Clearwater National Forest; Idaho; Travel Management Plan, 67268-67270 [07-5861]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
67268
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 28, 2007 / Notices
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
would separate claims about livestock
production practices on product
labeling.
The majority of claims currently
citing naturally raised animal
production methods are defined by the
individual company selling the product.
Depending upon the branded program
making the claims, the production
activities and associated requirements
can vary since there is currently no
standard to specify which attributes
must be addressed and to what level,
other than to be truthful and not
misleading. This has led to confusion in
the industry and the marketplace as to
what requirements must be met in order
to have a uniform, explicit claim that
can be easily understood. This
confusion has caused AMS to develop
and propose a standard with explicit
attributes that could easily be
understood by the public as the basis for
a naturally raised marketing claim as it
relates to live animal production
practices. AMS seeks comment from the
public concerning its development and
requirements.
Proposed Standard
To develop and propose a marketing
claim standard for naturally raised,
AMS conducted three listening sessions
in December 2006 and January 2007 in
Washington, DC, Denver, CO, and
Seattle, WA, to seek oral and written
comments regarding the use of a
naturally raised marketing claim
standard. Public input and comments
related to a naturally raised marketing
claim are posted on the Web site at
https://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/
naturalclaim.htm. AMS evaluated the
public input and comments and is
seeking further comments on a proposed
naturally raised marketing claim
standard.
AMS also reviewed consumer
research along with the comments and
identified, based upon this information,
that production practices such as the
prohibited use of antibiotics, growth
promotants, and certain animal byproducts are the main attributes
consumers want for meat and meat
products derived from livestock that are
naturally raised. These are the attributes
that AMS’ proposed naturally raised
standard contains. Again, the naturally
raised labeling claim proposed in this
notice remains independent of the FSIS
policy on the use of the term ‘‘natural’’
on product labeling and will only
pertain to live animal production
practices.
Accordingly, AMS seeks comments
on the following proposed voluntary
U.S. Standard for Livestock and Meat
Marketing Claims, in this notice.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Nov 27, 2007
Jkt 214001
Proposed U.S. Standards for Livestock
and Meat Marketing Claims, Naturally
Raised Claim for Livestock and the
Meat and Meat Products Derived From
Such Livestock
Background: This proposed claim
applies to livestock used for meat and
meat products that were raised entirely
without growth promotants, antibiotics,
and mammalian or avian by-products.
The administration of growth
hormones, including natural hormones,
synthetic hormones, estrus
suppressants, beta agonists, or other
synthetic growth promotants is
prohibited from birth to slaughter.
Collectively, they are referred to in the
naturally raised marketing claim
standard as growth promotants.
No antibiotics can be administered,
whether through feed or water, or by
injection, from birth to slaughter. This
includes low-level (sub-therapeutic) or
therapeutic level doses, sulfonamides,
ionophores, coccidiostats, or any other
synthetic antimicrobial. If an animal is
in need of medical attention, proper
treatment should, of course, be
administered in an attempt to improve
the health of the animal. In the case
where antibiotics or the stated
prohibited substances are administered,
the treated animal must be identified
and excluded from the program. Health
products that can be used for disease
prevention in a naturally raised program
are vaccines, parasite control products,
antibody preparations, and bloat
prevention and treatment products (e.g.,
feed grade microbials and buffers that
help facilitate the animals digestive
process).
The feeding of mammalian or avian
by-products is prohibited. Livestock
cannot be fed rations that include
components that are mammalian or
avian derived.
Vitamin and mineral supplementation
is permissible.
Verification of the proposed claim
will be accomplished through an audit
of the production process. The producer
must be able to verify for AMS that the
naturally raised marketing claim
standard requirements are being met
through a detailed documented quality
management system.
Claim and Standard
Naturally Raised—Livestock used for
the production of meat and meat
products have been raised entirely
without growth promotants, antibiotics,
and have never been fed mammalian or
avian by-products. This information
shall be contained on any label claim
that an animal has been naturally raised.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: November 21, 2007.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. E7–23103 Filed 11–27–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Clearwater National Forest; Idaho;
Travel Management Plan
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Forest Service gives
notice of its intent to prepare a Travel
Planning Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Clearwater
National Forest (CNF). The proposed
action would designate a site-specific
transportation system and prohibit
indiscriminate cross-country traffic. The
EIS will analyze the effects of the
proposed action and alternatives. The
Clearwater National Forest invites
comments and suggestions on the issues
to be addressed. The agency gives notice
of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) analysis and decisionmaking process on the proposal so
interested and affected members of the
public may participate and contribute to
the final decision.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope
of the analysis must be received by
December 14, 2007. A 45-day public
comment period will follow the release
of the draft environmental impact
statement that is expected in June 2008.
The final environmental impact
statement is expected in January 2009.
ADDRESSES: Send written or electronic
comments to: Lochsa Ranger District,
Kamiah Ranger Station; Attn: Lois
Foster, Interdisciplinary Team Leader;
Rt. 2 Box 191; Kamiah, ID 83536; FAX
208–935–4275; E-mail commentsnorthern-clearwater@fs.fed.us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois
Foster, Interdisciplinary Team leader,
(208) 935–4258.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose
and Need for Action is to (1) Implement
national OHV Rule direction, (2) Limit
indiscriminate cross-country motorized
travel, (3) Designate selected roads and
trails for motorized travel, (4) Designate
appropriate acreas or routes for travel
with over-snow vehicles, (5) Balance
travel opportunities with maintenance
and management capability including
costs, (6) Provide for a better spectrum
of motorized, non-motorized, and nonmechanized travel opportunities across
E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM
28NON1
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 28, 2007 / Notices
the CNF in recognition of the need to
retain the charter of lands recommended
for Wilderness designation and the
CNF’s ability to provide for nonmotorized recreation opportunities that
are not available on other land
ownerships, (7) Manage impacts to
Forest resources, (8) Improve clarity and
consistency of existing travel
restrictions, and (9) Amend the 1987
Forest Plan as necessary to accomplish
the actions described above.
The need for revision of the Forest
Plan is supported by nationwide
awareness within the Forest Service of
the negative effects of indiscriminate
off-road travel by motorized users.
These concerns led to publication of the
Travel Management final rule on
November 9, 2005 in the Federal
Register, 36 CFR parts 212, 251, 261,
295 ‘‘Travel Management:’’ Designated
Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicles
Use (Federal Register 2005: 79 FR
68264). The rule requires each National
Forest to designate those roads, trails,
and areas that are open to motor vehicle
use. The rule prohibits use of motor
vehicles off the designated system, as
well as use of motor vehicles on routes
and in areas that are not consistent with
the designation. The rule does not
require that over-snow vehicles, such as
snowmobiles, are limited to a
designated system by exempting them
under 121.51, but also states in 212.81
that ‘‘use by over-snow vehicles * * *
on National Forest System lands may
allowed, restricted, or prohibit.’’ The
CNF chose to include over-snow
vehicles in the analysis.
The Proposed Action would designate
motorized road and trail routes for
summer travel on the Clearwater
National Forest. Existing Conditions
include roads and trails identified as
open to motorized travel in the 2005
Travel Guide, plus any error corrections
or project-level NEPA decisions made
since then. The Proposed Action would
include any changes from existing
conditions, such as road to trail
conversions, designating some roads
previously not thought to be travelable,
and not designating some roads that
were previously thought to be
travelable.
The transportation system for snowfree travel would include:
• 1,623 miles of roads open yearlong
to all highway-legal vehicles (an
increase of 8 miles compared to existing
conditions);
• 509 miles of road open yearlong to
small vehicles such as ATV’s and
motorcycles, but not including UTV’s
(an increase of 9 miles);
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Nov 27, 2007
Jkt 214001
• 633 miles of roads open seasonally
to all highway-legal vehicles (a decrease
of 13 miles);
• 151 miles of roads open seasonally
to small vehicles (a decrease of 1 mile);
• 93 miles of trails open yearlong to
small vehicles (a change of 0 miles);
• 226 miles of trails open yearlong to
motorcycles (a decrease of 178 miles);
• 75 miles of trails open seasonally to
small vehicles (an increase of 2 miles);
and
• 93 miles of trails open seasonally to
motorcycles (a change of 0 miles).
The proposed action would also
modify the dates of seasonal restrictions
for roads and trails to reduce the variety
of restricted periods, and ultimately
improve the clarity of the Motor Vehicle
Use Map (MVUM). Motorized travel up
to 300 fee off of designated routes to
access established campsites would be
permitted in most areas. In certain areas,
off-route travel would be permitted only
to access specifically designated
campsites.
Existing restrictions for bicycles on all
but one road would be eliminated.
Bicycle restrictions on roads would
drop from a total of 10 miles currently
to only 1 mile, which would be entirely
within the CNF seed orchard. Areas
recommended for wilderness by the
Forest Plan would become off limits to
bicycles. System trails available to
bicycles would drop from 811 miles to
730 miles (a reduction of 81 miles).
Over-snow vehicle use would be
restricted in areas recommended for
wilderness by the Forest Plan. Within
the areas where over-snow vehicle use
would generally be permitted, there
would continue to be some specific
routes where over-snow vehicles would
be restricted. Over-snow vehicle use
would be prohibited forest-wide from
October 1 to November 4. The
transportation system for over-snow
vehicles would include:
• 364 miles of groomed snowmobile
routes (no change from existing
conditions);
• 1,322,943 acres generally open to
over-snow vehicles except for certain
restricted routes;
• 3,484 acres of roads where oversnow vehicles would be permitted from
November 5 until snowmelt in the
spring, compared to 3,174 acres
available currently (an increase of 310
acres); and
• 503,057 acres closed to over-snow
vehicles, compared to 302,856 acres
available currently (a decrease of
200,201 acres).
The numbers above are only
approximate at this time.
The existing Forest Plan will be
amended. When the Forest Plan was
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67269
completed in 1987, trail vehicles were
few and travel planning was focused
almost completely on roads and
highway vehicles. Motorized use has
increased dramatically since then, and
modern vehicles such as snowmobiles,
ATV’s, and motorcycles have
capabilities that could not have been
envisioned in 1987. The Forest Plan also
contains some conflicting information
regarding the intent for management of
certain areas. Changes may include:
• Better coordination between the
level of motorized travel and the focus
of certain management areas, primarily
those in roadless areas;
• Additions or changes to Forest Plan
standards to permit implementation of
the national Travel Management rule;
and
• Other goals, objectives, and
standards affecting travel management.
Possible Alternatives the Forest
Service will consider include a noaction alternative, which will serve as a
baseline for comparison of alternatives.
The proposed action will be considered
along with additional alternatives that
will be developed to meet the purpose
and need for action, and to address
significant issues identified during
scoping.
The Responsible Official is Thomas K.
Reilly, Clearwater Forest Supervisor,
Clearwater National Forest, 12730
Highway 12, Orofino, ID 83544.
The Decision to be Made is whether
to adopt the proposed action, in whole
or in part, or another alternative; and
what mitigation measures and
management requirements will be
implemented.
The Scoping Process for the EIS is
being initiated with this notice. The
scoping process will identify issues to
be analyzed in detail and will lead to
the development of alternatives to the
proposal. The Forest Service is seeking
information and comments from other
Federal, State, and local agencies; Tribal
governments; and organizations and
individuals who may be interested in or
affected by the proposed action.
Comments received in response to this
notice, including the names and
addresses of those who comment, will
be part of the project record and
available for public review. Public
meetings will be scheduled during the
scoping period. Times, dates and
locations for the public meetings will be
published in the Lewiston, Idaho
Lewiston Morning Tribune.
Early Notice of Importance of Public
Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review: A draft
environmental impact statement will be
prepared for comment. The second
major opportunity for public input will
E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM
28NON1
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
67270
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 28, 2007 / Notices
be when the Draft EIS is published. The
comment period on the draft
environmental impact statement will be
45 days from the date the
Environmental Protection Agency
publishes the notice of availability in
the Federal Register. The Draft EIS is
anticipated to be available for public
review in June 2008. The comment
period on the Draft EIS will be 45 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 is it
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. Ho del, 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 for the Draft EIS 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
a 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.
After the comment period for the
Draft EIS ends, the Forest Service will
analyze comments received and address
them in the Final EIS. The Final EIS is
scheduled to be released by January
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Nov 27, 2007
Jkt 214001
2009. The Responsible Official (Forest
Supervisor Thomas K. Reilly) will
document the decision and rationale in
a Record of Decision (ROD). The
decision will be subject to review under
Forest Service appeal regulations at 36
CFR Part 215.
Preliminary Issues identified by the
Forest Service interdisciplinary team
include: Changing motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities,
costs of road and trail management and
maintenance, soil issues, effects on
aquatic environments and species,
effects on wildlife, the spread of
noxious weeds, changes in motorized
access to roads, trails and areas that are
not designated as part of the travel
planning analysis, and motorized access
for people with disabilities.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22;
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section
21)
Dated: November 7, 2007.
Thomas K. Reilly,
Clearwater Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 07–5861 Filed 11–27–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–846]
Brake Rotors From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of the
2006 Semiannual New Shipper Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 25, 2007, the
Department of Commerce (the
‘‘Department’’) published the
preliminary results of the semiannual
new shipper review of the antidumping
duty order on brake rotors from the
People’s Republic of China. See Brake
Rotors From the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of the 2006
Semiannual New Shipper Review, 72 FR
54430 (September 25, 2007)
(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). The
merchandise covered by this review is
brake rotors, exported and
manufactured by Longkou Qizheng
Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘Qizheng’’), as
described in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’
section of this notice. The period of
review is April 1, 2006, through October
31, 2006. We invited parties to comment
on our Preliminary Results. We received
no comments, and no new evidence was
placed on the record to cause us to
question that determination. Therefore,
the final results are unchanged from
those presented in the Preliminary
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Results. The final weighted–average
dumping margin for Qizheng is listed
below in the section entitled ‘‘Final
Results of the Review.’’
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 28, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Moats or Blanche Ziv, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5047 or (202) 482–
4207, respectively.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are brake rotors made of gray cast iron,
whether finished, semifinished, or
unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8
to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters)
and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63
to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters
(weight and dimension) of the brake
rotors limit their use to the following
types of motor vehicles: automobiles,
all–terrain vehicles, vans and
recreational vehicles under ‘‘one ton
and a half,’’ and light trucks designated
as ‘‘one ton and a half.’’
Finished brake rotors are those that
are ready for sale and installation
without any further operations. Semi–
finished rotors are those on which the
surface is not entirely smooth, and have
undergone some drilling. Unfinished
rotors are those which have undergone
some grinding or turning.
These brake rotors are for motor
vehicles, and do not contain in the
casting a logo of an original equipment
manufacturer (‘‘OEM’’) which produces
vehicles sold in the United States. (e.g.,
General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda,
Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in
this order are not certified by OEM
producers of vehicles sold in the United
States. The scope also includes
composite brake rotors that are made of
gray cast iron, which contain a steel
plate, but otherwise meet the above
criteria. Excluded from the scope of this
order are brake rotors made of gray cast
iron, whether finished, semifinished, or
unfinished, with a diameter less than 8
inches or greater than 16 inches (less
than 20.32 centimeters or greater than
40.64 centimeters) and a weight less
than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds
(less than 3.63 kilograms or greater than
20.41 kilograms).1
1 On January 17, 2007, the Department
determined the brake rotors produced by FederalMogul and certified by the Ford Motor Company to
be excluded from the scope of the order. See
Memorandum from Blanche Ziv, Program Manager,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, through Wendy J.
Frankel, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 8, to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant
E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM
28NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67268-67270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5861]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Clearwater National Forest; Idaho; Travel Management Plan
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service gives notice of its intent to prepare a
Travel Planning Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Clearwater
National Forest (CNF). The proposed action would designate a site-
specific transportation system and prohibit indiscriminate cross-
country traffic. The EIS will analyze the effects of the proposed
action and alternatives. The Clearwater National Forest invites
comments and suggestions on the issues to be addressed. The agency
gives notice of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis
and decision-making process on the proposal so interested and affected
members of the public may participate and contribute to the final
decision.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received
by December 14, 2007. A 45-day public comment period will follow the
release of the draft environmental impact statement that is expected in
June 2008. The final environmental impact statement is expected in
January 2009.
ADDRESSES: Send written or electronic comments to: Lochsa Ranger
District, Kamiah Ranger Station; Attn: Lois Foster, Interdisciplinary
Team Leader; Rt. 2 Box 191; Kamiah, ID 83536; FAX 208-935-4275; E-mail
comments-northern-clearwater@fs.fed.us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Foster, Interdisciplinary Team
leader, (208) 935-4258.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action is to (1)
Implement national OHV Rule direction, (2) Limit indiscriminate cross-
country motorized travel, (3) Designate selected roads and trails for
motorized travel, (4) Designate appropriate acreas or routes for travel
with over-snow vehicles, (5) Balance travel opportunities with
maintenance and management capability including costs, (6) Provide for
a better spectrum of motorized, non-motorized, and non-mechanized
travel opportunities across
[[Page 67269]]
the CNF in recognition of the need to retain the charter of lands
recommended for Wilderness designation and the CNF's ability to provide
for non-motorized recreation opportunities that are not available on
other land ownerships, (7) Manage impacts to Forest resources, (8)
Improve clarity and consistency of existing travel restrictions, and
(9) Amend the 1987 Forest Plan as necessary to accomplish the actions
described above.
The need for revision of the Forest Plan is supported by nationwide
awareness within the Forest Service of the negative effects of
indiscriminate off-road travel by motorized users. These concerns led
to publication of the Travel Management final rule on November 9, 2005
in the Federal Register, 36 CFR parts 212, 251, 261, 295 ``Travel
Management:'' Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicles Use
(Federal Register 2005: 79 FR 68264). The rule requires each National
Forest to designate those roads, trails, and areas that are open to
motor vehicle use. The rule prohibits use of motor vehicles off the
designated system, as well as use of motor vehicles on routes and in
areas that are not consistent with the designation. The rule does not
require that over-snow vehicles, such as snowmobiles, are limited to a
designated system by exempting them under 121.51, but also states in
212.81 that ``use by over-snow vehicles * * * on National Forest System
lands may allowed, restricted, or prohibit.'' The CNF chose to include
over-snow vehicles in the analysis.
The Proposed Action would designate motorized road and trail routes
for summer travel on the Clearwater National Forest. Existing
Conditions include roads and trails identified as open to motorized
travel in the 2005 Travel Guide, plus any error corrections or project-
level NEPA decisions made since then. The Proposed Action would include
any changes from existing conditions, such as road to trail
conversions, designating some roads previously not thought to be
travelable, and not designating some roads that were previously thought
to be travelable.
The transportation system for snow-free travel would include:
1,623 miles of roads open yearlong to all highway-legal
vehicles (an increase of 8 miles compared to existing conditions);
509 miles of road open yearlong to small vehicles such as
ATV's and motorcycles, but not including UTV's (an increase of 9
miles);
633 miles of roads open seasonally to all highway-legal
vehicles (a decrease of 13 miles);
151 miles of roads open seasonally to small vehicles (a
decrease of 1 mile);
93 miles of trails open yearlong to small vehicles (a
change of 0 miles);
226 miles of trails open yearlong to motorcycles (a
decrease of 178 miles);
75 miles of trails open seasonally to small vehicles (an
increase of 2 miles); and
93 miles of trails open seasonally to motorcycles (a
change of 0 miles).
The proposed action would also modify the dates of seasonal
restrictions for roads and trails to reduce the variety of restricted
periods, and ultimately improve the clarity of the Motor Vehicle Use
Map (MVUM). Motorized travel up to 300 fee off of designated routes to
access established campsites would be permitted in most areas. In
certain areas, off-route travel would be permitted only to access
specifically designated campsites.
Existing restrictions for bicycles on all but one road would be
eliminated. Bicycle restrictions on roads would drop from a total of 10
miles currently to only 1 mile, which would be entirely within the CNF
seed orchard. Areas recommended for wilderness by the Forest Plan would
become off limits to bicycles. System trails available to bicycles
would drop from 811 miles to 730 miles (a reduction of 81 miles).
Over-snow vehicle use would be restricted in areas recommended for
wilderness by the Forest Plan. Within the areas where over-snow vehicle
use would generally be permitted, there would continue to be some
specific routes where over-snow vehicles would be restricted. Over-snow
vehicle use would be prohibited forest-wide from October 1 to November
4. The transportation system for over-snow vehicles would include:
364 miles of groomed snowmobile routes (no change from
existing conditions);
1,322,943 acres generally open to over-snow vehicles
except for certain restricted routes;
3,484 acres of roads where over-snow vehicles would be
permitted from November 5 until snowmelt in the spring, compared to
3,174 acres available currently (an increase of 310 acres); and
503,057 acres closed to over-snow vehicles, compared to
302,856 acres available currently (a decrease of 200,201 acres).
The numbers above are only approximate at this time.
The existing Forest Plan will be amended. When the Forest Plan was
completed in 1987, trail vehicles were few and travel planning was
focused almost completely on roads and highway vehicles. Motorized use
has increased dramatically since then, and modern vehicles such as
snowmobiles, ATV's, and motorcycles have capabilities that could not
have been envisioned in 1987. The Forest Plan also contains some
conflicting information regarding the intent for management of certain
areas. Changes may include:
Better coordination between the level of motorized travel
and the focus of certain management areas, primarily those in roadless
areas;
Additions or changes to Forest Plan standards to permit
implementation of the national Travel Management rule; and
Other goals, objectives, and standards affecting travel
management.
Possible Alternatives the Forest Service will consider include a
no-action alternative, which will serve as a baseline for comparison of
alternatives. The proposed action will be considered along with
additional alternatives that will be developed to meet the purpose and
need for action, and to address significant issues identified during
scoping.
The Responsible Official is Thomas K. Reilly, Clearwater Forest
Supervisor, Clearwater National Forest, 12730 Highway 12, Orofino, ID
83544.
The Decision to be Made is whether to adopt the proposed action, in
whole or in part, or another alternative; and what mitigation measures
and management requirements will be implemented.
The Scoping Process for the EIS is being initiated with this
notice. The scoping process will identify issues to be analyzed in
detail and will lead to the development of alternatives to the
proposal. The Forest Service is seeking information and comments from
other Federal, State, and local agencies; Tribal governments; and
organizations and individuals who may be interested in or affected by
the proposed action. Comments received in response to this notice,
including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of
the project record and available for public review. Public meetings
will be scheduled during the scoping period. Times, dates and locations
for the public meetings will be published in the Lewiston, Idaho
Lewiston Morning Tribune.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be
prepared for comment. The second major opportunity for public input
will
[[Page 67270]]
be when the Draft EIS is published. The comment period on the draft
environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the
Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in
the Federal Register. The Draft EIS is anticipated to be available for
public review in June 2008. The comment period on the Draft EIS will be
45 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 is it
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. Ho del, 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 for the
Draft EIS 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 a 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.
After the comment period for the Draft EIS ends, the Forest Service
will analyze comments received and address them in the Final EIS. The
Final EIS is scheduled to be released by January 2009. The Responsible
Official (Forest Supervisor Thomas K. Reilly) will document the
decision and rationale in a Record of Decision (ROD). The decision will
be subject to review under Forest Service appeal regulations at 36 CFR
Part 215.
Preliminary Issues identified by the Forest Service
interdisciplinary team include: Changing motorized and non-motorized
recreation opportunities, costs of road and trail management and
maintenance, soil issues, effects on aquatic environments and species,
effects on wildlife, the spread of noxious weeds, changes in motorized
access to roads, trails and areas that are not designated as part of
the travel planning analysis, and motorized access for people with
disabilities.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, Section 21)
Dated: November 7, 2007.
Thomas K. Reilly,
Clearwater Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 07-5861 Filed 11-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
