2258 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Notices 

interest in the U.S. flavor industry, and 

a group of trade associations that 

represent the meat, poultry, and food 

processing industries. 

All of the comments stated that 

because the issues surrounding the 

claim ‘‘natural’’ are complex, interested 

parties need additional time than what 

was provided in the December 5, 2006, 

Federal Register notice to prepare 

thoughtful comments. The comments 

also argued that, to properly consider 

issues associated with the petition and 

the claim ‘‘natural,’’ stakeholders must 

have access to the information 

presented by both FSIS and the public 

at the December 12, 2006, public 

meeting. One comment stated that it is 

important that stakeholders have the 

opportunity to thoroughly evaluate 

possible changes to the definition or 

criteria for labeling a meat or poultry 

product ‘‘natural’’ to ensure that the 

industry is able to continue to market 

products that bear the ‘‘natural’’ claim 

and to ensure that these products meet 

consumer expectations. 

In addition to the reasons discussed 

above, the comments also argued that 

because the comment period includes 

the upcoming holidays, trade 

associations may have a difficult time 

collecting meaningful input from their 

members before the January 11, 2007, 

closing date. The comments also stated 

that the comment period falls during 

what is typically the busiest time of year 

for meat and poultry companies. One 

comment stated that FSIS gave little 

notice before the December 12, 2006, 

public meeting, and that interested 

parties lost time preparing comments for 

the public meeting and rearranging their 

schedules to attend the public meeting. 

FSIS agrees that the issues 

surrounding the labeling claim 

‘‘natural’’ are complex, and that 

interested parties should have 

additional time to consider information 

presented at the December 12, 2006, 

public meeting. Therefore, to facilitate 

the comment process, the Agency has 

decided to re-open and extend the 

comment period until March 5, 2007. 

The transcript of the December 12, 2006, 

public meeting is now available on the 

FSIS Web site at http:// 

www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/ 

2006_events/index.asp for viewing by 

the public. Therefore, this notice 

announces that the Agency is reopening and extending the comment 

period for the Hormel petition until 

March 5, 2007. 

Additional Public Notification 

Public awareness of all segments of 

rulemaking and policy development is 

important. Consequently, in an effort to 

ensure that the public and in particular 

minorities, women, and persons with 

disabilities, are aware of this proposal, 

FSIS will announce it on-line through 

the FSIS Web page located at http:// 

www.fsis.usda.gov/ 

regulations_&_policies/ 

2006_Proposed_Rules_Index/index.asp. 

The Regulations.gov Web site is the 

central online rulemaking portal of the 

United States government. It is being 

offered as a public service to increase 

participation in the Federal 

government’s regulatory activities. FSIS 

participates in Regulations.gov and will 

accept comments on documents 

published on the site. The site allows 

visitors to search by keyword or 

Department or Agency for rulemakings 

that allow for public comment. Each 

entry provides a quick link to a 

comment form so that visitors can type 

in their comments and submit them to 

FSIS. The Web site is located at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FSIS also will 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, recalls, and other 

types of information that could affect or 

would be of interest to our constituents 

and stakeholders. The update is 

communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail 

subscription service consisting of 

industry, trade, and farm groups, 

consumer interest groups, allied health 

professionals, scientific professionals, 

and other individuals who have 

requested to be included. The update 

also is available on the FSIS Web page. 

Through Listserv and the Web page, 

FSIS is able to provide information to a 

much broader, 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 

http://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 

have the option to password protect 

their account. 

Done in Washington, DC: January 12, 2007. 

Barbara J. Masters, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 07–192 Filed 1–12–07; 3:10 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Lolo National Forest—Butte Lookout 

Project 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will 

prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) for timber harvesting, 

prescribed burning, road access 

changes, and watershed rehabilitation in 

a 12,000-acre drainage area near 

Missoula, Montana. 

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis should be received in 

writing within 30 days following 

publication of this notice. Comments 

received during the initial scoping in 

December 2005, will be considered in 

the analysis and do not need to be 

resubmitted during this comment time 

period. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Maggie Pittman, District Ranger, 

Missoula Ranger District, Building 24 

Fort Missoula, Missoula, MT 59804. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don 

Stadler, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, 

Missoula Ranger District, as above, or 

phone: (406) 329–3731. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

responsible official who will make 

decisions based on this EIS is Deborah 

L. R. Austin, Lolo National Forest, 

Building 24 Fort Missoula, Missoula, 

MT 59804. She will decide on this 

proposal after considering comments 

and responses, environmental 

consequences discussed in the Final 

EIS, and applicable laws, regulations, 

and policies. The decision and reasons 

for the decision will be documented in 

a Record of Decision. 

In 1996, Missoula District completed 

an ‘‘ecosystem analysis at the watershed 

scale’’ for the South Fork of Lolo Creek 

watershed. Ecosystem analysis takes a 

look at the big picture and integrate 

projects to achieve long-term Lolo 

National Forest management goals and 

desired future conditions. This 

ecosystem analysis provided the basis 

for this proposed action. 

The proposed management action is 

to harvest and/or burn about 70 units 

totaling about 1,455 acres using one to 

five commercial timber sale(s), and to 

decommission around 27.9 miles of 

system and non-system roads. Of that 

1,455 acre total, about 1,180 acres 

would be regneration harvested and/or 

burned and about 275 acres would be 

commercially thinned. Less than one 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Notices 2259 

mile of permanent new roads would be 

constructed. About 1.1 miles of shortterm road would be built to Forest 

Service standards, used for harvest, and 

reclaimed to their original contour after 

use. A combination of Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) measures, such as 

check dams in ditches, sediment basins, 

additional ditch relief pipes, lined 

ditches, and other surface drainage 

devices, would be installed on about 41 

miles of system roads that access the 

units. Treatment areas and distances 

may change slightly as the alternatives 

are developed and more accurately 

mapped. 

The Butte Lookout Project is needed 

at this time because: 

1. The transportation analysis 

indicates that, due in part to the 

evolution of logging systems; we have 

more miles of roads than are needed to 

manage forest resources in the West 

Fork Butte Creek (WFBC) drainage. In 

the absence of a regular program of 

forest management activities, road 

maintenance dollars are inadequate to 

maintain the entire road system, and 

therefore, some of the roads are 

producing sediment that reaches WFBC. 

WFBC has elevated instream sediment 

levels that are above 

referencedconditions (S. Fk. of Lolo 

Creek Watershed Analysis). The lowest 

reaches of WFBC were harvested with 

high density jammer roads in the 1950s 

and 1960s (primarily in Marshall Creek). 

The jammer roads have mostly grown 

closed but some may still contribute 

sediment to the creek. From the middle 

1960s through the 1970s, the majority of 

the south-facing private lands in lower 

WFBC were roaded and harvested. In 

the 1970s and 1980s, an extensive road 

system was constructed on federal and 

private lands within the drainage for 

timber management. This road system 

now provides administrative motorized 

access throughout the watershed. Roads 

constructed prior to the 1980s generally 

were not surfaced and did not employ 

as many erosion devices or rolling 

grades to control surface drainage as we 

now use. As the Forest re-entered the 

drainage in the 1980s and 1990s, the 

roads used for that timber harvest 

generally had some drainage control 

added, although more is still needed to 

meet today’s standards to reduce 

sediment delivery. There are about 85 

miles of Forest Service road in the 

WFBC drainage. This includes about 

three miles of road that are open yearlong, 46 miles of road closed to public 

travel year-long, and 13 miles of road 

with seasonal restrictions. In addition 

there are about 11 miles of historic road 

and 12 miles of jammer road which are 

not drivable and not considered forest 

system roads. The high road densities 

which are characteristic of jammer road 

development are inappropriate for 

current yarding technology and land 

management philosophy. Many of the 

roads were abandoned without 

consideration for long-term erosion 

control and hydrological requirements 

within the drainage. The culverts which 

remain are at risk of failure over the 

long-term since they are not being 

maintained and generally have 

inadequate flow capacity if a significant 

runoff event occurs. The historic roads 

are those which are no longer 

functioning as roads but which have not 

been officially disposed of. These roads 

typically have only partially revegetated 

and have a road prism which is intact. 

Like the jammer roads, these roads may 

have inadequate road drainage control 

and undersized culverts. The system 

roads are primarily used for fire 

protection, administrative use, minimal 

road and culvert maintenance, 

motorized recreation, and walk in 

recreation. Some of the roads have been 

identified as no longer needed for 

management of the area. This road 

system not contributes sediment to the 

creek and its tributaries. Some of the 

roads have undersized culverts (some 

are fish barriers) or design features 

which need to be improved or replaced. 

2. Aquatic habitat in WFBC is in poor 

overall condition because of the 1910 

fire and management activities since 

1950. Raised sediment levels are 

affecting spawning success and 

reducing available rearing habitat for 

native fish species, including the 

federally listed bull trout. There is a low 

amount of good pool habitat and a lack 

of large woody debris in the stream, and 

as a result, over-winter areas are lacking 

in the WFBC. Native species must move 

into the extreme lower reaches of the 

stream or into the South Fork Lolo 

Creek to find high quality, complex pool 

habitat capable of sustaining them 

through the winter. Seven undersized or 

perched culverts are barriers to aquatic 

organism passage, making about 12 

miles of streams unavailable as fish 

habitat. There are some valley bottom 

roads along stream banks and in 

riparian zones which negatively affect 

aquatic habitat, channelize streams, and 

reduce overall stream sinuosity. This 

has resulted in increased gradients and 

hydraulic forces in the channel, causing 

bank erosion and bedload movement. 

Direct sediment routing to stream 

channels also occurs via streambank 

and riparian roads. These roads are also 

reducing the amount of large woody 

debris that enters and stays in the 

stream. The overall result of valley 

bottom roads is a reduction on aquatic 

habitat amount and complexity. 

3. Landscape components (structure, 

composition, and function) have been 

adversely affected by dire suppression 

since 1910 by preventing the occurrence 

of moderate and low severity fires as 

well as any high severity stand 

replacing fires. There is a widespread 

infestation of bark beetles within the 

large area of high risk forests under 

drought stressed conditions. This 

equates to a high likelihood of 

significant continued tree mortality. The 

land within the project area is 

predominately allocated for timber 

management to provide sawlogs as a 

byproduct of achieving ecological 

objectives. The effect of fire suppression 

and the beetle epidemic is to change the 

composition of the forest away from the 

desired future conditions and objectives 

disclosed in forest plans, and in 

national, regional, and forest strategies. 

4. Fire suppression has also reduced 

ecological resiliency to disturbances and 

has created a homogenization of the 

landscape. Fuels are now much more 

continuous than was thought to exist 

under more natural fire regimes. The 

primary missing fire effects are those 

realized by localized occurrences of low 

and mixed severity wildfires or 

emulated by prescribed fires. Periodic 

low-to-moderate severity fire favors 

Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine by 

setting back invasion by the more 

tolerant subalpine fir and spruce which, 

in the absence of fire, form dense 

understories and eventually take over 

the site. Further, these periodic fires 

would reduce ladder fuels and crown 

density thus lowering the risk of stand 

replacement fires via sustained crown 

fire. Large-scale bark beetle mortality 

and fuel accumulation has created a 

scenario where fires that burn in this 

landscape can reach thousands of acres 

very quickly. 

5. Cumulative changes in vegetative 

structure, species composition, and 

distribution on the landscape from fire 

exclusion and past timber harvest on 

federal and private lands directly relate 

to wildlife habitat. Some wildlife 

species have benefited from these 

changes while others have been affected 

negatively. A goal of this proposal is 

restore forest stands and associated 

wildlife habitat to a condition that 

represents what occurred historically 

with emphasis on habitat factors that are 

limited or degraded at the project and 

landscape scales. Vegetative stands 

within the project area are primarily in 

Fire Group 6 (Fischer and Bradley 

1987). These stands are typically 

comprised of ponderosa pine, larch, 

Douglas fir (and in some cases lodgepole 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
2260 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Notices 

pine), in a multistoried arrangement. 

Existing canopy closures and stem 

densities are very high and these 

conditions do not favor the regeneration 

of shade intolerant species such as larch 

and ponderosa pine. Historically, 

wildfires at roughly 15–40 year intervals 

created conditions in which these lowto-moderate severity burned forests 

were generally more open but also more 

spatially diverse at the stand, watershed 

and landscape scales. In addition, these 

fires resulted in site preparation for 

larch and ponderosa pine regeneration, 

created fire killed patches of wildlife 

habitat, and also scarred large diameter 

trees, resulting in long standing snags. 

Species dependant on large diameter 

snags, old forests with open understory 

and a heterogeneous distribution of 

habitat conditions across the landscape 

benefit under these conditions. Such 

species include Flammulated owls, 

northern goshawks and pileated 

woodpeckers. 

The decision to be made is to what 

extent, if at all, the Forest Service 

should conduct timber harvest, 

prescribed burning, road construction or 

reconstruction, road reclamation, and 

road closures in the Lolo Creek 

drainage, given the above purpose and 

need. This is a site-specific project 

decision, not a general management 

plan nor a programmatic analysis. 

Public scoping has been conducted on 

most elements of this proposal both 

with this proposal and an earlier version 

of this proposal. 

While quite a number of issues have 

been identified for environmental 

effects analysis, the following issues 

have been found significant enough to 

guide alternative development and 

provide focus for the EIS: 

(1) Water quality and fisheries habitat 

effects resulting from timber harvest and 

road construction and rehabilitation 

activities; 

(2) Wildlife habitat effects resulting 

from timber harvest and road 

construction and rehabilitation 

activities; 

(3) Effects of treatments on site 

productivity, forest health, vegetative 

condition, and species composition, 

individually and cumulatively, 

(4) Effects of treatment on area scenic 

values, and 

(5) Economic effects on local 

communities resulting from different 

intensities of restoration treatments and 

resulting timber values. 

The Lolo Forest Plan provides the 

overall guidance for management 

activities in the project area through its 

Goals, Objectives, Standards and 

Guidelines, and Management Area 

direction. 

The proposed action could have both 

beneficial and adverse effects on forest 

resources. In addition to the proposed 

action, a range of alternatives will be 

developed in response to issues 

identified during scoping. One of these 

will be the ‘‘no-action’’ alternative, 

which would not allow vegetation 

manipulation through harvest or any 

road decommissioning under this 

analysis. Other alternatives may 

examine various combinations of 

treatment areas. The Forest Service will 

analyze and document the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative environmental 

effects of the alternatives. In addition, 

the EIS will include site specific 

mitigation measures and discussions 

about their effectiveness. 

Public participation is important to 

the analysis. People may visit with 

Forest Service officials at any time 

during the analysis and prior to the 

decision. No formal scoping meetings 

are planned. However, two periods are 

specifically designated for comments on 

the analysis: 

(1) During this scoping process and 

(2) During the draft EIS comment 

period. 

During the scoping process, the Forest 

Service is seeking information and 

comments from Federal, State, and local 

agencies and other individuals or 

organizations that may be interested in 

or affected by the proposed action. A 

scoping document will be mailed to 

parties known to be interested in the 

proposed action. The agency invites 

written comments and suggestions on 

this action, particularly in terms of 

issues and alternatives. Persons who 

provided comments in the past on this 

project do not have to resubmit them. 

Those previously stated concerns will 

be incorporated into this analysis. 

The Forest Service will continue to 

involve the public and will inform 

interested and affected parties as to how 

they may participate and contribute to 

the final decision. Another formal 

opportunity for public response will be 

provided following completion of a 

draft EIS. 

The draft EIS should be available for 

review in June 2007. The final EIS is 

scheduled for completion in September 

of 2007. 

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 it is 

important, at this early, 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 it is 

meaningful and alerts the agency to the 

reviewer’s position and contentions 

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. 

v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978)). 

Also, environmental objections that 

could be raised at the draft 

environmental impact statement stage 

but 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 v. Harris, 490 F. 

Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980)). 

Because of these court rulings, it is very 

important those interested in this 

proposed action participate by the close 

of the 45-day comment period so 

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. Reviews 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. 

I am the responsible official for this 

environmental impact statement. My 

address is Lolo National Forest, 

Building 24, Fort Missoula, MT 59804. 

Dated: January 11, 2007. 

Deborah L. R. Austin, 

Forest Supervisor, Lolo National Forest. 

[FR Doc. 07–158 Filed 1–17–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Black Hills National Forest Advisory 

Board Public Meeting Dates 

Announced 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of Meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Black Hills National 

Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) has 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES