[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24098-24099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11813]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Idaho Panhandle/Kootenai/Lolo National Forests Grizzly Bear 
Forest Plan Amendment; Idaho Panhandle, Kootenai and Lolo National 
Forests; Lincoln and Sanders Counties, MT; Boundary and Bonner 
Counties; Idaho; and Pend Oreille County, WA

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare environmental impact statement to 
amend land and resource management plans for the Idaho Panhandle, 
Kootenai, and Lolo National Forests.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Supervisors of the Idaho Panhandle, Kootenai and 
Lolo National Forests give notice of the agency's intent to prepare an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) in conjunction with the 
establishment of new management direction for the grizzly bear within 
the Selkirk and Cabinet/Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones. The Forest 
Service has identified the need to update management direction, based 
on new information regarding grizzly bear biology.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be 
postmarked by June 11, 2001. The agency expects to file a draft EIS 
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and make it available 
for public, agency, and tribal government comment in the summer of 
2001. A final EIS is expected to be filed in February 2002.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Bob Castaneda, Forest Supervisor, 
Kootenai National Forest, 1101 US Hwy 2 West, Libby, MT 59923.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Carlin, Grizzly Bear Plan 
Amendment Interdisciplinary Team Leader (406) 882-4451.
    Responsible Officials: Pat Aguilar, Idaho Panhandle National 
Forests--Acting Forest Supervisor; Bob Castaneda, Kootenai National 
Forests--Forest Supervisor; and Deborah Austin, Lolo National Forest--
Forest Supervisor.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1998, the Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak grizzly 
Bear Subcommittee recommended new access management direction to aid in 
the recovery of the threatened grizzly bear within the Selkirk/Cabinet-
Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones. This direction was titled the 
``Interim Access Management Strategy''. Additional information was 
provided in an ``Interim Access Management Rule Set.'' This new 
direction is based on new information regarding grizzly bear habitat 
needs, including the need for core security areas. The purpose for the 
amendment is to update Forest Plan management direction to respond to 
the recommendations and new information presented by the Selkirk/
Cabinet Yaak Grizzly Bear Subcommittee.

Proposed Action

    The Forest Supervisors are proposing to amend their respective 
Forest Plans regarding Forest Plan standards and monitoring 
requirements that respond to the recommendations of the Interim Access 
Management Strategy and Interim Access Management Rule Set. The 
decision to be made is whether to adopt the proposed action as 
designed, with different requirements, or not at all.
    This amendment would result in a new appendix to the Idaho 
Panhandle and Lolo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans 
(Forest Plans). It will be an addendum to the Kootenai National Forest, 
Forest Plan, Appendix 8.
    The Interim Access Management Strategy and Interim Access 
Management Rule Set comprise a set of access related guidelines 
developed over the past few years by the Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak 
Subcommittee of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). The 
guidelines address the following access management parameters: (1) 
Habitat security, (2) core area, (3) trial use of access related to 
habitat quality/season, (4) motorized access route density, (5) 
monitoring, and (6) coordination with state wildlife agencies. The Rule 
Set also clearly discloses definitions of terminology related to each 
specific parameter. The complete text of these two documents is 
available on the IGBC internet website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/wildlife/igbc/scy/main.htm. Copies may also be requested by contacting 
Rob Carlin, ID Team Leader, at 406-882-4451.

Preliminary Issues and Alternatives

    Some preliminary issues have already been identified and are listed 
below. These issues apply only to National Forest System lands on the 
units listed previously in this notice.
    The interim access management strategy and rule set may affect the 
ability to use roads and trails, the construction of roads and trails, 
and the closure and decommissioning of roads and trails. This 
potentially influences activities such as timber harvest, recreation 
use, administrative management activities, and other uses associated 
with Forest Service roads and trails.
    The interim access management strategy and rule set did not 
recommend standards for total and open motorized route density. 
Therefore, some people are concerned that the strategy and rule set do 
not fully address the habitat needs of grizzly bears.

Public Involvement

    The first public participation efforts involving the Interim Access 
Management Strategy and Rule Set began in the spring and summer of 1997 
with a series of seven workshops held throughout Washington, Idaho, and 
Montana. Nearly 300 individuals either sent letters or asked to be 
placed on the project mailing list. The key public concerns identified 
at the workshops were: (1) The need to consider habitat needs in 
relation to timing of road access restrictions; (2) the need to 
consider hunting regulations and law enforcement; and (3) the need to 
consider access options to provide the public a reasonable level of 
access to the National Forests.
    The Forest Supervisors are giving notice that the Idaho Panhandle, 
Kootenai, and Lolo National Forests are beginning an environmental 
analysis and decision-making process for this proposed action so that 
interested or affected people can participate in the analysis and 
contribute to the final decision. The Forest Service is seeking 
comments from individuals, organizations, tribal governments, and 
Federal, State, and local agencies that are interested or may be 
affected by the proposed action. The public is invited

[[Page 24099]]

to help identify issues that define the range of alternatives to be 
considered in the environmental impact statement. The range of 
alternatives considered in the DEIS will be based on the issues and 
specific decisions to be made. Written comments identifying issues for 
analysis and the range of alternatives are encouraged.

Estimated Dates for Filing

    The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the EPA and to be 
available for public review in the summer of 2001. The comment period 
on the draft environmental impact statement will be 90 days from the 
date the EPA publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal 
Register.
    The final EIS is scheduled to be completed by February 2002. In the 
final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to comments 
received during the comment period that pertain to the environmental 
consequences discussed in the draft EIS and applicable laws, 
regulations, and policies considered in making a decision regarding the 
proposal.

The Reviewer's Obligation To Comment

    The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers 
notice at this early stage 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 [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 90-day comment period 
so that substantive comments and objects 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 Natural Environmental Policy Act at 40 
CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

    Dated: April 24, 2001.
Bob Castaneda,
Forest Supervisor--Kootenai National Forest.
[FR Doc. 01-11813 Filed 5-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M