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 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. 

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) 

Dated: November 21, 2006. 

Mimi Tryon, 

Acting Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 06–9420 Filed 11–27–06; 8:45 am] 

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 

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 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 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Notices 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 ‘‘noaction’’ 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: 

➢ 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. 

➢ 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 45- 

day comment period so that substantive 

comments and objections are made 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
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. 

(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 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Ravalli County Resource Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: 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. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

November 28, 2006, 6:30 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Ritter, Stevensville District Ranger and 

Designated Federal Officer, Phone: (406) 

777–5461. 

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 

Southcentral Alaska Federal 

Subsistence Regional Advisory 

Council Meeting 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA; Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Interior. 

ACTION: 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. 

DATES: 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. 

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] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P; 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Rural Utilities Service 

South Mississippi Electric Power 

Association: Notice of Availability of 

an Environmental Assessment 

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of an 

Environmental Assessment for public 

review. 

SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service, an 

agency which administers the U.S. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES