This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

8337 

Vol. 72, No. 37 

Monday, February 26, 2007 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests; 

Santa Rosa Ranger District; Martin 

Basin Rangeland Management Project 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

SUMMARY: The Santa Rosa Ranger 

District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe 

National Forest will prepare a 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (SEIS) on a proposal to 

authorize continued livestock grazing 

on National Forest System (NFS) lands 

within the boundaries administered by 

the Santa Rosa Ranger District. The 

Project Area is located in Humboldt 

County, Nevada. 

The preparation of this SEIS is needed 

because the Record of Decision issued 

on June 2, 2006 for the Martin Basin 

Rangeland Management Project was 

appealed, and following review, the 

decision was reversed. The 

supplemental analysis will provide 

additional analysis and disclosure of 

environmental effects. 

DATES: The Draft Supplemental EIS is 

expected to be released for public 

review and comment in April of 2007. 

The Final Supplemental EIS is expected 

in July of 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: 

Jose Noriega, District Ranger, Santa Rosa 

Ranger District, 1200 East Winnemucca 

Blvd., Winnemucca, NV 89445. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jose 

Noriega, District Ranger, HumboldtToiyabe National Forest, Telephone: 

775–623–5025, extension 5. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Initiation of the Martin Basin 

Rangeland Project began in 2002 with 

the original Notice of intent published 

in the Federal Register on December 30, 

2002. The Draft EIS was released in May 

of 2004 for a 135-day comment period. 

The Final EIS was released in June of 

2005 and a 45-day comment period was 

also provided at that time. The Record 

of Decision for this project was issued 

on June 2, 2006, by, then Forest 

Supervisor, Robert L. Vaught. 

The Record of Decision for the Martin 

Basin Rangeland Project was appealed 

to the Intermountain Regional Forester. 

On September 6, 2006, the Regional 

Forester issued a decision on the appeal 

and remanded the decision back to the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest for 

additional analysis. 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

The purpose and need as defined in 

the original FEIS will be modified to 

indicate more specifically the economic 

and environmental factors that propel 

both the authorization of grazing and 

the modification of the terms and 

conditions and strategies that govern 

our current permits. 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 

The Proposed Action and Alternatives 

as outlined in the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement will be supplemented 

to further define and provide additional 

details regarding the intent of those 

alternatives. This Supplemental EIS 

may also include one or more nonsignificant Forest Plan Amendments. 

Responsible Official 

The responsible official is: Edward C. 

Monnig, Forest Supervisor, HumboldtToiyabe National Forest, 1200 Franklin 

Way, Sparks, NV 89431. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

Given the purpose and need, the 

deciding officer will decide whether or 

not to continue grazing on the 

allotments within the Martin Basin 

Rangeland Project area. If the decision is 

to continue livestock grazing, then 

under what standards, mitigation 

measures and monitoring requirements 

it will be subject too. 

Scoping Process 

The scoping period for this EIS was 

formally initiated in December of 2002 

when the original notice of intent for 

this project was published in the 

Federal Register (December 30, 2002; 

volume 67, Number 250). While no 

additional scoping periods are planned 

prior to the release of the Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement those wishing to submit 

comments may do so at the address 

listed above for District Ranger Jose 

Noriega. 

Early Notice of Importance of Public 

Participation in Subsequent 

Environmental Review 

A Draft Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement will be prepared for 

comment. The comment period on the 

Draft Supplemental EIS will be 45 days 

from the date that the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the 

notice of availability (NOA) in the 

Federal Register. 

The Forest Service believes that, 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 EISs 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 have been raised at the draft EIS 

stage but that are not raised until after 

completion of the final EIS 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 45 

day comment period so that substantive 

comments and objections are made 

available to the Forest Service at a time 

when it can consider them and respond 

to them in a meaningful manner within 

the final EIS. 

To assist the Forest Service in 

identifying and considering issues and 

concerns regarding the Proposed Action, 

comments on the draft EIS should be as 

specific as possible. It is also helpful if 

the comments refer to specific pages, 

sections, or chapters of the draft 

document. Comments may also address 

the adequacy of the draft EIS or the 

merits of the alternatives formulated 

and discussed in the document. 

Reviewers may wish to refer to the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) Regulations for implementing the 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
8338 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Notices 

procedural provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 40 

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. 

Comments received, including the 

names and addresses of those who 

comment, will be considered part of the 

public record of this proposal and will 

be available for public inspection 

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, 

Section 21). 

Dated: January 24, 2007. 

Edward C. Monnig, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. E7–3194 Filed 2–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Umatilla National Forest; Columbia and 

Garfield Counties, WA; Notice of Intent 

To Prepare a Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(SEIS) To Amend the Umatilla National 

Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the Purposes of 

Implementing the School Fire Salvage 

Recovery Project 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a 

supplemental environmental impact 

statement. 

SUMMARY: The Umatilla National Forest 

Supervisor is proposing a nonsignificant amendment to the Umatilla 

National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (LRMP) as amended 

by Regional Forester Amendment #2 

(‘‘Eastside Screens’’) to include a 

definition of ‘‘live’’ trees for the School 

Fire Salvage Recovery Project. The 

proposed amendment would adopt a 

scientific metod for determining live 

trees. 

DATES: Under 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4), there 

is no formal scoping period for this 

proposed action. The supplemental 

draft environmental impact statement is 

expected March 1, 2007 and the final 

environmental impact statement is 

expected June 1, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

the Responsible Official, Kevin Martin, 

Forest Supervisor, Umatilla National 

Forest, 2517 S.W. Hailey Avenue, 

Pendleton, OR 97801. Send electronic 

comments to: commentspacificnorthwest-umatilla@fs.fed.us. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dean R. Millett, Project Team Leader, 

Pomeroy Ranger District, 71 West Main 

Street, Pomeroy, WA 99347, phone 

(509) 843–1891, e-mail: 

dmillett@fs.fed.us. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The Umatilla NF needs ‘‘to salvage 

harvest [bured timber] as rapidly as 

practicable before decay and other wood 

deterioration occurs to maximize 

potential economic benefits’’ as 

identified in School Fire Recovery 

Project FEIS at 1–4. The 9th Court of 

Appeals recently held in The Lands 

Council, No. 06–35781 (9th Cir.) (Feb. 

12, 2007) that the term ‘‘live tree’’

includes all trees that are not dead, 

giving the term its plain meaning. Op. 

at 12. This definition, which does not 

reflect the Forest Service practice and 

interpretation that a live tree must be 

expected to live greater than five years 

(citation), prevents the achievement of 

the need stated above. 

The Proposed Action would amend 

the Forest Plan for the School Project 

Area to adopt a definition of ‘‘live’’ and 

allow the School Fire Recovery Project 

Record of Decision to be fully 

implemented. 

Proposed Action 

The Umatilla National Forest 

Supervisor proposes a non-significant 

Forest Plan amendment to Regional 

Forester’s Amendment #2 to the 

Umatilla LRMP (‘‘Eastside Screens’’) to 

include a definition of ‘‘live’’ trees as 

used in the wildlife standard No. 

6d.2)a). This amendment would apply 

only to the School Fire Salvage 

Recovery Project on the Pomeroy Ranger 

District. 

The amended standard would read as 

follows: (a) Maintain all remnant late 

and old seral and/or structural live trees 

≥21′′ diameter at breast height that 

currently exist within stands proposed 

for harvest activities. A live tree is 

defined as a tree rated to have a high 

probability to survive the effects of a fire 

as determined by the ‘‘Factors Affecting 

Survival of Fire Injured Trees: A Rating 

System for Determining Relative 

Probability of Survival of Conifers in the 

Blue and Wallowa Mountains’’ (Scott et 

al. 2002, as amended) (commonly 

referred to as the Scott Guidelines). 

Responsible Official 

Kevin Martin, Forest Supervisor, 

Umatilla National Forest, 2517 S.W. 

Hailey Avenue, Pendleton, OR 97801. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

To amend the Umatilla LRMP as 

proposed or take no action at this time. 

Scoping Process 

No scoping will be conducted for this 

SEIS pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4). 

Early Notice of Importance of Public 

Participation in Subsequent 

Environmental Review 

A draft environmental impact 

statement will be prepared for comment. 

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 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 45 

day comment period 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. 

Comments received, including the 

names and address of those who 

comment, will be considered part of the 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES