78130 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 249 / Thursday, December 28, 2006 / Notices 

1 Go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘Advanced Search’’ tab and select ‘‘Docket Search.’’

In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS–2006–0172, 

click ‘‘Submit,’’ then click on the Docket ID link in 

the search results page. The pest risk assessment 

and the environmental assessment and finding of 

no significant impact will appear in the resulting 

list of documents. 

diseases or tiny animals. We believe that 

the pest risk assessment provides a 

thorough analysis of risks presented, 

and that those risks are fully addressed 

by the baling technology and other 

safeguards that will be required. 

One commenter requested 

information on the companies that have 

expressed interest in sending municipal 

solid waste (MSW) from Hawaii to 

Roosevelt Regional Landfill. As noted 

on page 2 of the pest risk assessment, 

Pacific Rim Environmental Resources 

and Hawaii Waste Systems have 

proposed moving baled MSW from 

Hawaii to a landfill in Washington 

State. Another commenter asked who 

initiated the request for an 

environmental assessment and if these 

assessments are done routinely by 

APHIS. For this particular action, 

APHIS does routinely prepare 

environmental assessments. As 

explained in the ‘‘Purpose and Need’’

section of the environmental 

assessment, APHIS is reviewing two 

requests to move MSW from Honolulu, 

HI, to the State of Washington under 

compliance agreements. APHIS must 

complete an environmental assessment 

to evaluate the potential impact on the 

human environment prior to the 

issuance of these compliance 

agreements. The purpose of this review 

is to determine whether the transport of 

Hawaiian MSW under compliance 

agreements would result in a significant 

impact on the human environment. 

One commenter asked what measures 

would be taken to ensure that 

unacceptable waste would be segregated 

from baled waste. APHIS recommends a 

series of mitigations in the pest risk 

assessment that would ensure that MSW 

is separated from prohibited materials 

and processed and shipped in a way 

that would prevent the introduction and 

dissemination of plant pests. Any 

companies interested in processing and 

shipping MSW from Hawaii to the 

mainland would have to enter into a 

compliance agreement with APHIS and 

the compliance agreement would spell 

out all required safeguards. If any 

company failed to observe the 

conditions of the compliance agreement, 

that company would no longer be 

permitted to process and ship MSW. 

Finally, one commenter stated that 

APHIS should not approve the 

proposals to ship plastic-baled MSW 

from Hawaii to the State of Washington. 

The commenter stated that any 

decisions regarding the disposition of a 

community’s MSW should be left to the 

local government. To clarify, the pest 

risk assessment and the environmental 

assessment were conducted in order to 

determine if the movement of MSW 

from Hawaii to the mainland of the 

United States would present any risk of 

introduction and dissemination of plant 

pests or animal diseases or if that action 

would have any negative impacts on the 

environments. APHIS is satisfied with 

the conclusions of those assessments. 

Additionally, APHIS will enter into 

compliance agreements with companies 

that wish to move MSW from Hawaii to 

the mainland United States to ensure 

that the mitigations and protocols 

described in our assessments are being 

followed. It is entirely up to the local 

jurisdiction as to whether or not the 

community will avail itself of this 

potential disposal option for its MSW. 

The site-specific pest risk assessment 

and environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact may be 

viewed on the Regulations.gov Web 

site.1 Copies of the pest risk assessment 

and environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact are also 

available for public inspection at USDA, 

room 1141, South Building, 14th Street 

and Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except holidays. Persons wishing to 

inspect copies are requested to call 

ahead on (202) 690–2817 to facilitate 

entry into the reading room. In addition, 

copies may be obtained by writing to the 

individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

The environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact have 

been prepared in accordance with: (1) 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the 

Council on Environmental Quality for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) 

USDA regulations implementing NEPA 

(7 CFR part 1), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 

372). 

Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of 

December 2006. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E6–22267 Filed 12–27–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Caribou-Targhee National Forest, ID, 

WY and UT, Caribou Oil and Gas 

Leasing EIS 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA and 

Bureau of Land Management, USDI. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: The Caribou-Targhee National 

Forest gives notice of the intent to 

prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) to document the 

analysis and disclose the anticipated 

environmental and human effects of oil 

and gas leasing on the Caribou 

administrative unit of the Forest and the 

Curlew National Grassland in southeast 

Idaho, with minor amounts of land in 

northern Utah and western Wyoming. 

The Federal Onshore Oil and Gas 

Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (FOOGLRA) 

requires the Forest Service to evaluate 

National Forest System (NFS) lands for 

potential oil and gas leasing. As the 

agency responsible for lease issuance 

and administration, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) will participate as a 

cooperating agency. 

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis should be received 

within 45 days from the date of this 

notice to be most helpful. The draft 

environmental impact statement is 

expected by November, 2007 and 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 final 

environmental impact statement is 

expected in April, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Steve Robison, Oil and Gas Team 

Leader, Caribou-Targhee National 

Forest, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho 

Falls, ID 83401. Electronic comments 

can be submitted in rich text format 

(.rtf), or Word (.doc) to commentsintermtn-caribou-targhee@fs.fed.us. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lynn Ballard, Public Affairs Officer, 

Caribou-Targhee National Forest, 1405 

Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, ID 83401; 

phone (208) 557–5765. For technical 

information contact: Steve Robison, Oil 

and Gas Team Leader, (208) 557–5799. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Action 

FOOGLRA requires the Forest Service 

to evaluate National Forest System 

(NFS) lands that are legally open to 

leasing for potential oil and gas leasing 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 249 / Thursday, December 28, 2006 / Notices 78131 

and development, in accordance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969. FOOGLRA also establishes 

Forest Service consent authority for 

leasing prior to the BLM offering NFS 

lands for lease. Leasing on NFS lands is 

done under the authority of the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), as amended, 

and implementing regulations at 36 CFR 

228, subpart E, and 43 CFR 3100. The 

MLA provides that all public lands are 

open to oil and gas leasing unless they 

have been closed by a specific land 

order. The Caribou administrative unit 

portion of the Caribou-Targhee NF and 

the Curlew National Grassland (herein 

referred to as ‘‘the Caribou’’) do not 

have Land and Resource Management 

Plan direction or decisions that 

determine which NFS lands are 

administratively available for oil/gas 

leasing or the conditions (stipulations) 

necessary to lease those specific lands. 

Since the FOOGLRA was signed into 

law, there has been little industry 

interest in oil and gas leasing on the 

Caribou, and no leases have been issued 

in the past 15 years. The BLM Idaho 

State Office has received Expressions of 

Interest for leasing portions of the 

Caribou for oil/gas. 

The intent of the applicable laws and 

regulations (see summary) is to lease 

appropriate NFS lands and provide a 

reasonable opportunity to explore for, 

discover, and produce economic oil and 

gas reserves from available Federal 

lands, while meeting the requirements 

of environmental laws and protecting 

surface resources and interests not 

compatible with such activities. 

Proposed Action 

The Forest Service and BLM propose 

to conduct the analysis and decide 

which NFS lands on the Caribou will be 

made available for oil and gas leasing 

and under what terms and conditions 

(stipulations) these specific lands may 

be leased. As part of the analysis, the 

Forest Service will identify those areas 

that would be administratively available 

for leasing subject to the terms and 

conditions of the standard oil and gas 

lease form, and subject to constraints 

that would require the use of lease 

stipulations such as limiting surface 

use, timing restrictions, and/or 

prohibiting surface occupancy in 

accordance with the Caribou Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Caribou 

Plan, revised 2003) and the Curlew 

National Grassland Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Curlew Plan, 2002). 

To comply with the 2001 Roadless 

Area Conservation Rule, no road 

construction or reconstruction would be 

allowed in Inventoried Roadless Areas 

(see attached Inventoried Roadless Area 

map for a delineation of the IRAs on the 

Caribou). Leasing will be considered in 

some Roadless areas with no surface 

occupancy stipulations. The analysis 

will also: (1) Identify alternatives to the 

proposed action; (2) project the type/ 

amount of post-leasing activity that is 

reasonably foreseeable; and (3) analyze 

the reasonable foreseeable impacts of 

projected post-leasing activity [36 CFR 

228.102(c)]. 

Possible Alternatives 

All alternatives studied in detail must 

fall within the scope of the purpose and 

need for action and will generally tier to 

and comply with the Caribou and 

Curlew Plans. Law requires the 

evaluation of a ‘‘no action alternative’’. 

Under the No Action/No Lease 

alternative, no NFS lands on the 

Caribou would be made available for 

oil/gas leasing at this time. 

The other identified preliminary 

alternative would allow leasing on some 

NFS lands consistent with the Caribou 

and Curlew Plans. This alternative 

would be similar to the proposed action 

but would consider road construction or 

reconstruction in some of the 

inventoried roadless areas in the event 

of a future change in inventoried 

roadless area direction. Other 

alternatives which would involve 

making some lands unavailable for 

leasing and other lands available for 

leasing with lease stipulations for the 

protection of surface resources and 

other interests may be developed based 

on public input. 

Lead and Cooperating Agencies 

The Forest Service is the Lead 

Agency. The Bureau of Land 

Management will participate as a 

Cooperating Agency. 

Responsible Official 

Larry Timchak, Forest Supervisor, 

Caribou -Targhee National Forest, 1405 

Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, ID 83401. 

Idaho State Director, Bureau of Land 

Management, 1387 South Vinnell Way, 

Boise, ID 83709. 

Wyoming State Director, Bureau of 

Land Management, P.O. Box 1828, 

Cheyenne, WY 82003. 

Utah State Director, Bureau of Land 

Management, P.O. Box 45155, Salt Lake 

City, UT 84101. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The Forest Supervisor, CaribouTarghee National Forest, will decide 

which lands on the Caribou will be 

administratively available for oil and 

gas leasing, along with the associated 

conditions or constraints for the 

protection of non-mineral resources and 

interests [36 CFR 228.102(d)]. The 

Forest Supervisor will also authorize the 

BLM to offer specific lands for lease, 

subject to Forest Service identified 

stipulations that will be attached to the 

lease [36 CFR 228.102(e)]. The Forest 

Supervisor will amend, if necessary, the 

Caribou and Curlew Land and Resource 

Management Plans. 

The BLM is responsible for issuing 

and administering oil and gas leases 

under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 

as amended, and Federal regulations at 

43 CFR 3101.7. The BLM State Director 

(Idaho, Utah, and/or Wyoming) will 

decide whether or not to offer for lease 

specific lands, in their respective states, 

that have been authorized by the 

Caribou-Targhee Forest Supervisor for 

leasing with the Forest Service 

designated stipulations. 

Scoping Process 

The first formal opportunity to 

comment on the Caribou Oil and Gas 

Leasing analysis project is during the 

scoping process [40 CFR 1501.7] which 

begins with the issuance of this Notice 

of Intent. 

Mail comments to: Steve Robison, Oil 

and Gas Team Leader, 1405 Hollipark 

Dr., Idaho Falls, ID 83401. 

The Forest Service requests comments 

on the nature and scope of the 

environmental, social, and economic 

issues, and possible alternatives related 

to oil and gas leasing on the Caribou 

administrative unit of the CaribouTarghee National Forest and the Curlew 

National Grassland. 

A series of public meetings are 

scheduled to describe the proposal and 

to provide an opportunity for public 

input. Four scoping meetings are 

planned as follows: 

January 16: 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., Tribal 

Business Center, Pima Dr., Fort Hall, ID. 

January 16: 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Westside 

Ranger District Office, 4350 Cliffs Dr., 

Pocatello, ID. 

January 18: 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., Soda 

Springs Ranger District Office, 410 E. 

Hooper Ave., Soda Springs, ID. 

January 18: 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., 

Montpelier Ranger District Office, 322 

N. 4th, Montpelier, ID. 

Written comments will be accepted at 

these meetings. The Forest Service will 

work with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribal 

government to address issues that could 

significantly or uniquely affect them. 

The project will be listed in the 

Caribou-Targhee NF Quarterly Schedule 

of Proposed Actions and a scoping letter 

will be sent to local tribal interests, 

interested agencies, organizations, 

media-contacts and the Forest-wide 

mailing list. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
78132 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 249 / Thursday, December 28, 2006 / Notices 

Preliminary Issues 

Important goals for the project are to 

meet the legal requirements for 

evaluating National Forest System (NFS) 

lands and make the required decisions. 

Preliminary issues are anticipated to 

involve potential effects to wildlife, 

biological diversity (Management 

Indicator Species), water, soil resources, 

social and economic settings, cultural 

and paleontological resources, 

inventoried roadless area 

characteristics, visual resources, 

traditional cultural properties 

(including plant and mineral gathering 

areas and sacred sites), forest 

transportation system, noxious weeds, 

and air quality. Specific issues will be 

developed through review of public 

comments and internal review. 

Comment Requested 

This notice of intent initiates the 

scoping process which guides the 

development of the environmental 

impact statement. Specific comments or 

concerns are the most important types 

of information needed for this EIS. Only 

public comments which address 

relevant issues and concerns will be 

considered and formally addressed in 

an appendix to the EIS. 

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, 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. 

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: December 20, 2006. 

Lawrence A. Timchak, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 06–9906 Filed 12–27–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Kaibab National Forest; Arizona; Warm 

Fire Recovery Project 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: This project would address 

part of the overall restoration needs for 

the approximately 40,000 acres that 

burned in June through July 2006 in the 

fire suppression area of the Warm Fire. 

Specifically, this proposal includes 

salvage of approximately 84.5 million 

board feet (MMBF) (168,987 hundred 

cubic feet) of fire killed timber on 

approximately 9,990 acres and 

reforestation through planting conifers 

on approximately 14,690 acres, while 

allowing approximately 4,050 acres to 

naturally reforest with quaking aspen. 

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be received by 

January 26, 2007. The draft environment 

impact statement is expected May 2007 

and the final environmental impact 

statement is expected September 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

District Ranger, North Kaibab Ranger 

District, Kaibab National Forest, P.O. 

Box 248, 430 S. Main Street, Fredonia, 

AZ 86022, or fax: 928–643–8105. 

Comments may be submitted by e-mail 

in word (.doc), rich text format (.rtf), 

text (.txt), or hypertext markup language 

(.html) to: 

mailroom_r3_kaibab@fs.fed.us, please 

include ‘‘Warm Fire, Attn: Scott 

Clemans’’ in the subject line. Oral 

comments may the provided to 

Interdisciplinary Team Leader Lois 

Pfeffer by telephone (559) 359–7023 or 

(307) 754–8197. 

Please call her to set up a time for 

your oral comments. Comments may 

also be hand delivered weekdays 8 a.m. 

until 4:30 p.m. at the above address. To 

be eligible for appeal, each individual or 

representative from each organization 

submitting comments must either sign 

the comments or verify their identity 

upon request. 

For further information, mail 

correspondence to Lois Pfeffer, 

Environmental Coordinator, TEAMS 

Planning, 145 East 2nd Street, Powell, 

WY 82435, (550) 359–7023 or Scott 

Clemans, Kaibab National Forest, North 

Kaibab Ranger District, P.O. Box 248, 

430 S. Main Street, Fredonia, AZ 86022 

(928) 643–8172. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois 

Pfeffer or Scott Clemans (see ADDRESSES

above). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction: The Warm Fire was 

started by lightning on June 8 and was 

managed as a ‘‘wildland fire use’’ fire 

for approximately 21⁄2 weeks. On June 

25, fire management transitioned from a 

wildland fire use to a suppression 

strategy after winds pushed the fire 

south outside the Maximum Manageable 

Area, burning over 39,000 acres. On July 

1, 2006 a Burned Area Emergency 

Response (BAER) team wa assembled to 

conduct a soil and hydrologic 

assessment and initiate rehabilitation to 

minimize the loss of soil productivity, 

downstream water quality, and threats 

to human life and property. 

Rehabilitation of fire lines, repair of 

storm damaged roads, and aerial seeding 

of the high intensity burned areas 

occurred under the BAER plan. On 

August 1, 2006 an interdisciplinary 

post-fire assessment team was 

assembled to assess the status of the 

resources, identify recovery needs, and 

recommend a program of recovery work 

(beyond BAER). The assessment team 

identified the levels of tree mortality 

across the wildfire area. The final 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES