4774 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / 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, 

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 

persons with disabilities are aware of 

this notice, FSIS will announce it online 

through the FSIS Web page located at 

http://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 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Notices 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 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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

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. 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Superior National Forest, LaCroix 

Ranger District, MN; Border Project 

Environmental Impact Statement 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

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 

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: 

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. 

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 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES