[Federal Register: March 3, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 9970-9971]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03mr03-33]
========================================================================
Notices
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.
========================================================================
[[Page 9970]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Mission Brush, Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle
National Forests; Boundary County, ID
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bonners Ferry Ranger District of the Idaho Panhandle
National Forests is proposing rehabilitation of the vegetation in the
Brush Creek and Mission Creek watersheds, identified as the Mission
Brush project area. These watersheds are located 14 and 19 miles,
respectively, north of Bonners Ferry, Idaho. Priorities are treatment
of stands of off-site Ponderosa pine and dry sites, and taking steps to
begin restoring the diversity that was found historically in mixed
conifer stands. The project, as proposed, will provide additional
benefits to the water resources and result in some reduction of fuels
adjacent to private property in a portion of the project area. The USDA
Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to
disclose the potential environmental effects of implementing vegetative
and aquatic restoration activities on National Forest System lands
within the project area.
DATES: Comments, suggestions, or requests to be placed on the project
mailing list, should be received on or before April 1, 2003. The draft
environmental impact statement is expected to be filed with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review
in April 2002.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions on the proposal or
requests to be placed on the project mailing list to Doug Nishek,
Project Team Leader, Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Route 4, Box 4860,
Bonners Ferry, Idaho 83805-9764, e-mail address: dnishek@fs.fed.us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Nishek, project leader, Bonners
Ferry Ranger District, (208) 267-5561, e-mail address:
dnishek@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose and need for this project is
derived from the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Idaho
Panhandle National Forests, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Project (ICBEMP), the Northern Region Overview and the
Kootenai River basin Geographic Assessment (GA). Findings from these
studies document the dense, insect- and disease-prone state of the dry-
site ecosystems across the Idaho Panhandle National Forests and the
Kootenai River basin. These large-scale analyses describe the changes
these ecosystems have undergone over the past century, such as a
significant loss in the once-dominant western white pine in northern
Idaho. Current conditions are causing concern due to increased wildfire
hazard and potential for severe fires. Site-specific information
indicates these conditions are present in Mission Creek and Brush Creek
watersheds.
Initial assessment identified insect and disease problems placing
stands at a high risk of serious losses through tree mortality and the
resulting changes in habitat structure. The same is true for stands
planted with off-site Ponderosa pine following wildfire in 1945.
Lodgepole pine stands are at high risk of mountain pine beetle
infestation. Western white pine is no longer a key component of these
forests.
Objectives of this project are two-fold, as follows: On dry sites
begin restoration of historical vegetative conditions that favored
development of large, open-grown stands of ponderosa pine and western
larch; and, in the mixed conifer and subalpine forests increase size,
species, and age-class diversity through treatments to begin returning
western white pine to its historical role and treating lodgepole pine
stands at high risk to insects. The management activities would reduce
fuel loadings and potential for severe fires on National Forest System
lands adjacent to private property in the western portion of the
Mission Creek drainage. Water quality and aquatic resources would
benefit from reconstruction of portions of roads to reduce the amount
of sediment entering streams. There will also be opportunities to
improve recreation facilities in the Brush Lake area.
Preliminary issues include forest health, water quality, timber
supply and demand, wildlife, fish, and plant species.
The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives, including
the ``no action'' alternative, under which there would be no change
from current management of the area. Additional alternatives will
represent a range of strategies to accomplish the goals of this
project. The Forest Plan provides guidance for management objectives
within the potentially affected area through its goals, objectives,
standards and guidelines, and management area direction. Inland Native
Fish Strategy guidelines (USDA Forest Service, 1995) supersede Forest
Plan guidelines established for riparian areas.
The first public notice of proposed management activities in this
area was made in July 1997 for a project identified as Mission Round
Prairie environmental assessment (EA). At that time the Forest Service
was assessing the conditions and proposing treatments in a larger area
that also included Round Prairie Creek, Gillon Creek and Hellroaring
Creek watersheds. The Mission Brush project will analyze management
strategies in the watersheds identified as high priority through that
initial assessment. Based on scoping and changes in Agency direction
the Forest Service believes an EIS is the appropriate level of
documentation. Members of the public are encouraged to visit with
Forest Service officials during the analysis and prior to the decision.
Comments provided by the public and other agencies will be used to
develop strategies for management of natural resources in the project
area. Comments received during the earlier scoping and analysis for the
Mission Round Prairie EA will be considered during the environmental
analysis for this EIS and will be a part of the public record. People,
organizations and agencies on the Mission Round Prairie mailing list
will be included in the Mission Brush EIS mailing list. The Forest
Service is also seeking information, comments, and assistance from
federal, state and local agencies and other individuals or
[[Page 9971]]
organizations that may be interested in or affected by the proposed
actions.
The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be filed
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public
review in April 2003. At that time, the EPA will publish a Notice of
Availability of the draft environmental impact statement in the Federal
Register. The comment period on the draft environmental impact
statement will end 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the Notice
of Availability in the Federal Register. It is anticipated that a final
environmental impact statement will be published in June, 2003. A
Record of Decision will also be published at that time.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public
participation to 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.
5129,553 (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 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 regarding 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 environmental impact 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 names
and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the
public record on this proposed action 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 to 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.
I am the responsible official for this environmental analysis. My
address is Idaho Panhandle National Forest, 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur
d'Alene, ID 83814.
Dated: February 24, 2003.
Ranotta McNair,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 03-4855 Filed 2-28-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-121-M