44958 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 149 / Friday, August 1, 2008 / Notices 

confine livestock to the appropriate 

pasture. 

Our analysis will consider 

implementation of these options 

(development of additional water 

sources and construction of a stock 

driveway), as well as the upper limits 

for stocking, as part of the adaptive 

management strategy. 

Possible Alternatives 

Possible alternatives, in addition to 

the proposed action, are No Action 

(current management) and No Livestock 

Grazing. 

Responsible Official 

Kevin Riordan, Forest Supervisor, 

2880 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 59601. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The nature of the decision is two-part: 

1. Whether livestock grazing should be 

authorized on all, part, or none of the 

project area. 2. If the decision is to 

authorize some level of livestock 

grazing, then what management 

prescriptions will be applied (including 

standards, guidelines, grazing 

management, and monitoring) to ensure 

that desired condition objectives are met 

or that movement occurs toward those 

objectives. 

Scoping Process 

• Scoping Package (mailing)—

August, 2008. 

• NOI—August, 2008. 

• Post on Web site—August, 2008. 

Preliminary Issues 

Preliminary internal review, as well 

as public comments from 2007, 

indicates concerns with riparian 

conditions along relatively short (less 

than 1/4 mile), isolated stretches of 

streams on the Tarhead Allotment. 

Monitoring and follow-up action to 

adjust management to improve the 

recovery of these areas are the focus of 

the proposed action. Internal review has 

suggested the possible need in the 

future to provide an alternative to the 

current route used to trail livestock 

between pastures on the Marsh Creek 

allotment. Construction of a stock 

driveway is incorporated into the 

proposed action to address this possible 

future need. 

Comment Requested 

This notice of intent initiates the 

scoping process which guides the 

development of the environmental 

impact statement. Comments are due by 

August 22, 2008. 

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 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. 

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 

21) 

Dated: July 23, 2008. 

Kevin T. Riordan, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. E8–17429 Filed 7–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

The Manti-La Sal National Forest, 

Sanpete Ranger District, Utah, Sunroc 

Gypsum Surface Mine Plan of 

Operation 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: Sunroc Corporation has 

submitted a Plan of Operations (the 

Plan) proposing continued gypsum 

surface mining operations in the 

Chicken Creek East and Chicken Creek 

West mines and proposes opening 

another pit on it’s existing adjacent 

claims. The location of the mine is in 

Juab County, Utah, approximately 2 

miles east of the town of Levan in 

portions of Section(s) 33 and 34, T14S, 

R1E, and Section 4, T15S, R1E, SLB&M. 

In response, the Manti LaSal National 

Forest is preparing an Environmental 

Impact Statement to analyze the 

environmental effect of the proposed 

Plan and determine whether to approve 

the Plan as proposed or to require 

additional mitigation measures to 

protect the environment. 

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be received by 30 

days after the publication of the NOI. 

The draft environmental impact 

statement is expected November, 2008 

and the final environmental impact 

statement is expected January, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Rod Player, Acting Forest Supervisor, 

Manti LaSal National Forest, 599 West 

Price River Drive, Price, Utah 84501. 

For further information, mail 

correspondence to Tom Lloyd, Team 

Leader, by mail: Box 310, Ferron, Utah 

84523. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

Tom Lloyd, Team Leader by mail: Box 

310, Ferron, Utah, 84523. The Plan of 

Operation is available for public review 

(36 CFR 228.6) at the District Ranger’s 

Office, 540 North Main, Ephraim, Utah 

84627–1117. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

Sunroc Corporation has submitted a 

Plan of Operations for continued mining 

in the Chicken Creek East and Chicken 

Creek West mines and proposed mining 

in the Upper Chicken Creek West area. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 149 / Friday, August 1, 2008 / Notices 44959 

The purpose of this EIS is to provide a 

timely evaluation of the environmental 

impacts of the proposed plan of 

operation and determine whether to 

approve the Plan as proposed or to 

require additional mitigation measures 

to protect the environment (in 

accordance with Forest Service 

regulations for locatable minerals). 

The need for action is to allow Sunroc 

Corporation to exercise their rights 

under U.S. mining laws. Sunroc has a 

right to develop its claims as set forth 

by the General Mining Law of 1872 as 

amended. These laws provide that the 

public has a statutory right to conduct 

prospecting, exploration, and 

development activities (1872 Mining 

Law and 1897 Organic Act), provided 

they are reasonably incident (1955 

Multiple Use Mining Act and case law) 

to mining and comply with other federal 

laws. 

The Forest Service has the 

responsibility to protect surface 

resources. Mining regulations state that 

‘‘operations shall be conducted so as, 

where feasible, to minimize adverse 

environmental effects on Nation Forest 

System surface resources (36 CFR 

228.8)’’ provided such regulation does 

not endanger or materially interfere 

with prospecting, mining, or processing 

operations or reasonably incident uses 

(1955 Multiple Use Mining Act and case 

law). 

Proposed Action 

The proposed federal action is to 

approve Sunroc Corporation’s Plan of 

Operation with mitigations needed to 

protect other non-mineral surface 

resources consistent with Forest Plan, 

regulations, and other applicable laws. 

Possible Alternatives 

1. No Action, 2. Approve the Plan as 

presented, 3. Approve the Plan as 

presented by Sunroc Corporation, with 

stipulations necessary to protect the 

non-mineral resources of the area. 

Responsible Official 

Rod Player, Acting Forest Supervisor, 

Manti LaSal National Forest, 599 West 

Price River Drive, Price, Utah 84501. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The federal action being considered in 

this environmental analysis is the Forest 

Service decision to approve the 

proposed Plan as submitted, or to 

decide what additional mitigations are 

needed to protect other resources as 

provided for in 36 CFR 228.8. 

Scoping Process 

Scoping will include NOI to Federal 

Register, listing in the Quarterly 

Schedule of Proposed Actions, letters to 

interested and affected individuals, 

agencies, and organizations, and legal 

notices. No public meeting is planned. 

Preliminary Issues 

Some of the proposed mining area is 

in inventoried roadless area, in key 

winter range, and the proposed 

disturbance does not meet visual quality 

objectives of the Forest Plan. 

Permits or Licenses Required 

The approved Plan of Operation 

authorizes mining. Operations must be 

consistent with Forest Service 

Conditions of Approval, and other 

applicable laws and regulations. 

Comment Requested 

This notice of intent initiates the 

scoping process which guides the 

development of the environmental 

impact statement. 

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 30- 

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 addresses of those who 

comment, will be considered part of the 

public record on 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: July 21, 2008. 

Rod Player, 

Acting Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. E8–17667 Filed 7–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM 

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR 

SEVERELY DISABLED 

Procurement List; Additions 

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled. 

ACTION: Additions to the Procurement 

List. 

SUMMARY: This action adds to the 

Procurement List products and a service 

to be furnished by nonprofit agencies 

employing persons who are blind or 

have other severe disabilities. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 31, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase 

From People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 

1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, 

Arlington, Virginia 22202–3259. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone: (703) 

603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or 

e-mail CMTEFedReg@jwod.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

On May 23 and June 6, 2008, the 

Committee for Purchase From People 

Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled 

published notice (73 FR 30046; 32287) 

of proposed additions to the 

Procurement List. 

After consideration of the material 

presented to it concerning capability of 

qualified nonprofit agencies to provide 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES