Opportunity to Object
Caribou Prescribed Fire Restoration Project
The Caribou-Targhee National Forest has completed the final environmental assessment, finding of no significant impact (EA/FONSI), and the draft decision notice for the Caribou Prescribed Fire Restoration Project. The draft decision would authorize prescribed burning where it is needed to restore fire-dependent ecosystems on national forest system lands in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. Implementation would include up to approximately 6,000 acres of prescribed burns within 22 burn blocks on the Caribou portion of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, for 15 to 20 years. Prescribed burning would be conducted within established guidelines, law, regulation, and policy. The decision excludes lands within the Curlew National Grassland, active phosphate mine areas, research natural areas, developed recreation sites, permitted special use recreation sites, or areas of concentrated development and utilities.
The responsible official is Mel Bolling, Forest Supervisor, and the objection reviewing officer is Mary Farnsworth, Regional Forester for the Intermountain Region. For additional information, contact Dylan Johnson, Forest Fuels Planner, at dylan.johnson@usda.gov, (208) 313-7839. The EA/FONSI, draft decision notice, and supporting documents are available for review on the project website at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=59025.
This proposed decision is subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218, Subparts A and B. A final decision will not be made until after the objection process has been completed.
Objections can be accepted only from those who have previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project during a designated opportunity for public comment in accordance with 36 CFR § 218.5(a). Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted timely, specific, written comments regarding the proposed project unless based on new information arising after designated opportunities for comment. A connection to previous comments must be demonstrated in the objection.
Individual members of organizations must have submitted their own comments to meet the requirements of eligibility as an individual. Objections received on behalf of an organization are considered as those of the organization only. If an objection is submitted on behalf of a number of individuals or organizations, each individual or organization listed must meet the eligibility requirement of having previously submitted comments on the project (36 CFR 218.7). Names and addresses of objectors will become part of the public record.
Incorporation of documents by reference in the objection is permitted only as provided for at 36 CFR 218.8(b). Minimum content requirements of an objection as identified in 36 CFR 218.8(d) include:
Statement demonstrating the connection between prior specific written comments on this project and the content of the objection, unless the objection issue arose after the designated opportunities for comment.
Objections must be postmarked (if sent via postal mail), faxed, or emailed to objections-intermtn-regional-office@usda.gov within 45 days following publication of this legal notice. Mailed objections should be sent to Objection Reviewing Officer, Intermountain Regional Office, 324 25th Street, Ogden, Utah 84401. Objections may be faxed to 801-625-5277. Electronic objections must be submitted in a format such as an email message, PDF, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc or .docx). Due to precautions in response to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), the objection reviewing officer can accept hand-delivered objections only via advanced coordination with the Region 4 Objections Coordinator, Judd Sampson, who can be contacted at judd.sampson@usda.gov. It is the responsibility of objectors to ensure their objection is received in a timely manner (36 CFR 218.9).
The publication date of the legal notice in the Idaho State Journal, newspaper of record, is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection to this project. Those wishing to object to the draft decision notice should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source.
Dylan Johnson