[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21210-21214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-10548]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Kootenai (KNF) and Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF); 
Montana, Idaho and Washington; Revised Land and Resource Management 
Plans

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 
in conjunction with revision of the Land and Resource Management Plans 
(hereafter referred to as Forest Plan or Plans) for the Kootenai and 
Idaho Panhandle National Forests (Kootenai Idaho Panhandle Zone, 
hereafter referred to as KIPZ) located in Lincoln, Sanders, and 
Flathead counties in Montana; Bonner, Boundary, Kootenai, Shoshone and 
Benewah, Latah, and Clearwater counties in Idaho; and Pend Oreille 
county in Washington.

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

SUMMARY: The USDA--Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement in conjunction with the revision of Land and Resource 
Management Plans for the KIPZ. This notice describes the initial 
revision topics and issues with the current Forest Plans, estimated 
dates for filing the environmental impact statement, information 
concerning public participation, and the names and addresses of the 
agency officials who can provide additional information.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
in writing by December 1, 2002. The draft environmental impact 
statement is expected by December 2003 and the final environmental 
impact statement is expected by April 2005.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments and suggestions to Forest Supervisor, 
c/o Forest Plan Revision, Kootenai National Forest, 1101 W Hwy 2, 
Libby, MT 59923.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Krueger at (406) 293-6211 or Gary 
Ford at (208) 765-7478.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Plan revisions are warranted in light of the combined effects of 
multiple needs for change. The preliminary revision issues have been 
developed from discussions with Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle National 
Forests employees, our Monitoring and Evaluation Reports, current 
science and assessments, and our daily contact with our public. The 
preliminary issues have been divided into two categories:
    Revision Topics--This category includes topics for which resource 
conditions, technical knowledge, or public perception of resource 
management have created a ``need for change'' in the Forest Plans. 
These topics generally would be significant amendments because their 
resolution could result in changes to management direction over large 
areas of the Forests, changes in the mix of goods and services that the 
Forests provide, and changes to other decisions made in the Forest 
Plans. They involve choices in management direction where there is no 
clear public consensus on the best course of action.
    Other Revision Items--A number of items were identified that need 
to be addressed in the Forest Plans, but do not meet the above criteria 
for Revision Topics. In general, these items represent inadequate or 
out-of-date Forest Plan direction and addressing these items would not 
require a significant amendment to the Forest Plans. There appears to 
be general consensus on how to resolve the issue by rewriting and 
updating the Forest Plans Standards and Guidelines during Forest Plan 
Revision. Following are the Revision Topics/Preliminary Issues that 
have been identified to date:

I. Revision Topics

    National Forest System lands are capable of contributing essential 
elements in managing for sustainability. Sustainability is widely 
recognized as the overarching objective of land and resource 
management. Sustainability in land management has three components: 
ecological, economic, and social. These different components of 
sustainability are interrelated. The sustainability of ecological 
systems is a necessary prerequisite for strong, productive economies 
and enduring human communities. At the same time, we compromise human 
welfare if we fail to sustain vital, functioning ecological systems. In 
addition, strong economies and communities are often a prerequisite to 
societies possessing the will and patience needed to sustain ecological 
systems.
    The revision topics have been developed around the ecological, 
economic, and social components of sustainability. The planning 
questions for each revision topic provide information that further 
defines the topic and how we intend to address it in plan revision.

Ecological Components of Sustainability

    Ecological sustainability is defined as: ``The ability to maintain 
diversity, productivity, resilience to stress, health, and yields of 
desired values, resource uses, products, or services over time in an 
ecosystem while maintaining its integrity.'' (cited from Sustaining 
Ecosystems: A Conceptual Approach, USDA Forest Service, Pacific 
Southwest Research Station, R5-EM-TP-001, p. 212).

Topic 1--Terrestrial

    Forest plan monitoring, geographic area assessments, the Northern 
Region Overview, and the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem 
Management Project have identified problems in maintaining terrestrial 
sustainability on our national forest lands. Examples of findings in 
these assessments indicate we are lacking in early seral tree species 
and have an increasing amount of shade-tolerant, fire intolerant, and 
insect and disease prone tree species dominating the landscape. Decades 
of fire suppression have resulted in higher fuel loading and landscapes 
that may pose risk to terrestrial sustainability. There is a reduction 
in large snags on portions of the landscape. Past timber harvest has 
resulted in a decrease in interior habitat in late successional stands.
Planning Question #1
    What structure, composition, and function of vegetation components 
are needed to contribute to long-term terrestrial sustainability?
Planning Question #2
    What species are at risk and which are not and what strategies are 
needed to contribute to sustaining all native and desired non-native 
species?

[[Page 21211]]

Proposed Actions

    Based on monitoring results, preliminary analyses, and public 
input, the following actions may be proposed in one or more EIS 
alternative:
     Define the desired conditions for contribution of national 
forest system lands to terrestrial ecosystem sustainability for 
appropriate temporal and spatial scales.
     Base management practices on understanding and 
consideration of natural disturbance processes, including the 
intensity, frequency, and magnitude of those disturbance regimes.
     Develop a strategy for aggressively treating noxious weed 
populations through various means, including mechanical, biological and 
chemical control.
     Develop a monitoring strategy that will measure 
appropriate indicators of ecological sustainability at multiple scales, 
and will serve to facilitate adaptive management.

Topic 2--Aquatic

    Forest Plan monitoring, geographic area assessments, the Northern 
Region Overview, and Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management 
Project have identified problems with the hydrologic condition of many 
of our watersheds and aquatic life in our national forest lands. 
Approximately 165 stream segments or water bodies have been listed by 
the States as impaired water quality under section 303(d) of the Clean 
Water Act. Landscape assessments have found that approximately 20 
percent of our wastersheds are ``not properly functioning,'' and 30-50 
percent may be ``functioning at risk.'' In recent years under the 
Endangered Species Act, two fish species have been listed as 
``threatened'' or ``endangered,'' and three additional species are 
being studies for possible future listing.
Planning Question #1
    What are the conditions and trends of the Forests' watersheds, 
riparian areas, and aquatic biota? How well do the aquatic systems' 
condition, status and trend contribute to aquatic sustainability?
Planning Question #2
    What management strategies are needed to effectively contribute to 
the maintance or restoration of aquatic sustainability?

Proposed Actions

    Based on monitoring results, preliminary analyses, and public 
input, the following actions may be proposed in one or more EIS 
alternative:
     Provide strategies that maintain the conditions and water 
quality of watersheds that are ``properly functioning'' and are fully 
supporting beneficial uses.
     Provide strageties that will restore watershed conditions 
and water quality in ``not properly functioning,'' and ``functioning-at 
risk'' watersheds adequately to fully support beneficial uses.
     Facilitate Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation 
plans and schedules coordinated with the States' restoration priorities 
in watersheds that contain water quality limited (303d) segments and 
waterbodies.
     Develop strategies that will protect, and where feasible, 
recover native aquatic and riparian dependent species and prevent the 
introduction and spread of undesirable non-native aquatic species.
     Develop strategies that will restore aquatic resources, 
including water quality, watershed systems, streams, lakes and other 
water bodies, wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains.
     Prioritize watershed systems for restoration by designing 
and applying effective Best Management Practices and watershed-scale 
restoration projects cooperatively with States, Tribes, adjacent land 
interests, and the public.

Topic 3--Soil Productivity

    The inherent capability of soil to support vegetative growth is 
central to forest management and is rooted in our land ethic and 
resource laws. Soil physical and chemical status, within acceptable 
ranges, is an indicator of maintaining or improving soil productivity. 
Some soil nutrients are derived from parent materials (geological 
types); others from organic debris (woody or vegetative materials), 
wind or water deposits, climate and other factors.
    Management practices, such as logging or prescribed fire, may 
disturb the natural balance of soil nutrients and physical condition, 
and, particularly with potassium-limited soils, contribute to 
regeneration problems, slowing growth, and thereby increasing 
susceptibility to insects and disease. Current research by the 
Intermountain Forest Tree Nutrition Cooperative is showing that 
potassium is inherently very low within portions of the Precambrian 
meta-sedimentary rocks known as the Belt Super-group. Approximately 80% 
of the KIPZ is located on this Belt Super-group formation. This 
research indicates that 20-30% of this area may be inherently deficient 
in potassium. Limited potassium nutrition has been shown to 
significantly affect Douglas-fir root biochemistry, making these trees 
much more susceptible to insects and disease.
    Other key soil elements that address sustainability of forest soil 
productivity are detrimental disturbances (compaction, displacement, 
erosion, and severe burns) and nutrient cycling (residual organics 
debris). These elements are adequately addressed in the current Forest 
Plans, FSH direction and best management practices, and will not be 
part of the plan revision topics.
Planning Question #1
    Does the soil nutrient conditions, and trends support long-term 
soil productivity on nutrient limited (i.e., potassium-limited) sites?
Proposed Actions
    Based on monitoring results, preliminary analyses, and public 
input, the following actions may be proposed in one or more EIS 
alternative:
     Develop criteria to maintain and restore soil productivity 
on potassium and other nutrient limited soils.

Social and Economic Components of Sustainability

    Social and economic components of sustainability include meeting 
the economic, social, aesthetic, and cultural needs and desires of 
local communities without reducing the capacity of the environment to 
provide for the needs and desires of future generations.

Topic 4--Production and Use Levels

    National Forest System lands contribute many values, services, 
outputs, and uses that allow economies and communities to persist, 
prosper, and evolve.
    Recreation, the production of wood fiber, grazing of livestock, and 
mining are important historic and current uses of the Forest. The level 
of production of these commodities and recreation uses affects the 
social and economic environment of local communities. These production 
and use levels must be sustainable in order to contribute to 
sustainable economies and communities. Monitoring indicates that wood 
fiber production levels are far below those estimated to occur in the 
current Forest Plans. Timber harvest levels for the past 13 years are 
less than 50% of those projected in the current Forest Plans. Recent 
assessments indicate that motorized and non-motorized recreation use 
has increased above levels projected in the current Forest Plans.

[[Page 21212]]

Planning Question #1
    What are the jobs, income, costs and values associated with the 
Forest production and use levels?
Planning Question #2
    How are the lifestyles, values, and beliefs of local communities 
affected?

Proposed Actions

    Based on monitoring results, preliminary analyses, and public 
input, the following actions may be proposed in one or more EIS 
alternative;
     Identify acres suitable for timber production, suitable 
for grazing, and areas to be withdrawn from mineral entry.
     Identify timber sale volume, grazing levels, mineral 
development potential, and recreation use associated with each 
alternative. Estimate the jobs and income generated by these levels of 
production and use, and their contribution to local communities.
     Identify how scenery management may be used in conjunction 
with ecosystem management objectives.
     Incorporate the social and cultural values into the 
alternative development and desired future conditions.

Topic 5--Access and Recreation

    Access to national forest lands is one of the most controversial 
elements in forest management. Since the 1987 Forest Plans were 
developed, motorized and non-motorized forms of travel have increased 
and become more diversified. The advent of mountain bikes and all-
terrain vehicles, the growing popularity of four-wheel-drive vehicles 
and snowmobiles, and increasing non-motorized uses such as hiking, 
backcountry skiing, and snowshoeing, are all competing for the same 
land base.
Planning Question #1
    What are the types, quantities, and distribution of access and 
recreation opportunities?
Planning Question #2
    What are the desired future conditions related to access and 
recreation?

Proposed Actions

    Based on monitoring results, preliminary analyses, and public 
input, the following actions may be proposed in one or more EIS 
alternative:
     Identify a road and trail transportation network that 
provides an environmentally sound and socially responsive travel 
management system.
     Specify criteria for developing access strategies by 
appropriate modes and season of use.
     The Forests may be zoned into various classifications of 
``recreation opportunity spectrum'' for summer and winter uses.

Topic 6--Fire Risk

    Decades of active fire suppression have altered some ecosystems by 
increasing fuel levels beyond an acceptable range. In addition, 
increasing numbers of people are moving from urban areas toward more 
rural near public lands. This has resulted in more homes and other 
structures being built near and around national forests. As people, 
homes, and structures increasingly occupy the wildland/urban interface 
and as hazard fuels continue to accumulate, a high risk and volatile 
situation needs to be addressed. Geographic area assessments, the 
Northern Region Overview, and Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem 
Management Project have identified an increase in fuel loading, duff 
depth, stand density, and a fuel ladder that can carry fire from the 
surface into the tree crowns. As a result, wildfire intensity has 
increased.
Planning Question #1
    Where and when will we manage fire? Where and when will we manage 
fuels to reduce risks to communities and the environment? How do we 
balance risks posed by fire and the benefits to the ecosystem that fire 
provides?
Proposed Actions
    Based on monitoring results, preliminary analyses, and public 
input, the following actions may be proposed in one or more EIS 
alternative:
     Develop fire management units (FMU's) consistent with Land 
and Resource Management Plans that identify appropriate management 
response strategies for each unit.
     Identify FMU's where wildland fire use, fire protection, 
and limited or modified wildland fire use is an appropriate tool.
     Identify lands by condition class or risk category.
     Establish monitoring and evaluation programs and measures 
in Land and Resource Management Plan revisions for restoration 
activities in fire-adapted ecosystems.

Topic 7--Inventoried Roadless Areas and Recommended Wilderness

    Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) continue to be a topic of 
interest and controversy to many people in north Idaho and northwest 
Montana. The IPNF has 47 IRAs totaling 823,000 acres. The KNF has 43 
IRAs totaling 638,000 acres. Recent efforts to resolve this issue at 
the national level have been unsuccessful, leaving the issue to be 
addressed at the local level during Forest Plan Revision. The 1982 
Planning Regulations require that we inventory, evaluate and consider 
all roadless areas for possible inclusion in the National Wilderness 
Preservation System.
Planning Question #1
    Which IRAs have potential for Wilderness? Which of the IRAs should 
be recommended for Wilderness? How should the IRAs not recommended for 
wilderness be managed?

Proposed Actions

    Based on monitoring results, preliminary analyses, and public 
input, the following actions may be proposed in one or more EIS 
alternative:
     Identify and recommend roadless areas for wilderness 
designation.
     Provide management direction for those roadless areas not 
recommended for wilderness designation.

II. Other Revision Items

    Preliminary topics discussed in this section are also important 
issues to be addressed during Plan revision. However, they are likely 
not substantial or widespread enough to be major drivers in the EIS 
alternative themes or forest-wide management area prescriptions and 
standards.

Special Areas

    The planning area includes several unique or outstanding areas and 
resources of outstanding physical, biological, or social interest. 
Collectively these are known as ``special areas.'' Potential formal 
designations of special areas may include Wilderness (see Revision 
Topic 7, above); Wild and Scenic Rivers; Research Natural Areas (RNAs); 
and Special Interest Areas (SIAs) with scenic, historical, geological, 
botanical, zoological, paleontological, archaeological, or other 
special characteristics. Research Natural Areas have been established 
on both Forests. The Plan revision will address establishment of RNAs 
and SIAs, including an assessment of the needs for additions to the RNA 
and SIA network.
Planning Questions--Special Areas
     Which rivers, or river segments, on the Forests are 
potentially eligible for addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System?
     Are there sufficient RNAs and SIAs designated within the 
Planning Zone to meet the intent of the national and regional RNA 
Program and intent of SIA objectives?
     Do designated RNA's need management plans?

[[Page 21213]]

     Do designated SIAs need reviews and objectives assigned?
     Which portions of the Forest qualify for other special 
area designations?

Heritage

    There are currently several historic properties representing the 
historic period (50-200 years ago) and the prehistoric period (8,000 to 
200 years ago) on the Forests. Many of these properties have been 
evaluated and are eligible to the National Register of Historic Place. 
Many other properties have not been evaluated. Historic properties are 
protected by law. Portions of the Forests are part of the traditional 
homeland of the Kootenai and Salish, Kalispel, Coeur d' Alene, 
Colville, Pend Oreille, Nez Perce, and Spokane Tribes. The prehistoric 
properties on the Forest are considered by the Tribes as part of their 
heritage and they attach traditional cultural significance to these 
sites.
Planning Questions--Heritage
     Should landscapes containing concentrations of cultural or 
historic resource properties that are potentially eligible for, or 
eligible to the National Register of Historic Places, receive special 
land management prescriptions?
     What kinds of cooperation are needed between the Forest 
Service, the Tribes, other agencies, and private individuals to protect 
these areas?

Lands

    Landownership adjustment is generally considered a tool to 
accomplish resources or socieconomic objectives, rather than a driving 
issue in and of itself. Plan revision offers an opportunity to develop 
agreements about desired future patterns of land ownership that could 
be achieved through exchanges or purchases. Access to public land is 
often a related concern where private land development is happening, or 
likely will occur, adjacent to the Forests.

Planning Questions--Lands

     Which areas of the Forests need strengthened programmatic 
direction to guide land ownership pattern adjustments?
     How can goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for 
lands adjustment be improved to prioritize agency action, enhance 
management efficiency, and assist local communities?

Purpose and Need for Action

    The existing Forest Plans were approved in 1987, which indicates 
it's been approximately 15 years since they were approved. Experience 
and monitoring have shown the need for changes in management direction 
for some resources or programs. Several sources have highlighted needed 
changes in the current Forest Plans. These sources include:
     Public involvement, which has identified new information 
and public values;
     Monitoring and scientific research, which have identified 
new information and knowledge gained;
     Forest plan implementation, which has identified 
management concerns to find better ways for achieving desired 
conditions; and
     Changes in laws, regulations, and policies.
    In addition, direction specific to restoration strategies are not 
in place to guide management under our current Forest Plans. Changing 
public views and changes in information and scientific understanding of 
these ecosystems has also occurred. Some new information is a product 
of research, while other information has resulted from changes in 
technology.
    Proposed Action: See specific Proposed Actions under each Revision 
Topic/Preliminary Issue in the Supplementary Information section above.
    Responsible Official: The Responsible Official is Brad Powell, 
Regional Forester, Northern Region, 200 East Broadway, PO Box 7669, 
Missoula, Montana 59807.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    Pursuant to Part 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219.10(g), 
the Regional Forester for the Northern Rockies Region gives notice of 
the agency's intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for 
the revision effort described above. The 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 Plans 
describe the intended management of National Forests. According to 36 
CFR 219.10(g), Land and Resource Management Plans are ordinarily 
revised on a 10 to 15 year cycle. Key decisions made in the Forest Plan 
for long-term management of National Forests are:
     Establishment of forest-wide multiple use goals and 
objectives, 36 CFR 219.11(b);
     Establishment of forest-wide management requirements 
(forest-wide standards and guidelines), 36 CFR 219.13-219.17;
     Establishment of management area direction, 36 CFR 219.11;
     Designation of suitable timber land and establishment of 
allowable sale quantity. Designation of land suitable for grazing and 
browsing. Identification of lands suitable and available for oil and 
gas leasing. Provision for a broad spectrum of forest and outdoor 
recreation opportunities. 36 CFR 219.14-219.16, 219.20-219.21;
     Establishment of requirements for monitoring and 
evaluating the implementation of the revised plan to meet the 
requirements of 36 CFR 219.11(d);
     Documentation that we will/will not recommend any further 
additions to the wilderness preservation system.
    A range of alternatives will be considered when revising the Forest 
Plans. The alternatives will present different options to address the 
revision topics. A reasonable range of alternatives will be evaluated 
and reasons given for eliminating some alternatives from detailed 
study. A ``no-action alternative'' is required, meaning that management 
would continue under the existing Plan. Alternatives will provide 
different ways to address and respond to public issues, management 
concerns, and resource opportunities identified during the scoping 
process. In describing alternatives, desired vegetation and resource 
conditions will be defined. Resource outputs will be estimated in the 
Forest Plan based on achieving desired conditions.

Scoping Process

    Opportunities will be provided to discuss the Forest Plan revision. 
The public is invited to help identify issues and define the range of 
alternatives to be considered in the environmental impact statement. 
Forest Service officials will lead these discussions, helping to 
describe issues and preliminary alternatives. These officials will also 
explain the environmental analysis process and the disclosures of that 
analysis, which will be available for public review. Comments 
identifying issues for analysis and the range of alternatives are 
encouraged. Issue identification (scoping) meetings will be scheduled 
for early summer through November 2002. Alternative development 
meetings will be held in the fall of 2002 and early 2003. Public notice 
of dates, times, and locations for specific meetings will be provided 
in local newspapers and posted on the Forest's web sites: http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/kootenai/ or http://www.fs./fed./us/rl/ipnf. 
Additionally, we will send notices/newsletters to those on the forest 
plan revision mailing list.

[[Page 21214]]

Requests to be placed on this mailing list should be sent to the 
comment address stated above.

Consulting and Collaborating With Tribal Governments

    The United States has a unique legal relationship with Indian 
tribal governments as set forth in the Constitution of the United 
States, treaties, statutes, Executive orders, and court decisions. In 
fulfillment of our Government-to-Government responsibilities, the 
Forest Service will be working with Tribal governments in order to 
address natural and cultural resource issues, treaty rights, and any 
issues that significantly or uniquely affect Tribes. Meaningful 
consultation will assure that tribal issues will be addressed within 
the most critical context of current and projected interests, values, 
objectives for and uses of national forest lands.

Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides 
that development of the environmental impact statement. This revision 
effort is being undertaken to develop management direction that may 
help contribute to basic agency goals of ecological, social and 
economic sustainability.
    Early public participation will identify the topics to be addressed 
during Forest Plan revision. The preceding discussion of preliminary 
revision topics is based upon our assessment of a Plan monitoring and 
evaluation results; public and agency input during project planning and 
Plan amendment efforts; and socioeconomic, demographic and political 
changes. We expect this list to change as people engage in the planning 
process.
    An atmosphere of openness is one of the objectives of the public 
involvement process, in which all members of the public feel free to 
share information with the Forest Service regularly. All parts of this 
process will be structured to maintain this openness.
    The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and assistance 
from individuals, organizations, tribal governments, and federal, 
state, and local agencies who are interested in or may be affected by 
the proposed action (36 CFR 219.6). The Forest Service is also looking 
for collaborative approaches with members of the public who are 
interested in forest management. Federal and state agencies and some 
private organizations have been cooperating in the development of 
assessments of current biological, physical, and economic conditions. 
This information will be used to prepare the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (DEIS). The range of alternatives to be considered in the 
DEIS will be based on public issues, management concerns, resource 
management opportunities, and specific decisions to be made. Public 
participation will be solicited from known interested and affected 
public. News releases will be used to give the public general notice, 
and public scoping opportunities will be offered in numerous locations. 
Public participation activities will include (but will not be limited 
to) requests for written comments, open houses, focus groups, field 
trips, and collaborative forums.
    Public participation will be especially important at several points 
along the way. The first formal opportunity to comment is during the 
scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7). Scoping includes (1) Identifying 
potential issues, (2) from these, identifying significant issues or 
those that have been covered by prior environmental review, (3) 
exploring alternatives in addition to No Action, and (4) identifying 
the potential environmental effects of the proposed action and 
alternatives.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review

    A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment 
by the winter of 2003. The comment period on the draft environmental 
impact statement will be 90 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 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.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 
1909.15, Section 21)

    After the comment period on the DEIS ends, comments will be 
analyzed, considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in 
preparing the Final EIS. The FEIS is scheduled to be completed in 2005. 
The responsible official will consider the comments, responses, 
environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS, and applicable laws, 
regulations, and policies in making decisions regarding these revised 
Forest Plans. The responsible official will document the discussions 
and reasons for the decisions in Record of Decisions for the revised 
Plans. The decisions will be subject to appeal in accordance with 36 
CFR 217.

    Dated: April 23, 2002.
Bradley E. Powell,
Regional Forester, Forest Service-Northern Region.
[FR Doc. 02-10548 Filed 4-29-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M