Clearwater National Forest; Idaho; Travel Management Plan, 71874-71876 [07-6074]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
71874
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 19, 2007 / Notices
The revised document incorporates
updates to three of the four parts of the
original Draft User Guide. These
changes are discussed more fully below.
Part I: Overview of the NAIS
Benefit-cost analysis.
In July 2007, APHIS announced that
Kansas State University would be
conducting a benefit-cost analysis, with
a final report to be completed by July/
August 2008. This information has been
added to the section of the User Guide
that discusses the economic benefits of
the NAIS in order to inform our
stakeholders that more complete
analysis and information will be
available in the future.
Animal Identification Number Device
Distribution Databases (AIN DDDs).
References to AIN DDDs have been
removed from Part I of the User Guide,
since the development of these
databases is no longer being considered,
for reasons discussed in greater detail
below.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Part III: Animal Identification
Publication of numbering systems
final rule.
On July 18, 2007, APHIS published in
the Federal Register (72 FR 39301–
39307, Docket No. 04–052–2) a final
rule that, among other things,
recognized the AIN as an official means
for the identification of individual
animals in commerce generally and in
disease programs. This information has
now been added to the User Guide’s
discussion of the use of the AIN in the
NAIS to ensure that participants are
aware that the rule was finalized.
Brand State Working Group.
When the Draft User Guide was first
developed, the Brand State Working
Group had only recently been formed.
Additional information about the
objectives of the Brand State Working
Group has been added to the revised
User Guide.
Integration of AIN tags with existing
animal health identification systems—
brucellosis.
Although several disease programs
had begun integrating NAIS-compliant
AIN tags when the Draft User Guide was
first published, the brucellosis program
was listed as one that would be
integrating in the near future. AIN tags
are now recognized as official for use in
the brucellosis program, if preferred by
the producer and if such action does not
conflict with State regulations. We have
added this information to the revised
User Guide in order to clarify an issue
that has confused some NAIS
participants.
AIN DDDs.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:40 Dec 18, 2007
Jkt 214001
Part III of the revised User Guide
explains how the distribution records of
AIN devices will be administered using
the AIN Management System. At the
time of publication of the original Draft
User Guide, we were considering the
use of databases (AIN DDDs) that would
be maintained by AIN device
manufacturers, industry organizations,
service providers, States, etc., to receive
and maintain the records of distribution
of AIN devices to a premises (the record
that indicates what AIN was on each
AIN device that went to each premises),
as opposed to having the information
received by and maintained in our AIN
Management System. APHIS had
developed potential information
technology (IT) solutions and program
administrative processes to support the
transition to the AIN DDD
infrastructure. We held two public
meetings (on March 5–6 and on March
12–13, 2007) to discuss these options
and to explore further the
administrative and IT requirements for
such databases to be practical and
effective. At those meetings, various
sectors of industry, representatives of
livestock markets, service providers,
and individuals who either are, or are
planning to be, AIN tag managers and
AIN tag manufacturers all provided
feedback expressing significant
concerns about the added costs and
increased complexity of maintaining
records in such databases. Based on this
feedback, we determined that this
option did not contribute to a practical
and efficient system and was not
feasible. Therefore, all references to AIN
DDDs have been removed from the
revised User Guide, and APHIS will
continue to maintain distribution
records in the AIN Management System,
as before.
Part IV: Animal Tracing
Animal Trace Processing System
(ATPS).
In March 2007, APHIS completed the
interim development of the ATPS—the
Federal portal system that will allow
Federal and State animal health officials
to request information from the
administrators of private/State animal
tracking databases (ATDs). In addition,
working with State and industry
partners, we completed the
development of the technical
requirements necessary for integration
of those ATDs with the ATPS. The
technical requirements are available
online, for use by organizations with
ATDs that are interested in participating
in this component of the NAIS.
Information on this component of the
NAIS has been updated in the revised
User Guide to ensure that stakeholders
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
are aware of the potential for
participation.
Comments about the revised User
Guide or other aspects of the NAIS may
be submitted to USDA through the NAIS
Web site e-mail address:
animalidcomments@aphis.usda.gov or
by mail to NAIS Program Staff, VS,
APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 200,
Riverdale, MD 20737.
The revised User Guide is considered
a ‘‘significant guidance document’’
under the terms of the Office of
Management and Budget’s (OMB) ‘‘Final
Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance
Practices,’’ which was published in the
Federal Register on January 25, 2007
(72 FR 3432–3440). To learn more about
the OMB bulletin and APHIS’
implementation of its provisions, visit
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/guidance/.
Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of
December 2007.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E7–24653 Filed 12–18–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Clearwater National Forest; Idaho;
Travel Management Plan
Forest Service, USDA.
Revised notice; intent to
prepare an environmental impact
statement. The original notice was
published in the Federal Register/Vol.
72, No. 228, November 28, 2007/
Notices, pages 67268–67270.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: On November 28, 2007, the
USDA Forest Service announced its
intent to prepare a travel planning
environmental impact statement (EIS).
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.
This Revised Notice is being published
because the due date for scoping
comments has been extended to January
11, 2008. 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
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 19, 2007 / Notices
January 11, 2008. 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 crosscountry motorized travel, (3) Designate
selected roads and trails for motorized
travel, (4) Designate appropriate areas or
routes for travel with oversnow
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
the CNF in recognition of the need to
retain the character 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 Vehicle
Use’’ (Federal Register 2005:
79FR68264). 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:40 Dec 18, 2007
Jkt 214001
lands may be allowed, restricted, or
prohibited.’’ 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 open yearlong to all
highway-legal vehicles (an increase of 8
miles compared to existing conditions);
• 509 miles of roads 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 feet 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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
71875
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 miles 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
completed in 1987, trail vehicles were
few and travel planning was focused
almost completely on roads and
highway vehicles. Motorized use has
increase 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
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
71876
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 19, 2007 / Notices
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 Services 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
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 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:40 Dec 18, 2007
Jkt 214001
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
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.
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 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: December 6, 2007.
Thomas K. Reilly,
Clearwater Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 07–6074 Filed 12–18–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–583–816]
Certain Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe
Fittings from Taiwan: Notice of
Extension of Time Limit for the Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is extending the time
limit for the final results of the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
stainless steel butt–weld pipe fittings
from Taiwan. The period of review is
June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006.
This extension is made pursuant to
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act).
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy
Lao or John Drury, Office 7, AD/CVD
Operations, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202)
482–7924 and (202) 482–0195,
respectively.
AGENCY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 2, 2007, the Department
published the preliminary results of the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
stainless steel butt–weld pipe fittings
from Taiwan covering the period June 1,
2005, through May 31, 2006. See Certain
Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings
from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 72
FR 35970 (July 2, 2007). The final
results for the antidumping duty
administrative review of certain
stainless steel butt–weld pipe fittings
from Taiwan are currently due no later
than December 14, 2007.
Extension of Time Limits for Final
Results
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act
requires the Department to issue the
results in an administrative review
within 120 days of the publication of
the preliminary results. However, if it is
not practicable to complete the review
within this time period, section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the
Department to extend the time limit for
the final results to 180 days (or 300 days
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71874-71876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6074]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Clearwater National Forest; Idaho; Travel Management Plan
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Revised notice; intent to prepare an environmental impact
statement. The original notice was published in the Federal Register/
Vol. 72, No. 228, November 28, 2007/Notices, pages 67268-67270.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 28, 2007, the USDA Forest Service announced its
intent to prepare a travel planning environmental impact statement
(EIS). 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. This Revised Notice is being published because the due
date for scoping comments has been extended to January 11, 2008. 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
[[Page 71875]]
January 11, 2008. 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 areas or routes for travel with oversnow 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 the CNF in
recognition of the need to retain the character 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 Vehicle Use''
(Federal Register 2005: 79FR68264). 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 be allowed, restricted, or prohibited.'' 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 open yearlong to all highway-legal vehicles
(an increase of 8 miles compared to existing conditions);
509 miles of roads 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 feet 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 miles 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 increase 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
[[Page 71876]]
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 Services 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 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 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 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 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.
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: December 6, 2007.
Thomas K. Reilly,
Clearwater Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 07-6074 Filed 12-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
