Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Notices 25197 

to the Agency’s preparation of the EIS. 

Therefore, comments should be 

provided prior to the close of the 

comment period and should clearly 

articulate the reviewer’s concerns and 

contentions. The submission of timely 

and specific comments can affect a 

reviewer’s ability to participate in 

subsequent administrative review or 

judicial review. 

Comments received in response to 

this solicitation, including names and 

addresses of those who comment, will 

be part of the public record for this 

proposed action and will be available 

for public inspection. (Authority: 40 

CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.15, Section 21). 

Comments submitted anonymously will 

be accepted and considered; however, 

those who submit anonymous 

comments will not have standing to 

appeal the subsequent decision under 

36 CFR parts 215 or 217. Additionally, 

pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person 

may request that the agency withhold a 

submission from the public record by 

showing how the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) permits such 

confidentiality. Requesters should be 

aware that, under 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 7 days. 

To assist the Forest Service in 

identifying and considering issues and 

concerns of the proposed action, 

comments during scoping and 

comments on the Draft EIS should be as 

specific as possible. It is also helpful if 

comments refer to specific pages or 

chapters of the Draft EIS. Comments 

may also address the adequacy of the 

Draft EIS or the merits of the 

alternatives formulated and discussed in 

the document. 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. 

Responsible Official: Forrest Cole, 

Forest Supervisor, Tongass National 

Forest, Federal Building, Ketchikan, 

Alaska 99901. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made: The 

Forest Supervisor is the Responsible 

Official for this action and will decide 

whether or not to permit the 

construction of the proposed electric 

transmission line across NFS lands, 

along with the alternative route that will 

be followed, as well as mitigation 

measures and/or monitoring, as 

appropriate. The decision will be based 

on the information that is disclosed in 

the EIS. The responsible official will 

consider comments, responses, the 

disclosure of environmental 

consequences, and applicable laws, 

regulations, and policies in making the 

decision and will state that rationale in 

the Record of Decision. 

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 

21) 

Dated: April 29, 2010. 

Forrest Cole, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10702 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Shasta Trinity National Forest, South 

Fork Management Unit, California Salt 

Timber Harvest and Fuels Hazard 

Reduction Project 

AGENCY: USDA Forest Service. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a 

supplemental environmental impact 

statement. 

SUMMARY: This notice revises the 

previous notice of intent, published on 

March 26, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 59, pages 

15966 through 15968, to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

Salt Timber Harvest and Fuels 

Reduction Project (Salt Project). A 

supplemental environmental impact 

statement will be prepared for the Salt 

Project to supplement wildlife 

management indicator assemblage 

analysis. This notice and supplement 

pertains only to the wildlife 

management indicator assemblage 

analysis for the Salt Project. 

DATES: The draft supplemental 

environmental impact statement is 

expected July 2010, there will be a 

public comment period on the draft and 

then the final supplemental 

environmental impact statement is 

expected May 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bobbie DiMonte Miller, Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest, 3644 Avtech Parkway, 

Redding, CA 96002; telephone (530) 

226–2425, e-mail 

bdimontemiller@fs.fed.us. Individuals 

who use telecommunication devices for 

the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– 

800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 

p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through 

Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forest 

Service is proposing to prepare a 

supplement to the final environmental 

impact statement for the Salt Project in 

accordance with FSH 1909.15, Chapter 

10, Section 18.1 and Section 18.2. 

J. Sharon Heywood, Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest Supervisor, signed a 

Record of Decision on October 20, 2009, 

based on the Salt Project Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 

On December 21, 2009, Denise Boggs 

filed a notice of appeal on behalf of 

Conservation Congress, Citizens for 

Better Forestry, Environmental 

Protection Information Center and 

Kiamath Forest Alliance. On February 5, 

2010, Appeal Reviewing Officer (ARO) 

Tern Marceron, Forest Supervisor at 

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, 

recommended that the Forest 

Supervisor’s decision be affirmed on all 

issues with the exception of wildlife 

management indicator assemblage 

analysis. The ARO determined that the 

Salt Project FEIS did not document the 

effects of project alternatives on key 

habitat components consistent with the 

Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan. The Appeal 

Deciding Officer agreed with the ARO’s 

analysis. This notice pertains only to the 

supplement of management indicator 

assemblage effects information and 

analyses. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

Because the supplement will only 

address the additional wildlife 

management indicator assemblage 

information and analyses, the purpose 

and need for action remains the same as 

described in the October 2009 Salt 

Project FEIS, Chapter 1, pages 3 through 

16. 

Proposed Action 

The proposed action is the same as 

described in Chapter 1 of the October 

2009 Salt Project FEIS (Chapter 1, pages 

16 & 17). That document is available on 

the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Web 

site at www.fs.usda.gov/stnf. Under 

Highlights click on Ongoing NEPA 

projects. 

Responsible Official 

J. Sharon Heywood, Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest Supervisor, 3644 Avtech 

Parkway, Redding, CA 96002. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The Responsible Official will review 

the supplemental information and 

determine what, if any, modifications 

should be made to the October 20, 2009, 

decision. A new decision will be issued. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
25198 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Notices 

Scoping Process 

Scoping is not required for 

supplements to environmental impact 

statements (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4). A 

history of scoping and public 

involvement to date, starting in 2006, is 

detailed in Chapter 1 of the October 

2009 Salt Project FEIS (Chapter 1, pages 

17–18). 

Dated: April 28, 2010. 

Scott G. Armentrout, 

Deputy Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10471 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Intermountain Region, Boise National 

Forest, Emmett Ranger District; Idaho 

Scriver Creek Integrated Restoration 

Project 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: The Emmett Ranger District of 

the Boise National Forest will prepare 

an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) for the integrated restoration 

project in the Scriver Creek 

subwatershed. The 11,500-acre project 

is located approximately 6 miles north 

of Crouch, Idaho. The Scriver Creek 

Integrated Restoration Project proposes 

to undertake vegetation condition 

restoration, improve watershed 

conditions, and utilize wood products 

resulting from restoration activities to 

support local and regional communities 

through a variety of activities including 

commercial and noncommercial 

vegetation management and road system 

modifications and maintenance. 

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be received by June 

7, 2010. The draft environmental impact 

statement is expected February 2011 

and the final environmental impact 

statement is expected June 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

1805 Highway 16, Room 5, Emmett, ID 

83617. Comments may also be sent via 

e-mail to comments-intermtn-boiseemmett@fs.fed.us, or via facsimile to 

208–365–7307. 

It is important that reviewers provide 

their comments at such times and in 

such a way that they are useful to the 

Agency’s preparation of the EIS. 

Therefore, comments should be 

provided prior to the close of the 

comment period and should clearly 

articulate the reviewer’s concerns and 

contentions. 

Comments received in response to 

this solicitation, including names and 

addresses of those who comment, will 

be part of the public record for this 

proposed action. Comments submitted 

anonymously will be accepted and 

considered, however. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann 

Roseberry, Project Team Leader, 208– 

365–7000. Individuals who use 

telecommunication devices for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern 

Time, Monday through Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Action 

Three purposes have been identified 

for the project: (1) Move toward 

restoration of Forest Plan desired 

vegetation conditions by manipulating 

the forest structure, density, and species 

composition in order to accelerate 

development of larger tree size class 

stands and old forest habitat; (2) 

improve watershed conditions and 

reduce road-related impacts to wildlife, 

fish, soil, and water resources; and (3) 

utilize wood products resulting from 

restoration treatments to support local 

and regional economies. 

Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would 

undertake commercial timber harvest on 

about 3,265 acres utilizing tractor/offroad jammer (1,124 acres), skyline (926 

acres), and helicopter (1,215 acres) 

logging systems. In addition, all acres 

treated by commercial timber activities 

(about 3,265 acres) would be followed 

by thinning of submerchantable trees. 

About 839 acres of existing plantations 

would be thinned from below of small 

diameter (typically less than 8 inches 

diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). Of 

these acres, approximately 163 acres of 

these thinning activities would occur 

within riparian conservation areas 

(RCAs). About 18 helicopter landing 

would be used or developed to facility 

commercial timber harvest activities. 

Approximately 21.5 million board feet 

(MMBF) would be provided as sawlogs 

to local and/or regional processing 

facilities. 

The Proposed Action would construct 

about 2.4 miles of new specified 

National Forest System (NFS) roads and 

1.0 mile of temporary road. About 4.3 

miles of road realignment on NFS road 

696 would occur to provide long-term 

accress and eliminate segements of the 

road within RCA corridors. 

Approximately 18.5 miles of NFS roads 

would be decommissioned. Roadway 

improvements, such as spot surface 

aggregate placement and drainage 

improvements, would be undertaken on 

NFS roads (in particular RCA roads) 

where needed. Aquatic organism 

passage (AOP), i.e., fish passage, would 

be restored by replacing the existing 

culverts on NFS roads 693, 693A and 

695 with AOP passable structures. 

Application of up to 300 feet of surface 

gravel applied to both sides of road/ 

stream crossings when located on 

perennial streams, for all NFS roads to 

be used for timber harvest activities 

(except for NFS roads proposed to be 

decommissioned). 

Possible Alternatives 

The only other alternative identified 

at this time is the ‘‘No Action’’ 

alternative. 

Responsible Official 

Boise National Forest Supervisor, 

Cecilia R. Seesholtz. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The Boise National Forest Supervisor 

will decide the following: (1) Should 

vegetation restoration activities be 

carried out within the project area at 

this time, and if so, which stands should 

be treated and what silvicultural 

systems be applied?; (2) what, if any, 

changes to the NFS road system should 

be made?; and (3) what design features, 

mitigation measures, and/or monitoring 

should be applied to the project? This 

decision will be made within the scope 

of the 2003 Boise National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan (Forest 

Plan), as anticipated to be amended later 

in 2010. 

Addresses 

Project information is available on the 

Boise National Forest Web site, http:// 

fs.usda.gov/boise (click on Scriver 

Integrated Restoration Project). 

Scoping Process 

This notice of intent initiates the 

scoping process, which guides the 

development of the environmental 

impact statement. 

It is important that reviewers provide 

their comments at such times and in 

such manner that they are useful to the 

agency’s preparation of the 

environmental impact statement. 

Therefore, comments should be 

provided prior to the close of the 

comment period and should clearly 

articulate the reviewer’s concerns and 

contentions. 

Dated: April 30, 2010. 

Cecilia R. Seesholtz, 

Forest Supervisor, Boise National Forest. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10662 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES