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

55021 

Vol. 73, No. 186 

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 

JOINT BOARD FOR THE 

ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES 

Meeting of the Advisory Committee; 

Meeting 

AGENCY: Joint Board for the Enrollment 

of Actuaries. 

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory 

Committee meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Executive Director of the 

Joint Board for the Enrollment of 

Actuaries gives notice of a closed 

meeting of the Advisory Committee on 

Actuarial Examinations. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

October 27, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 

p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

Mercer, 1717 Arch Street, 27th Floor, 

Philadelphia, PA. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick W. McDonough, Executive 

Director of the Joint Board for the 

Enrollment of Actuaries, 202–622–8225. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that the Advisory 

Committee on Actuarial Examinations 

will meet at Mercer, 1717 Arch Street, 

27th Floor, Philadelphia, PA on Friday, 

October 27, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 

p.m. 

The purpose of the meeting is to 

discuss questions that may be 

recommended for inclusion on future 

Joint Board examinations in actuarial 

mathematics, pension law and 

methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 

1242(a)(1)(B). 

A determination has been made as 

required by section 10(d) of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., 

that the subject of the meeting falls 

within the exception to the open 

meeting requirement set forth in Title 5 

U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public 

interest requires that such meeting be 

closed to public participation. 

Dated: September 16, 2008. 

Patrick W. McDonough, 

Executive Director, Joint Board for the 

Enrollment of Actuaries. 

[FR Doc. E8–22385 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest; 

Wisconsin, Grub Hoe Vegetation and 

Transportation Management Project 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: The Eagle River-Florence 

Ranger District intends to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) to 

disclose the environmental 

consequences of proposed vegetation 

and transportation management 

activities. The Grub Hoe Vegetation and 

Transportation Management Project 

(Grub Hoe Project) area is approximately 

11,640 acres in size; about 8,500 acres 

of this is National Forest System land. 

The project area is located in Florence 

County, 15 miles southwest of Florence, 

Wisconsin. The legal description is 

T39N, R15E, Sections 1, 2, 8–17, 22–24; 

T39N, R16E, Sections 5–7, 18, 19. See 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

for the purpose and need for the action. 

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis should be received by 

October 24, 2008, to receive timely 

consideration. The draft environmental 

impact statement is expected January 

2009, and the final environmental 

impact statement is expected March 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

District Ranger Joel Skerven, Eagle 

River-Florence Ranger District, 

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, 

1247 East Wall Street, Eagle River, WI 

54521. For further information, mail 

correspondence to Christine Brunner, 

NEPA Coordinator, Eagle River-Florence 

Ranger District, 1247 East Wall Street, 

Eagle River, WI 54521. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The overall purpose of the Grub Hoe 

Project is to implement land 

management activities consistent with 

the direction in the 2004 ChequamegonNicolet National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest 

Plan). One purpose for this proposal is 

to maintain or restore upland forest 

communities and opening to their 

desired conditions as described in 

Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan; a second 

purpose is to provide an efficient road 

system. Based on the Forest Plan 

desired future conditions for the area, 

the following nine needs were 

identified: (1) Increase the diversity of 

northern hardwood forest structure and 

composition; (2) reduce fragmentation 

in larger patches of northern hardwood 

forest; improve aquatic ecosystems; (4) 

improve upland forest type 

composition; (5) improve the aspen age 

class distribution; (6) promote healthy 

forests; (7) improve habitat for earlysuccessional forest dependent wildlife 

species; (8) contribute toward satisfying 

the demand for wood products; (9) 

provide a safe, efficient, and effective 

transportation system. 

Proposed Action 

In order to address the needs 

identified above, approximately 3326 

acres of various forest types would be 

harvested using selection, removal, 

shelterwood, patch clearcut, clearcut, 

and thin harvest methods. As a result of 

clearcutting three contiguous aspen 

stands, this alternative would result in 

a temporary opening of approximately 

73 acres. This deviates from a Forest 

Plan guideline to limit temporary 

openings to 40 acres. 

The second purpose for this proposal 

is to provide an efficient road system 

that meets the long-term transportation 

needs of the Forest. In order to address 

need 9 above, approximately 20.8 miles 

of unclassified roads would be 

decommissioned; 3.9 miles would be 

reconstructed and classified; and 1.4 

miles of new road would be constructed 

but closed after project activities are 

completed. 

