Lakeview-Reeder Fuel Reduction Project, Priest Lake Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests; Bonner County, Idaho, 68796-68798 [06-9421]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
68796
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Notices
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.
Comments received, 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)
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Lakeview-Reeder Fuel Reduction
Project, Priest Lake Ranger District,
Idaho Panhandle National Forests;
Bonner County, Idaho
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
AGENCY:
ycherry on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
ACTION:
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
15:42 Nov 27, 2006
Jkt 211001
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.
DATES:
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.
ADDRESSES:
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:
Dated: November 21, 2006.
Mimi Tryon,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 06–9420 Filed 11–27–06; 8:45 am]
VerDate Aug<31>2005
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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 handslashing. 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
E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM
28NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Notices
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 ‘‘noaction’’ alternative.
Responsible Official
Ranotta K. McNair, Forest Supervisor,
Idaho Panhandle National Forests, 3815
Schreiber Way, Coeur d’Alene, ID
83815.
ycherry on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 Nov 27, 2006
Jkt 211001
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:
➢ 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.
➢ Forest health—improving the longterm health and resilience of forest
stands in the project area.
➢ Long-term maintenance—How will
we ensure future maintenance of treated
areas?
➢ Threatened, endangered, sensitive
(TES), and management indicator
species (MIS) of wildlife (and their
habitat).
➢ Aquatic resources (including TES
fish species, 303(d) listed TMDL
watersheds, water yield, sediment yield,
domestic water sources, floodplains,
wetlands).
➢ Access—motorized access for
private use and recreation motorized
access for administrative use (i.e., fire
control, land management).
➢ Off-road motorized use—potential
negative impacts, how to enforce
regulations?
➢ Highway/roadside safety—hazard
trees, visibility, wildlife collisions.
➢ Visuals—maintaining scenic
integrity by complying with IPNF Forest
Plan Visual Quality Objectives.
➢ Soil productivity—compaction,
nutrient recycling, course woody debris,
nutrient limitations (i.e., potassium),
erosion potential.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68797
➢ TES and rate plant species—
identification and protection of these
plants.
➢ Archaeological sites—
identification and protection of sites.
➢ Noxious weeds—both new
introductions and dispersal of existing
populations.
➢ Old growth—maintaining adequate
old growth stands on the District.
➢ Recreation—requests to increase
recreational opportunities, minimizing
negative impacts to recreational users
from project activities.
➢ Financial analysis—ensuring that
the project is economically feasible,
determining potential impacts of project
on social resources.
➢ Air quality—reducing the project’s
potential negative impacts to air quality.
➢ Product utilization—Can we
ensure better product utilization to
minimize the need for burning?
➢ Big game—minimizing negative
impacts to big game security, winter
range and travel corridors.
➢ 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 45day comment period so that substantive
comments and objections are made
E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM
28NON1
68798
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Notices
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.
ycherry on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
15:42 Nov 27, 2006
Jkt 211001
Ravalli County Resource Advisory
Committee
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
SUMMARY: The Ravalli County Resource
Advisory Committee will be meeting to
discuss the 2066 projects and hold a
short public forum (question and
answer session). The meeting is being
held pursuant to the authorities in the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.
L. 92–463) and under the Secure Rural
Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–
393). The meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held on
November 28, 2006, 6:30 p.m.
DATES:
The meeting will be held at
the Bitterroot National Forest
Supervisor Building, 1801 N. 1st Street,
Hamilton, Montana. Send written
comments to Dan Ritter, District Ranger,
Stevensville Ranger District, 88 Main
Street, Stevensville, MT 59870, by
facsimile (406) 777–7423, or
electronically to dritter@fs.fed.us.
ADDRESSES:
Dan
Ritter, Stevensville District Ranger and
Designated Federal Officer, Phone: (406)
777–5461.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dated: November 20, 2006.
David T. Bull,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 06–9422 Filed 11–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
The meeting will be held Friday,
December 8, 2006, at 9 a.m., Alaska
Standard Time.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter J. Probasco, Office of Subsistence
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 3601 C Street, Suite 1030,
Anchorage, Alaska 99503; telephone
(907) 786–3888. For questions related to
subsistence management issues on
National Forest Service lands, contact
Steve Kessler, Subsistence Program
Leader, 3601 C Street, Suite 1030,
Anchorage, Alaska 99503; telephone
(907) 786–3592.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Southcentral Alaska Subsistence
Regional Advisory Council will meet at
3601 C Street, Suite 1030, Anchorage,
Alaska on Friday, December 8, 2006, at
9 a.m., Alaska Standard Time, to
establish a subcommittee with the
charge of evaluating various options for
providing a priority for the subsistence
harvest of fish from the Federal public
lands and waters of the Kenai
Peninsula. This meeting is open to the
public.
This meeting will be held with less
than the normal 15-day notice. The
holding of this meeting of the
Southcentral Regional Council on
December 8, 2006, is in the best interest
of the public because there is an
overwhelming need to establish a
subcommittee to evaluate fishery issues
on the Kenai Peninsula prior to the
Southcentral Regional Council’s next
regularly scheduled meeting in midMarch. The timing would allow the
newly established subcommittee time to
evaluate various proposals, options and
alternatives prior to the Southcentral
Regional Council meeting in March.
DATES:
Authority: Title VIII of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA),
16 U.S.C. 3101–3126.
Dated: November 21, 2006.
Peter J. Probasco,
Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board.
[FR Doc. 06–9425 Filed 11–27–06; 8:45 am]
Southcentral Alaska Federal
Subsistence Regional Advisory
Council Meeting
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P; 4310–55–P
Forest Service, USDA; Fish and
Wildlife Service, Interior.
Rural Utilities Service
ACTION:
Dated: November 20, 2006.
Ranotta K. McNair,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 06–9421 Filed 11–27–06; 8:45 am]
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Forest Service
AGENCY:
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22;
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section
21)
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Notice of meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice informs the public
that the Southcentral Alaska Federal
Subsistence Regional Advisory Council
will hold a public meeting on December
8, 2006, at 3601 C Street, Suite 1030,
Anchorage, Alaska. The public is
invited to participate and to provide
oral testimony.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
South Mississippi Electric Power
Association: Notice of Availability of
an Environmental Assessment
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of availability of an
Environmental Assessment for public
review.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service, an
agency which administers the U.S.
E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM
28NON1
]]>Agencies
[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
