[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10954-10956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1982]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Nez Perce National Forest; Idaho County, ID; Meadow Face 
Stewardship Pilot Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact 
statement.

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

(Authority: 40 CFR 1502.9)

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare a supplemental environmental 
impact statement (``SEIS'') for the Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot 
Project on the Nez Perce National Forest, Clearwater Ranger District, 
in Idaho County, Idaho, for the purpose of completing the cumulative 
effects analysis referred to in United States District Court Judge 
Edward J. Lodge's March 31, 2005 unpublished order in Friends of the 
Clearwater v. Lohn, Case No. CV04-384-C-EJL (D. Idaho). The court in 
that case issued a preliminary injunction against further timber 
harvesting under the Meadow Face Project until the Forest Service 
complies with the requirements for a cumulative effects analysis under 
the National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA''). The court stated, 
quoting Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2005), that 
the final environmental impact statement (``FEIS'') for the Meadow Face 
Project ``should have provided adequate data of time, type, place and 
scale of past timber harvest and should have explained in sufficient 
detail how different project plans and harvest methods affected the 
environment.'' Friends of the Clearwater, unpub. ord. at 31 (quoting 
Lands Council, 395 F.3d 1019 at 1028). Regarding the FEIS's analysis of 
cumulative effects from grazing, the court stated as follows:

The Forest Service's analysis of grazing * * * does not specifically 
describe the history of grazing in the Project Area, i.e., by 
providing a catalog of where, and how much, grazing has occurred in 
the Watershed, or where and the extent to which it is occurring now. 
The agency's failure to provide adequate data of time, type, place 
and scale of past, present and reasonably foreseeable grazing 
activities in the Project Area precludes the public and the decision 
maker from having necessary information to evaluate the alternatives 
presented in the FEIS.

Id. at 32. The Forest Service hereby gives notice that it will prepare 
a SEIS in response to the court's preliminary injunction order.

DATES: Comments concerning the cumulative effects analysis must be 
received by April 17, 2006.

[[Page 10955]]


ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Darcy Pederson, District Ranger, 
1005 Highway 13, Grangeville, ID 83530, Attn: Meadow Face Stewardship.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Harper, Interdisciplinary Team 
Leader, Clearwater Ranger District, at the address above, or via 
telephone at (208) 983-1963.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot Project 
was initially scoped on August 15, 2000. The Notice of Intent to 
prepare the EIS was published in the Federal Register, 66 FR 13700, on 
March 7, 2001. The Draft EIS was sent out for a 45-day comment period 
in April of 2001. The Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS was 
published in the Federal Register, 66 FR 37956, on July 20, 2001. A 
Notice of Availability for the Final EIS was published in the Federal 
Register, 67 FR 40923, on June 7, 2002. The Record of Decision 
(``ROD'') was signed by the Nez Perce National Forest Supervisor on 
February 11, 2003. The supervisor selected Alternative 4B as displayed 
in the FEIS, with some modifications described on page 12 of the ROD, 
for implementation.
    On June 14, 2004, several environmental groups (led by Friends of 
the Clearwater out of Moscow, Idaho) filed a lawsuit against D. Robert 
Lohn (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration); William T. 
Hogarth (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration); the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Donald L. Evans (Secretary of 
the Department of Commerce); Gail Kimbell (Northern Regional Forester, 
USDA Forest Service); Ann N. Veneman (Secretary of the Department of 
Agriculture); and the United States Forest Service; Plaintiffs include 
Friends of the Clearwater, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Idaho 
Sporting Congress, and the Ecology Center. Plaintiffs sought a 
preliminary injunction against the Meadow Face Project, and on March 
31, 2005, the court issued an order enjoining ``further timber 
harvesting * * * until the Forest Service complies with the requisite 
NEPA cumulative effects analysis.'' Friends of the Clearwater, unpub. 
ord. at 57.

Purpose and Need for Action

    The Final Environmental Impact Statement (February 2002) provided a 
detailed description of the purpose and need for action. It was noted 
that the existing condition of aquatic and soil resources and 
vegetation in the analysis area does not meet the desired condition 
and/or departs from the historic range. The project was proposed to 
begin remediation of the effects of past actions, and to return various 
resource conditions to within the historic range of variability. The 
purpose and need for action from the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (February 2002) remains unchanged. The purpose for preparing 
the proposed SEIS is to complete the cumulative effects analysis 
referred to by the court in Friends of the Clearwater.

Proposed Action

    The FEIS (February 2002) and ROD (February 2003) provided a 
detailed description of the original proposed action (Alternative 2). 
Alternative 2 focused on activities that would improve aquatic and 
vegetative elements of the analysis area. The proposal was formulated 
to address conditions and changes needed to achieve the desired 
conditions and specific goals and objectives described in the Nez Perce 
Forest Plan.
    With the record of decision of February 11, 2003, the Nez Perce 
National Forest Supervisor selected Alternative 4B as displayed in the 
FEIS, with some modifications for implementation. The decision included 
the following activities: Maintain 102 miles of road (12.5 deferred 
maintenance), construct 12 miles of temporary road, decommission 91 
miles of road, convert 5 miles of road to trail, construct 0.1 mile of 
new OHV trail, maintain dispersed campsites where roads are 
decommissioned, rehabilitate about 3 miles of stream, harvest timber on 
up to 3,735 acres, prescribe burn 7,100 acres, replace 45 culverts, 
apply dust abatement to 5 miles of road, treat 200 acres of existing 
noxious weeds, restore native plant species in McComas Meadows, restore 
550 acres of compacted soils, stabilize the Meadow Creek Slide, and 
install improvements at McComas/Blacktail Junction, Camp 58, and Quartz 
Ridge dispersed recreation sites. Additionally, the Forest Supervisor 
decided to make three site specific amendments to the Nez Perce Forest 
Plan.
    A portion of the timber harvest covered by the Record of Decision 
(Yew Rock Timber Sale) commenced on March 26, 2004 and was ordered to 
be ceased following the court's preliminary injunction order of March 
31, 2005. To date, the following activities have been implemented in 
the Environmental Impact Statement project area: replacement of two 
culverts, stabilization of three sites along an irrigation ditch, 
decommissioning of 23 miles of road, treatment of noxious weed on 141 
acres, maintenance of 34 miles of road, development of one rock source, 
timber harvest on 730 acres, and construction of 8.6 miles of temporary 
road.

Responsible Official

    The responsible official for this project is Jane Cottrell, the Nez 
Perce National Forest Supervisor. Comments regarding the cumulative 
effects analysis for this project should be sent to the address and 
contacts identified above and should be submitted within 45-days of 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. A Draft 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is expected to be 
available by late May 2006 and the Final SEIS is expected in late 
summer 2006.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The Forest Supervisor will decide whether to continue 
implementation of Alternative 4B, as planned, or whether to modify or 
terminate implementation of the alternative in light of the revised 
cumulative effect analysis.

Scoping Process

    The U.S. Forest Service uses the scoping process required by the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for all major Federal actions. 
NEPA requires a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to ensure 
integrated application of the natural and social sciences and the 
environmental design arts in any planning and decision-making that 
affects the human environment (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(A)).
    Recently, the Council on Environmental Quality issued guidance on 
the preparation of cumulative effects analyses. Memorandum from James 
L. Connaughton, Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality, to Heads of 
Federal Agencies (June 24, 2005). To determine what information is 
necessary for a cumulative effects analysis, the CEQ Guidance 
recommends agencies use scoping to determine the extent to which 
information is ``relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse 
impacts,'' is ``essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives,'' 
and can be obtained without exorbitant cost. Id. (quoting 40 CFR 
1502.22). Based on scoping, agencies have discretion to determine 
whether, and to what extent, information about the specific nature, 
design, or present effects of a past action is useful for the agency's 
analysis of the effects of a proposal for agency action and its 
reasonable alternatives. Id.
    The CEQ Guidance further states agencies ``should be guided in 
their cumulative effects analysis by the scoping process, in which 
agencies

[[Page 10956]]

identify the scope and `significant' issues to be addressed in an 
environmental impact statement.'' Id. at 2 (quoting 40 CFR 1500.1(b), 
1500.4(g), 1501.7, 1508.25). ``With respect to past actions, during the 
scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency 
must determine what information regarding past actions is useful and 
relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects.'' Id. at 3.

Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides 
the development of the supplemental environmental impact statement. 
Comments regarding the revised cumulative effects analysis will be 
accepted for 45 days after this notification in the Federal Register. 
These comments will help the Forest Service determine the scope of the 
requisite cumulative effects analysis, and what information regarding 
past actions is useful and relevant. Send written comments to Darcy 
Pederson, District Ranger, 1005 Highway 13, Grangeville, Idaho 83530, 
Attn: Meadow Face Stewardship.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review

    A draft supplemental environmental impact statement will be 
prepared after consideration of responses to this scoping and 
completion of the requisite cumulative effects analysis. The comment 
period on the draft supplemental environmental impact statement will be 
45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the 
notice of availability in the Federal Register.
    It is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings 
related to public participation in the environmental review process. 
First, reviewers of the draft supplemental environmental impact 
statement must structure their comments so they are meaningful and 
alert the 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 supplemental 
environmental impact statement stage, but that are not raised until 
after completion of the final supplemental 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). It is very 
important that those interested in the cumulative effects analysis for 
the Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot Project participate by the close of 
the 45-day comment period on the draft supplemental environmental 
impact statement 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 supplemental 
environmental impact statement.
    To assist the Forest Service in completing the final supplemental 
environmental impact statement, comments on the draft supplemental 
environmental impact statement will need to be as specific as possible. 
It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of 
the draft 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 in response to this scoping notice as well as 
comments received on the subsequent Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement, 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: February 10, 2006.
Jane L. Cottrell,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 06-1982 Filed 3-2-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M