conducted on them.
    Some resource improvement opportunities also exist within the 
project area--namely improvement of grizzly bear core habitat within 
the Kalispell-Granite Grizzly Bear Management Unit (BMU) and reduction 
in pollutants of concern (primarily sediment and temperature) in three, 
303(d) listed watersheds--Granite, Reeder and Kalispell Creeks. In 
order to improve water quality in Granite, Reeder and Kalispell Creeks, 
many road improvements may be necessary including culvert replacements, 
new stream crossing surfaces, as well as road maintenance, 
reconstruction or relocation. In order to improve grizzly bear core 
habitat, we need to reduce the total and open road densities 
(decreasing the miles of open road per square mile of area) within the 
Kalispell-Granite BMU. In other words, some roads within the Kalispell-
Granite BMU may need to be effectively closed with a barricade or 
obliterated.

Possible Alternatives

    Because all of the proposed treatment areas for the Lakeview-Reeder 
Fuel Reduction Project are within Bonner County, Idaho--or Pend Oreille 
County, Washington--defined wildland urban interface, the USDA Forest 
Service is only required to analyze one action alternative in addition 
to the ``no-action'' alternative.

Responsible Official

    Ranotta K. McNair, Forest Supervisor, Idaho Panhandle National 
Forests, 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The responsible official for the environmental analysis will be 
responsible for deciding which actions will be undertaken by the agency 
pertaining to the Lakeview-Reeder Fuel Reduction Project. That decision 
includes not only which alternative is chosen, but also includes 
independent decisions on associated mitigation measures, design 
criteria and resource improvement opportunities.

Scoping Process

    The Priest Lake Ranger District has strived to encourage public 
collaboration for this project. Comments received during earlier, 
informal scoping efforts and meetings regarding the Lakeview-Reeder 
Fuel Reduction Project will be considered and used to develop 
strategies for management of natural resources in the project area. 
Future meetings and field trips for this project will be planned as 
necessary or as requested.

Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides 
the development of the environment impact statement. Comments 
concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by December 15, 
2006.

Preliminary Issues

    Many potential issues pertaining to the Lakeview-Reeder Fuel 
Reduction Project have already surfaced during informal scoping, public 
collaboration and interdisciplinary team meetings. Potential issues 
which may entail detailed analysis or require mitigation include:
    [rtarr8] Wildfire hazard--defining the risk and decreasing the risk 
of negative impacts from large-scale, catastrophic fire events to local 
communities, private property, public infrastructure and other valuable 
resources.
    [rtarr8] Forest health--improving the long-term health and 
resilience of forest stands in the project area.
    [rtarr8] Long-term maintenance--How will we ensure future 
maintenance of treated areas?
    [rtarr8] Threatened, endangered, sensitive (TES), and management 
indicator species (MIS) of wildlife (and their habitat).
    [rtarr8] Aquatic resources (including TES fish species, 303(d) 
listed TMDL watersheds, water yield, sediment yield, domestic water 
sources, floodplains, wetlands).
    [rtarr8] Access--motorized access for private use and recreation 
motorized access for administrative use (i.e., fire control, land 
management).
    [rtarr8] Off-road motorized use--potential negative impacts, how to 
enforce regulations?
    [rtarr8] Highway/roadside safety--hazard trees, visibility, 
wildlife collisions.
    [rtarr8] Visuals--maintaining scenic integrity by complying with 
IPNF Forest Plan Visual Quality Objectives.
    [rtarr8] Soil productivity--compaction, nutrient recycling, course 
woody debris, nutrient limitations (i.e., potassium), erosion 
potential.
    [rtarr8] TES and rate plant species--identification and protection 
of these plants.
    [rtarr8] Archaeological sites--identification and protection of 
sites.
    [rtarr8] Noxious weeds--both new introductions and dispersal of 
existing populations.
    [rtarr8] Old growth--maintaining adequate old growth stands on the 
District.
    [rtarr8] Recreation--requests to increase recreational 
opportunities, minimizing negative impacts to recreational users from 
project activities.
    [rtarr8] Financial analysis--ensuring that the project is 
economically feasible, determining potential impacts of project on 
social resources.
    [rtarr8] Air quality--reducing the project's potential negative 
impacts to air quality.
    [rtarr8] Product utilization--Can we ensure better product 
utilization to minimize the need for burning?
    [rtarr8] Big game--minimizing negative impacts to big game 
security, winter range and travel corridors.
    [rtarr8] Regulations--Can we ensure compliance with IPNF Forest 
Plan Standards and Guidelines, NEPA, as well as other federal and state 
regulations?
    Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be 
prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental 
impact statement 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 
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, 
533 (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

[[Page 68798]]

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.
    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 for public 
inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and 
considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments may not have 
standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR, part 215. 
Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the 
agency 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 the FOIA, 
confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such 
as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the 
requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for 
confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will 
return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be 
resubmitted with or without name and address within a specified number 
of days.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 
1909.15, Section 21)

    Dated: November 20, 2006.
Ranotta K. McNair,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 06-9421 Filed 11-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M