Resurrection Creek Restoration Phase II Project Environmental Impact Statement, 4774-4776 [08-347]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
4774
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
same comment raised questions as to
how the Agency adjusts sampling for
establishment size and volume. Two
other comments urged the Agency not to
reduce testing frequency for Category 1
establishments.
FSIS Response: The Agency has
carefully considered all pertinent factors
to maximize testing and data
productivity. FSIS intends to stagger
testing of Category 1 establishments so
that a full 24 months will not pass
before an establishment is tested again.
Further, the Agency intends to conduct
random, unannounced sampling of
Category 1 establishments during the
period between full verification sample
sets. For these reasons, FSIS believes
that its frequency of testing will ensure
that the status of a Category 1
establishment is appropriately tracked.
It is also important to note that FSIS
does not regard the Salmonella results
alone as an indication of ‘‘adequate
evidence of sustained process control’’.
Verification of process control will rely
on an establishment’s ability to meet
Salmonella performance standards, the
establishment’s own generic E. coli test
results, FSIS inspectional observations,
reports of illness associated with
product produced at an establishment,
and other factors.
Performance Standards
One comment noted that the
performance standards should be
reevaluated through regularly updated
baseline studies. Another comment
stressed that continual improvement
sought by statistical process control
approaches requires the tightening of
standards. On the other hand, one
comment argued that the Agency’s focus
on reducing performance to a fraction of
the standard or guideline ignores the
validity of the baseline-derived
standard/guideline as an index of
realistic process capability.
FSIS Response: The Agency is
committed to updating baseline studies
when needed. The Agency does not
agree that establishing performance
objectives at one-half of the performance
standard/guideline ignores a baseline
standard and that the Agency’s
objectives for process control are
realistic and necessary. FSIS believes
that further knowledge of attribution
factors will show that continual
improvement in reducing occurrence of
human pathogens in meat and poultry
will reduce the incidence of human
salmonellosis.
Salmonella Subtyping Methodology
One commenter recommended phagetyping over pulsed field gel
electrophoresis (PFGE) for subtyping,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:56 Jan 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
and another commenter said more
discussion was needed before the
Agency should choose to use PFGE data.
Another comment, on the other hand,
recommended PFGE for subtyping.
FSIS Response: Phage-typing is
primarily used in reference laboratories
and is impractical for regulatory
purposes. The Agency believes that
PFGE has proven to be a valid and
appropriate methodology for obtaining
subtype information from verification
sampling and baseline studies.
Enumeration of Salmonella and
Attribution Questions
One comment urged the Agency to
conduct enumeration analysis of its
verification samples in order to
investigate the causal factors in human
salmonellosis related to dose level.
FSIS Response: Enumeration is very
expensive and of doubtful value for
practical regulatory purposes that are
qualitative in nature. FSIS, however, is
committed to exploring questions of
attribution for human disease and
recognizes that enumeration of
Salmonella would have a positive role
to play in such an investigation. For this
reason, the Agency is requiring
participants in the Salmonella Initiative
Program to enumerate a portion of their
Salmonella and Campylobacter isolates.
Incentives and Further Actions
One comment stated that the Agency
should begin posting all completed
sample sets immediately rather than
first allowing a one-year period for
collecting data to determine whether
publication of establishment results was
necessary. Two comments urged the
Agency not to consider any
modifications in inspection practices
without strong evidence of superior
establishment performance.
FSIS Response: The Agency believes
that the lead-time announced in the
February 2006 Notice of one year (from
July 2006 to July 2007) for tracking
results was appropriate. The key point
is that the Notice informed the industry
that process control improvements were
crucial and needed to be accomplished
in a timely manner. The Agency agrees
that modifications in inspection should
only occur if there is strong evidence of
superior establishment performance,
and it is exploring such possibilities in
the Salmonella Initiative Program for
Category 1 establishments described
above.
Additional Public Notification
Public awareness of all segments of
rulemaking and policy development is
important. Consequently, in an effort to
ensure that minorities, women, and
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
persons with disabilities are aware of
this notice, FSIS will announce it online
through the FSIS Web page located at
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/
2007_Notices_Index/. FSIS will also
make copies of this Federal Register
publication available through the FSIS
Constituent Update, which is used to
provide information regarding FSIS
policies, procedures, regulations,
Federal Register notices, FSIS public
meetings, and other types of information
that could affect or would be of interest
to constituents and stakeholders. The
Update is communicated via Listserv, a
free electronic mail subscription service
for industry, trade groups, consumer
interest groups, health professionals,
and other individuals who have asked
to be included. The Update is also
available on the FSIS Web page.
Through the Listserv and Web page,
FSIS is able to provide information to a
much broader and more diverse
audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which
provides automatic and customized
access to selected food safety news and
information. This service is available at
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/
news_and_events/email_subscription/.
Options range from recalls to export
information to regulations, directives
and notices. Customers can add or
delete subscriptions themselves, and
they have the option to password
protect their accounts.
Done in Washington, DC on: January 22,
2008.
Alfred V. Almanza,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8–1432 Filed 1–25–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Resurrection Creek Restoration Phase
II Project Environmental Impact
Statement
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Chugach National Forest,
Seward Ranger District will prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
implementation of a stream and riparian
restoration project along a two-mile
segment of Resurrection Creek within
active mining claims. The
environmental impact statement will
evaluate the environmental
consequences of the proposed
restoration project and will also address
a supplemental mining plan of
E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM
28JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
operations proposing mining adjacent to
the restoration corridor.
DATES: To be most useful, comments
concerning the scope of this project
should be received by the end of
February 2008. A draft environmental
impact statement is expected to be ready
for review in the summer of 2008 and
a final environmental impact statement
is planned for the fall of 2008. Public
meetings are also planned to be held:
February 12, 2008 in Hope, AK (6 p.m.
to 8 p.m. at Hope Social Hall), February
13, 2008 in Anchorage, AK (7 p.m. to 9
p.m. at Loussac Public Library).
ADDRESSES: Please send written
comments to: Chugach National Forest,
Attn.: Bill MacFarlane, Resurrection
Creek Stream and Riparian Restoration
Phase II EIS, 3301 ‘C’ Street, Anchorage,
AK 99503–3998. Comments may also be
sent via fax to: 907–743–9480 or via email to: wamacfarlane@fs.fed.us. Please
specify Scoping Comments for
Resurrection Creek in the subject line.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill
MacFarlane, Project Coordinator,
Chugach National Forest, Attn.: Bill
MacFarlane, Resurrection Creek Stream
and Riparian Restoration Phase II EIS,
3301 ‘C’ Street, Anchorage, AK 99503–
3998, telephone (907) 743–9434, e-mail:
wamacfarlane@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Resurrection Creek watershed
drains 161 square miles on the north
side of the Kenai Peninsula, and the
community of Hope, Alaska is located at
the mouth of Resurrection Creek.
Resurrection Creek was the site of
Alaska’s first gold rush over a century
ago, and placer mining continues today.
Resurrection Creek is also home to all
five species of Pacific salmon and
numerous wildlife species. The
Resurrection Pass Trail parallels much
of Resurrection Creek and provides
access to the watershed.
This proposed ‘‘Phase II’’ project
would extend upon the ‘‘Phase I’’
restoration work completed by the
Forest Service during 2005 and 2006 on
a one-mile reach of Resurrection Creek,
located about a mile upstream from the
Resurrection Pass Trailhead. These
reaches were impacted by historic
mining, and both of these projects were
recommended in the Resurrection Creek
Landscape Assessment, completed in
2001.
The Seward Ranger District proposes
to restore Resurrection Creek’s channel,
floodplain, and streamside vegetation to
pre-mining conditions and enhance fish
and riparian wildlife habitat.
Restoration work would take place on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:56 Jan 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
and adjacent to Resurrection Creek
along the two-mile project reach.
Elements of the proposed project
implementation include the following:
• Providing access for heavy
equipment, which may include a
temporary bridge over Resurrection
Creek.
• Mechanical manipulation and
grading of up to 200,000 cubic yards of
mine tailings to restore the natural
floodplain widths and elevations.
• Construction of a meandering river
channel and adjacent side channels that
mimic natural conditions, include
abundant habitat, and promote a selfsustaining riparian ecosystem.
• Selective removal of beetle killed
spruce and cottonwood trees, taken
primarily from the valley floor and
western terrace along the project area,
for use in stream bank protection,
habitat improvement, and floodplain
stabilization.
• Replacement of nutrient-rich soils
over the restored floodplains,
transplanted primarily from the western
terrace of the project area, to improve
growing conditions for native plant
communities in the floodplains and
riparian areas.
• Re-vegetation of native plant
species on constructed floodplains and
riparian areas, including natural revegetation, seeding, and planting.
The project area lies within mining
claims of the Hope Mining Company.
Because the proposed stream restoration
would occur within active mining
claims, the Forest Service has worked
with the mine claimants to establish a
restoration corridor, where mining
operations would be excluded in order
to protect the restored ecosystem.
To accomplish the proposed
restoration within the restoration
corridor through these active claims,
this project will address Hope Mining
Company’s proposed supplemental
mining plan of operations which:
• Provides the necessary protection
for the proposed Resurrection Creek
restoration efforts from existing
approved mining operations and future
mining operations within the restoration
corridor; and
• Includes proposed mining
operations for seven areas adjacent to
the proposed corridor. These seven
areas will be analyzed concurrently
with the proposed stream restoration
elements.
Permits and Licenses
The proposed restoration is not
expected to require any permits or
licenses; however, depending on final
project design and land ownership, the
Forest Service may obtain a water use
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4775
permit (AS 41.114, Section 870) and/or
a temporary land use permit (11 AAC
96.010a).
Public Involvement
During February of 2008 the Forest
Service will be seeking information,
comments, and assistance from Federal,
State and local agencies, tribal
organizations, individuals, and
organizations that may be interested in,
or affected by the proposed activities.
Comments received as a result of both
the earlier public involvement and the
current scoping will be included in this
analysis. All comments will be analyzed
to identify issues to be considered in the
Draft EIS. Issues currently identified for
analysis in the EIS include potential
effects of the allocation to economic
opportunities, conflicts between
commercial operations, displacement of
resident users, impacts to wildlife
habitat, and the effect on subsistence
uses.
It is also expected that two public
meetings will be held in Hope and
Anchorage February 12th and 13th,
2008 respectively, to provide project
area information and discuss local
concerns and interests that should be
addressed in this environmental
analysis. Based on the results of
scoping, alternatives will be developed,
analyzed, and compared in a Draft EIS.
The Draft EIS will be filed with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
in the summer of 2008. Comments on
the DEIS will be considered and
responded to in the Final EIS, to be
completed by fall 2008.
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 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 or draft
environmental impact statement 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.
E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM
28JAN1
4776
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Notices
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 so that comments can be made
available to the Forest Service at a time
when they can be meaningfully
considered responded to 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.
Comments received in response to
this solicitation, including names and
addresses of those who comment, will
be considered part of the public record
on this Proposed Action and will be
available for public inspection and may
be released under FOIA. Comments
submitted anonymously will be
accepted and considered; however,
those who submit anonymous
comments will not have standing to
appeal the subsequent decision (36 CFR
Parts 215).
Responsible Official: Jeni Evans,
Seward District Ranger, Chugach
National Forest, is the responsible
official.
spatial patterns. Proposed activities also
address the transportation system
associated with vegetation activities and
long-term federal, non-federal, and
public access needs.
The Project Area encompasses about
57,000 acres of National Forest System
land. The Proposed Action would create
young forest through timber harvest on
about 8,617 acres; improve stand
structure and within-stand diversity
with harvests such as thinning on about
3,730 acres; and restore stand
conditions without harvest on about
1,904 acres. Managing the minimum
road system needed for long-term
vegetation management would involve
adding 1.6 miles of system road and
decommissioning 9.2 miles of road. A
range of alternatives, including a noaction alternative, will be developed to
respond to significant issues. The
proposed project is located on the
LaCroix Ranger District, Cook,
Minnesota, Superior National Forest.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope
of the analysis must be received by
March 10, 2008. The draft
environmental impact statement is
expected in summer 2008 and the final
environmental impact statement is
expected in winter 2008/2009.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
Nancy S. Larson, LaCroix District
Ranger, Border Project, 320 Hwy 53
North, Cook, MN 55723. Send electronic
comments to comments-easternsuperior-la-croix@fs.fed.us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carol Booth, Border Project Coordinator,
320 Hwy 53 North, Cook, MN 55723;
telephone (218) 666–0020.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: January 17, 2008.
Jeni Bradley Evans,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 08–347 Filed 1–25–08; 8:45 am]
Purpose and Need for Action
The primary purpose of the Border
Project is to move the area towards the
vegetation and landscape ecosystem
desired conditions described in the
Superior National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan (Forest
Plan). Forest Plan direction for the
transportation system is also part of the
project’s purpose.
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Superior National Forest, LaCroix
Ranger District, MN; Border Project
Environmental Impact Statement
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement.
AGENCY:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, will prepare
an environmental impact statement
(EIS) for the Border Project. The
proposed activities would manage forest
vegetation composition, structure, and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:56 Jan 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
Proposed Action
The proposed Action would manage
forest vegetation composition, structure,
and spatial patterns and the
transportation system associated with
these activities. Proposed activities
include: creating young forest
approximately 8,617 acres, improving
stand structure and within-stand
diversity on approximately 3,730 acres,
and restoring stand conditions through
a variety of non-harvest activities such
as planting, biomass removal, and
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
conducting prescribed burns to reduce
risk of wildfire on approximately 1,904
acres. Managing the minimum road
system needed for long-term vegetation
management would involve adding 1.6
miles of system road and
decommissioning 9.2 miles of road.
Responsible Official
Nancy S. Larson, LaCroix District
Ranger, 320 Hwy 53 North, Cook, MN
55723.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
An environmental analysis for the
Border Project will evaluate site-specific
issues, consider management
alternatives, and analyze the potential
effects of the proposed action and
alternatives. The scope of the project is
limited to decisions concerning
activities within the Border Project Area
that meet the Purpose and Need, as well
as desired conditions. An
environmental impact statement will
provide the Responsible Official, Nancy
S. Larson, with the information needed
to decide which actions, if any, to
approve.
Scoping Process
Public participation will be an
integral component of the analysis
process, and will be especially
important at several points during the
analysis. The first is during the scoping
process. The Forest Service is seeking
information, comments, and assistance
from federal agencies, State agencies,
local agencies, individuals, and
organizations that may be interested or
affected by the proposed activities. The
scoping process will include: (1)
Identification of potential issues, (2)
identification of issues to be analyzed in
depth, and (3) elimination of
insignificant issues, or those which have
been covered by a previous
environmental review. Based on the
results of scoping and the resource
capabilities within the project area,
alternatives, including a no-action
alternative, will be developed for the
draft environmental impact statement.
Permits or Licenses Required
Easement or permission to cross nonfederal property may be needed to
access some treatment units to
implement Forest Service activities.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the
scoping process which guides the
development of the environmental
impact statement. Written comments
will be solicited through a scoping
package that will be sent to the project
mailing list. For the Forest Service to
E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM
28JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 18 (Monday, January 28, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4774-4776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-347]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Resurrection Creek Restoration Phase II Project Environmental
Impact Statement
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Chugach National Forest, Seward Ranger District will
prepare an environmental impact statement for the implementation of a
stream and riparian restoration project along a two-mile segment of
Resurrection Creek within active mining claims. The environmental
impact statement will evaluate the environmental consequences of the
proposed restoration project and will also address a supplemental
mining plan of
[[Page 4775]]
operations proposing mining adjacent to the restoration corridor.
DATES: To be most useful, comments concerning the scope of this project
should be received by the end of February 2008. A draft environmental
impact statement is expected to be ready for review in the summer of
2008 and a final environmental impact statement is planned for the fall
of 2008. Public meetings are also planned to be held: February 12, 2008
in Hope, AK (6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at Hope Social Hall), February 13, 2008
in Anchorage, AK (7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at Loussac Public Library).
ADDRESSES: Please send written comments to: Chugach National Forest,
Attn.: Bill MacFarlane, Resurrection Creek Stream and Riparian
Restoration Phase II EIS, 3301 `C' Street, Anchorage, AK 99503-3998.
Comments may also be sent via fax to: 907-743-9480 or via e-mail to:
wamacfarlane@fs.fed.us. Please specify Scoping Comments for
Resurrection Creek in the subject line.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill MacFarlane, Project Coordinator,
Chugach National Forest, Attn.: Bill MacFarlane, Resurrection Creek
Stream and Riparian Restoration Phase II EIS, 3301 `C' Street,
Anchorage, AK 99503-3998, telephone (907) 743-9434, e-mail:
wamacfarlane@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Resurrection Creek watershed drains 161 square miles on the
north side of the Kenai Peninsula, and the community of Hope, Alaska is
located at the mouth of Resurrection Creek. Resurrection Creek was the
site of Alaska's first gold rush over a century ago, and placer mining
continues today. Resurrection Creek is also home to all five species of
Pacific salmon and numerous wildlife species. The Resurrection Pass
Trail parallels much of Resurrection Creek and provides access to the
watershed.
This proposed ``Phase II'' project would extend upon the ``Phase
I'' restoration work completed by the Forest Service during 2005 and
2006 on a one-mile reach of Resurrection Creek, located about a mile
upstream from the Resurrection Pass Trailhead. These reaches were
impacted by historic mining, and both of these projects were
recommended in the Resurrection Creek Landscape Assessment, completed
in 2001.
The Seward Ranger District proposes to restore Resurrection Creek's
channel, floodplain, and streamside vegetation to pre-mining conditions
and enhance fish and riparian wildlife habitat. Restoration work would
take place on and adjacent to Resurrection Creek along the two-mile
project reach. Elements of the proposed project implementation include
the following:
Providing access for heavy equipment, which may include a
temporary bridge over Resurrection Creek.
Mechanical manipulation and grading of up to 200,000 cubic
yards of mine tailings to restore the natural floodplain widths and
elevations.
Construction of a meandering river channel and adjacent
side channels that mimic natural conditions, include abundant habitat,
and promote a self-sustaining riparian ecosystem.
Selective removal of beetle killed spruce and cottonwood
trees, taken primarily from the valley floor and western terrace along
the project area, for use in stream bank protection, habitat
improvement, and floodplain stabilization.
Replacement of nutrient-rich soils over the restored
floodplains, transplanted primarily from the western terrace of the
project area, to improve growing conditions for native plant
communities in the floodplains and riparian areas.
Re-vegetation of native plant species on constructed
floodplains and riparian areas, including natural re-vegetation,
seeding, and planting.
The project area lies within mining claims of the Hope Mining
Company. Because the proposed stream restoration would occur within
active mining claims, the Forest Service has worked with the mine
claimants to establish a restoration corridor, where mining operations
would be excluded in order to protect the restored ecosystem.
To accomplish the proposed restoration within the restoration
corridor through these active claims, this project will address Hope
Mining Company's proposed supplemental mining plan of operations which:
Provides the necessary protection for the proposed
Resurrection Creek restoration efforts from existing approved mining
operations and future mining operations within the restoration
corridor; and
Includes proposed mining operations for seven areas
adjacent to the proposed corridor. These seven areas will be analyzed
concurrently with the proposed stream restoration elements.
Permits and Licenses
The proposed restoration is not expected to require any permits or
licenses; however, depending on final project design and land
ownership, the Forest Service may obtain a water use permit (AS 41.114,
Section 870) and/or a temporary land use permit (11 AAC 96.010a).
Public Involvement
During February of 2008 the Forest Service will be seeking
information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State and local
agencies, tribal organizations, individuals, and organizations that may
be interested in, or affected by the proposed activities. Comments
received as a result of both the earlier public involvement and the
current scoping will be included in this analysis. All comments will be
analyzed to identify issues to be considered in the Draft EIS. Issues
currently identified for analysis in the EIS include potential effects
of the allocation to economic opportunities, conflicts between
commercial operations, displacement of resident users, impacts to
wildlife habitat, and the effect on subsistence uses.
It is also expected that two public meetings will be held in Hope
and Anchorage February 12th and 13th, 2008 respectively, to provide
project area information and discuss local concerns and interests that
should be addressed in this environmental analysis. Based on the
results of scoping, alternatives will be developed, analyzed, and
compared in a Draft EIS. The Draft EIS will be filed with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the summer of 2008. Comments
on the DEIS will be considered and responded to in the Final EIS, to be
completed by fall 2008.
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 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 or draft environmental
impact statement 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.
[[Page 4776]]
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 so that
comments can be made available to the Forest Service at a time when
they can be meaningfully considered responded to 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.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names
and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the
public record on this Proposed Action and will be available for public
inspection and may be released under FOIA. Comments submitted
anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit
anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent
decision (36 CFR Parts 215).
Responsible Official: Jeni Evans, Seward District Ranger, Chugach
National Forest, is the responsible official.
Dated: January 17, 2008.
Jeni Bradley Evans,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 08-347 Filed 1-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