Possible Alternatives 

Two alternatives to the Proposed 

Action have been developed in response 

to public comments received. One 

alternative would result in the following 

changes to the Proposed Action: 

Eliminate aspen conversions to other 

forest types in all but three stands, 

clearcutting and regenerating them to 

aspen instead; clearcut and regenerate 

the two stands identified for patch 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
55022 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 

clearcutting under the Proposed Action; 

clearcut and regenerate an additional 

three aspen stands. This alternative 

would also result in a temporary 

opening of approximately 73 acres. 

Under a second alternative the 

following activities would be deferred: 

harvesting stands of aspen forest type; 

potential salvage harvesting; harvesting 

within 124 acres of historic or current 

goshawk or red-shouldered hawk nest 

sites (the Forest Plan requires at 

minimum a 30-acre nest buffer); road 

construction and reconstruction. 

Responsible Official 

The responsible official for this 

project is Joel Skjerven, Eagle RiverFlorence District Ranger, 1247 E. Wall 

Street, Eagle River, WI 54521. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The decision will be limited to 

answering the following questions based 

on the environmental analysis: (1) What 

actions would be used to address the 

purpose and need; (2) where and when 

will these actions occur; and (3) what 

mitigation measures and monitoring 

requirements would be required. 

Scoping Process 

The Chequamegon-Nicolet Forest 

began the scoping process for this 

project as an environmental assessment 

during May 2008. Persons and 

organizations on the District’s mailing 

list were sent information packages, and 

a notice was placed in the newspaper of 

record. The project is listed in the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet Schedule of 

Proposed Actions, and is viewable on 

the Forest Web page at http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/r9/cnnf/. Click on 

‘‘Project Proposals and Decisions,’’ then 

‘‘Grub Hoe Vegetation and 

Transportation Management Project.’’ 

Preliminary Issues 

The following issues will be analyzed 

in the EIS: Effects of the proposed 

activities on soils, water, Regional 

Forester Sensitive Species plants and 

wildlife, and non-native invasive 

species. 

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 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 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: September 15, 2008. 

Jeanne M. Higgins, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. E8–22340 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Notice of Final Flat Fee Policy for 

Outfitting and Guiding Land Use Fees 

in the Alaska Region 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of final policy. 

SUMMARY: The Alaska Region of the 

Forest Service is publishing a final 

regional flat fee policy. The initial 

proposal was published in the Federal 

Register on September 15, 2006 (71 FR 

54454). The revised policy published 

April 18, 2008 (73 FR 21098) differed 

enough from the initial proposed policy 

to merit public notice and comment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Trish Clabaugh, (907) 586–8855. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In The Tongass Conservancy v. 

Glickman, No. J97–029–CV, slip op. (D. 

Alaska Sept. 19, 1998), the court held 

that the Forest Service’s land use fee 

system must be fair to the plaintiff 

outfitter and guide, as well as based on 

the market value of the use of National 

Forest System (NFS) lands. In addition, 

based on a concern that different fees 

were being charged for the same type of 

commercial use of NFS lands, the court 

held that there was ‘‘insufficient 

evidence in the record to support a 

conclusion that the fees charged 

plaintiff were both fair and based upon 

the value of the use of Forest Service 

lands available to the plaintiff.’’ The 

Tongass Conservancy, slip op. at 2. The 

court ordered the Alaska Region of the 

Forest Service to undertake actions 

consistent with the court’s ruling and 

applicable law. 

In response, on July 21, 1999, the 

Alaska Region published in the Federal 

Register for public notice and comment 

a proposed interim flat fee policy for all 

outfitting and guiding in the Alaska 

Region (Alaska Region Interim Flat Fee 

Policy or ARIFFP) (64 FR 39114, July 

21, 1999). The notice for the final 

interim ARIFFP was published in the 

Federal Register and went into effect on 

February 14, 2000 (65 FR 1846, January 

12, 2000). 

In August 2003, the Anchorage-based 

appraisal firm Black-Smith and 

Richards, Inc. (BSR) completed its phase 

II market study (Final Phase II Report) 

on development of a land use fee system 

for outfitting and guiding in the Alaska 

Region that is both fair to the outfitters 

and guides, and based on market value 

of the use of NFS lands for outfitting 

and guiding. The Final Phase II Report 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES