[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 77 (Friday, April 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20855-20856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-7671]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Mission Brush, Idado Panhandle National Forests, Boundary County, 
ID

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement.

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

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service will prepare a Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Mission Brush project. 
The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS for the Mission Brush 
project was published in the Federal Register (68 FR 53730) on 
September 12, 2003 and the notice of the Final EIS (69 FR 31613) was 
published on June 4, 2004. The Record of Decision on this project was 
administratively appealed to the Regional Forester per 36 CFR part 215. 
The Regional Forester affirmed my decision on August 30, 2004. However, 
due to information that has been identified since the availability of 
the final EIS and ROD, I have determined the need for a supplement. The 
proposed action is unchanged from the final EIS. A Supplemental EIS is 
being prepared to address analysis issues raised through the recent 
opinion issued through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 
in Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1015-1046 (9th Cir. 2005).

DATES: Scoping is not required for supplements to environmental impact 
statements (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4)). There was extensive public 
involvement in the development of the proposed action, the 2003 Draft 
EIS and the 2004 Final EIS and the Forest Service is not inviting 
comments at this time.

ADDRESSES: Bonners Ferry Ranger District, 6286 Main Street, Bonners 
Ferry, ID 83805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Nishek, Project Team Leader, USDA 
Forest Service, Bonners Ferry Ranger District at 208-267-5561.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Mission Brush Record of Decision (ROD) 
was released at the same time as the Final EIS and the legal notice of 
decision was published in the newspaper of record on June 1, 2004. The 
ROD selected Alternative 2 and authorized vegetation treatments on a 
total of approximately 4036 acres through a combination of even-aged 
and uneven-aged regeneration cuts, partial cuts and tree girdling; 
fuels treatments on approximately 3900 acres, ecosystem prescribed 
burning on approximately 238 acres, five miles of temporary road 
construction to be decommissioned after use, 13 miles of existing roads 
to be decommissioned, 39 miles of existing roads to be improved, and 
five miles of existing roads to be placed in storage, and improvement 
of facilities at Brush Lake Campground.
    The Record of Decision was appealed. Following administrative 
review, the decision was affirmed and the appellant's requested relief 
denied by the Appeal Deciding Officer for the Northern Region of the 
USDA Forest Service on August 30, 2004 with the following requirement:

    I fine the Forest Supervisor has made a reasoned decision and 
has complied with all laws, regulations, and policy. After careful 
consideration of the above factors, I affirm the Forest Supervisor's 
decision to implement the Mission Brush project. Your requested 
relief is denied. However, because of the recent 9th Circuit Opinion 
in Lands Council vs. Powell (Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1015-
1046 (9th Cir. 2005)), I am directing the Forest to delay 
implementation of this project until further notice.

    The Supplemental EIS will contain information relating to prior and 
reasonably foreseeable timber harvests in the project's cumulative 
effects area, water quality and fisheries analysis, soil conditions, 
stands of old growth trees, and wildlife analysis methodologies. No 
modifications to the activities authorized by the June 2004 Record of 
Decision are proposed under this Supplemental EIS (SEIS). The SEIS is 
intended to provide additional evaluation of the natural resources 
listed above and provide that information to the public.
    The purpose and need for the Mission Brush project includes 
considerations for vegetation, aquatic ecosystems, wildlife, and 
recreation. The vegetation goal is to trend the composition, structure, 
and diversity of landscape patterns toward desired future conditions by 
providing tree species and stocking levels similar to historic 
conditions that resist insects, diseases, and stand-replacing 
wildfire(s), and improve landscape patterns by creating openings that 
more closely resemble those that occurred historically. For the aquatic 
ecosystem the goal is to maintain and improve watershed and fisheries 
in the Mission Creek and Brush Creek drainages. Wildlife goals are to 
promote the long-term persistence and stability of wildlife habitat and 
biodiversity by trending toward vegetation that more closely resembles 
the historic range of variability and

[[Page 20856]]

improve the diversity of forest structures in to provide wildlife, 
fish, and plant habitat diversity. For recreation the goal is to 
provide recreation facilities that are safe, meet universal 
accessibility requirements, and meet future needs while retaining the 
rustic nature of the area and improving the quality of the recreation 
site around Brush Lake.
    I am the Responsible Official for this environmental analysis. My 
address is Idaho Panhandle National Forests, 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur 
d'Alene, ID 83814. The Record of Decision for the Mission Brush project 
will identify the land management activities to be implemented in the 
project area including acres and types of vegetative treatments, fuels 
treatments, construction of temporary roads, decomissioning of 
temporary roads and existing roads, access management, and improvements 
at Brush Lake Campground.
    A Draft SEIS is expected to be available for public review and 
comment in April 2005; and a final environmental impact statement in 
June 2005. The mailing list for this project will include those 
individuals, agencies and organizations on the mailing list for the 
2003 Draft EIS.
    The comment period for the Draft SEIS will be 45 days from the date 
the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register. 
In accordance with 36 CFR 215.5, as published in the Federal Register, 
Volume 68 no. 107, June 4, 2003, the Supplemental Draft EIS comment 
period will be the designated time in which ``substantive'' comments 
will be considered. In addition, the public is encouraged to contact or 
visit with Forest Service officials during the analysis and prior to 
the decision. The Forest Service will continue to seek information, 
comments, and assistance from Federal, Tribal, State, and local 
agencies and other individuals or organizations that may be interested 
in or affected by the proposed actions.
    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 statement stage but that are not raised until after 
completion of the final environmental 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 
related to 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.
    The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits 
discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national 
origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital 
or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of 
communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, 
etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 
TDD). To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or call 800-245-6340 
(voice) or 202-720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity 
employer.
    The Idaho Panhandle National Forests Supervisor will make a 
decision on this project after considering comments and responses, 
environmental consequences discussed in the Supplemental Final EIS, and 
applicable laws, regulations and policies. The decision and supporting 
reasons will be documented in a Record of Decision.

    Dated: April 11, 2005.
Ranotta K. McNair,
Forest Supervisor, Idaho Panhandle National Forests.
[FR Doc. 05-7671 Filed 4-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M