Rules and Regulations. Proposed rule; request for comments

6,080 words·~28 min read·/register/2007/02/26/07-841

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 300 [Docket No. 070215036-7036-01; I.D. 012307A] RIN 0648-AU79 International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Restrictions for 2007 Purse Seine and Longline Fisheries in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes management measures to reduce overfishing of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean

(ETP)tuna stocks in 2007, consistent with recommendations by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) that have been approved by the Department of State

(DOS)under the Tuna Conventions Act. The purse seine fishery for tuna in the Convention Area would be closed for a 6-week period either beginning August 1, 2007, through September 11, 2007, or November 20, 2007, through December 31, 2007. This proposed rule would also close the U.S. longline fishery in the Convention Area in 2007 once the catch of bigeye tuna harvested with longline gear in the Convention Area reaches 500 metric tons (mt). This action is taken to limit fishing mortality caused by purse seine fishing and longline fishing in the Convention Area and contribute to long-term conservation of the tuna stocks at levels that support healthy fisheries. DATES: Comments must be received by March 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed rule or the initial regulatory flexibility analysis

(IRFA)should be sent to Rodney R. McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802 or by email to the Southwest Region at *0648-AU79@noaa.gov* . Comments may also be submitted by email through the Federal e-Rulemaking portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: 0648-AU79. Comments also may be submitted by fax to

(562)980-4047. Copies of the initial regulatory impact review/IRFA may be obtained from the Southwest Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90902-4213. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Allison Routt, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Southwest Region, NMFS,

(562)980-4030. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access This proposed rule is also accessible via the Internet at the Office of the **Federal Register** 's website at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* . The United States is a member of the IATTC, which was established under the Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission signed in 1949 (Convention). The IATTC was established to provide an international arrangement to ensure the effective international conservation and management of highly migratory species of fish in the Convention Area. For the purposes of this closure, the Convention Area is defined to include the waters bounded by the coast of the Americas, the 40° N. and 40° S. parallels, and the 150° W. meridian. The IATTC has maintained a scientific research and fishery monitoring program for many years and annually assesses the status of stocks of tuna and the fisheries to determine appropriate harvest limits or other measures to prevent overexploitation of the stocks and promote viable fisheries. Under the Tuna Conventions Act, 16 U.S.C. 951-961 and 971 *et seq.* , NMFS must publish proposed rules to carry out IATTC recommendations that have been approved by DOS. The Southwest Regional Administrator also is required by 50 CFR 300.25(b)(3) to issue a direct notice to the owners or agents of all U.S. purse seine vessels that operate in the ETP of fishery management actions applicable to them that have been recommended by the IATTC and approved by the DOS. In June 2006, the IATTC adopted a *Resolution for a Program on the Conservation of Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean for 2007* . The June 2006 resolution is a 1-year program on the conservation of tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean for 2007. This resolution offers a choice for closing the purse seine fishery: either a 6-week closure beginning August 1, 2007, or a 6-week closure beginning November 20, 2007. The resolution of June 2006 incorporated flexibility for nations to administer the purse seine closure in accordance with national legislation and national sovereignty. The selected measure should reduce overfishing in a manner that is fair, equitable, and readily enforceable. NMFS will select one of the two closure periods after consideration of public comment. The June 2006 resolution also calls upon each Party and cooperating non-Party to ensure that each nation's longline catch of bigeye tuna in the ETP during 2007 will not exceed the catch level of 2001 or 500 mt, whichever is higher. The U.S. catch level of longline caught bigeye tuna for 2001 was estimated to be 150 mt in the Convention Area. Therefore, under this rule, the U.S. quota for longline caught bigeye in the Convention Area would be 500 mt for 2007. In 2006, the U.S. catch level of longline-caught bigeye tuna in the Convention Area of 150 mt was reached. On July 6, 2006, NMFS closed the U.S. longline fishery for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area for the remainder of 2006. The IATTC adopted the June 2006 resolution after considering a variety of measures, including the use of quotas and closures (as in 1999 through 2002), a full-month purse seine closure (used in 2003), and a 6-week purse seine closure as used in 2004, 2005, and 2006. The proposed 2007 time/area closure is based on 2005 assessments of the condition of the tuna stocks in the ETP and historic catch and effort data for different portions of the ETP, as well as records relating to implementation of quotas and closures in prior years. The closure targets the Convention Area and is believed to be sufficient to reduce the risk of overfishing of the tuna stocks, especially when considered in combination with the 6-week closures implemented in 2004, 2005, and 2006. The combined multi-annual, multilateral restrictions should increase the protections from overfishing of the tuna stocks in the Convention Area. In an international fishery the best approach is through multilateral conservation and management measures. The IATTC met in June 2006 and reviewed tuna stock assessments and fishery information and considered that new information in evaluating the need for management measures for 2007 and future years. The DOS has approved the June 2006 resolution covering the year 2007, including the management measures described above. On October 30, 2006, the Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, sent a notice to owners and agents of U.S. fishing vessels of the June 2006 resolution adopted by the IATTC and approved by the DOS. Classification This action is proposed under the regulations for the Pacific Tuna Fisheries at 50 CFR 300.25. On December 8, 1999, NMFS prepared a biological opinion

(BO)under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* , assessing the impacts of the fisheries as they would operate under the interim final rule (65 FR 47, January 3, 2000) implementing the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (IDCPA). For the final rule (69 FR 176, September 13, 2004) to implement the IDCPA, NMFS amended the incidental take statement included in the December 8, 1999, BO. NMFS concluded that the fishing activities conducted under those regulations are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. This proposed rule will not result in any changes in the fisheries such that there would be impacts beyond those considered in that BO. The IATTC has also taken action to reduce sea turtle injury and mortality from interactions in the purse seine fishery so impacts of the fisheries should be lower than in the past. Because this closure does not alter the scope of the fishery management regime analyzed in the IDCPA rule, or the scope of the impacts considered in that consultation, NMFS is relying on that analysis to conclude that the purse seine fishery managed under this proposed rule will not likely adversely effect any endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. On October 4, 2005, NMFS concluded that the Hawaii-based pelagic, deep-set, tuna longline fishery managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. This proposed rule will not result in any changes in the longline fishery such that there would be impacts beyond those considered in that BO. The U.S. ETP tuna purse seine fisheries occasionally interact with a variety of species of dolphin, and dolphin takes are authorized and managed under the IDCPA. The conservation management measures in this proposed rule do not affect the administration of that program, which is consistent with section 303(a)(2) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1413 (a)(2). NMFS prepared an EA for the final rule (70 FR 69, April 12, 2005) to implement resolutions adopted by the IATTC and by the Parties to the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries concluded that there would be no significant impact on the human environment as a result of that final rule. The impacts of the fisheries as they will operate under the closures in 2007 are within the range of impacts of the alternatives considered in that EA, and are not expected to pose different impacts to the human environment. Therefore, this action does not require further analysis under NEPA. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA prepared describes the economic impact that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A copy of the IRFA for this proposed rule is available for public comment (see ADDRESSES ). A summary of the analysis follows. A description of the reasons for, objectives of, and legal basis for this proposed rule is included in the preamble and not repeated here. This action would prohibit the use of purse seine gear to harvest tuna in the Convention Area for a 6- week period beginning August 1, 2007, through September 11, 2007, or beginning November 20, 2007, through December 31, 2007, and limit the annual 2007 U.S. catch of bigeye tuna caught by longline in the ETP to 500 mt. The proposed purse seine closure would apply to the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet, which consists of five to ten small vessels (carrying capacity below 400 short tons (363 mt)) and one to two large vessels (carrying capacity 400 short tons (363 mt) or greater). The large vessels usually fish outside U.S. waters and deliver their catch to foreign ports or transship to processors outside the mainland United States. The large vessels are categorized as large business entities (revenues in excess of $4 million per year). A large purse seine vessel typically generates 4,000 to 5,000 mt of tuna valued at between $4 and $5 million per year. The closure should not significantly affect the operations of the one to two large vessels because they are capable of fishing in other areas that would remain open. Also, the one to two large purse seine vessels do conduct fishing operation in other areas. The small vessels are categorized as small business entities (revenues below $4 million per year). They fish out of California in the U.S. exclusive economic zone

(EEZ)most of the year for small pelagic fish (Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel) and for market squid in summer. Some small vessels harvest tuna seasonally when they are available. The proposed time/area closure will have no effect on small vessels because they do not have the endurance and markets to fish that far south for tunas on a regular basis. For 2006, the United States chose to close the purse seine fishery beginning November 20, 2006, for the remainder of 2006. In 2006 the U.S. catch level of longline caught bigeye tuna in the Convention Area of 150 mt was reached. On July 6, 2006, NMFS closed the U.S. longline fishery for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area for the remainder of 2006. The existing California based longline fishery, currently consisting of one vessel, does catch bigeye tuna. The portion of the fleet operating out of Hawaii has generally operated outside the boundaries of the Convention Area, and has not made significant catches in those waters. In 2004, 2005, and 2006, the California and Hawaii based longline fishery was limited to 150 metric tons of bigeye tuna in the Convention Area. A closure for the California based longline fleet will significantly affect their operations. However, the California based longline fleet is capable of fishing for other species of fish in the Convention Area which should mitigate the effects of the closure. In 2004, 2005, and 2006, the California based longline fleet landed swordfish and showed fishery management that they were capable of fishing for other species of fish in the Convention Area. With the reopening of the swordfish fishery for the Hawaii fleet, effort directed at bigeye tuna (which has mainly occurred west of the Convention Area) should remain at the same level. A closure should not significantly affect their operations as they are capable of fishing in other areas that would remain open, outside the boundaries of the Convention Area. In 2005, 500 mt of bigeye tuna were caught by the U.S. longline fishery in the Convention Area. In 2007, if the U.S. longline fishery reaches the 500 metric ton limit, this fishery is capable of fishing in other areas that would remain open. NMFS is not aware of any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule. This rule does not impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements, and the compliance requirements for the closure areas are as described at the outset of this summary. NMFS considered three alternatives for this proposed rule: The 2006 IATTC Tuna Conservation Resolution allows nations to opt for a 6-week summer closure of the purse seine fishery from August 1 through September 20 of 2007 or a closure from November 20 through December 31, 2007. The August 1 September 20 closure alternative may have a greater economic impact on small entities than the November 20 December 31 closure. In particular, the U.S. purse seine fleet may prefer a closure later in the fishing year because the winter weather is not conducive to fishing. Also, throughout the history of this fishery shipyards have been prepared to accept vessels for scheduled repairs during the winter months. The fishery closure later in the year allows the industry to plan for and mitigate economic impacts of a closure while still providing the conservation benefits to the tuna resources in the ETP. NMFS also considered the alternative of not implementing the 2006 IATTC Tuna Conservation Resolution. This alternative would have imposed no economic costs on small entities. However, failure to implement measures that have been agreed on pursuant to the Convention would violate the United States' obligations under the Convention, and would violate the Tuna Conventions Act. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 951-961 and 971 *et seq.* Dated: February 21, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-3251 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [I.D. 021607G] Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene the Law Enforcement Advisory Panel

(LEAP)to review a revised Draft Joint Amendment 27 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (FMP)/Amendment 14 to the Shrimp FMP. This amendment contains alternatives to regulate the harvest and bycatch of red snapper by both the directed commercial and recreational fisheries and the shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. The need for this amendment arose from the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process through which a recent stock assessment showed that the red snapper stock in the Gulf was overfished and overfishing was continuing. DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Beau Rivage Resort and Casino, 875 Beach Boulevard, Biloxi, Mississippi, 888-383-7037. *Council address:* Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, Florida 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Richard Leard, Deputy Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: 813-348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The LEAP will review a scoping document for a potential amendment to address the need for additional management measures for gray triggerfish, greater amberjack, gag, and red grouper. The LEAP will discuss enforcement implications of the potential implementation of a fish-tagging program for stocks managed under individual fishing quotas

(IFQs)such as red snapper and the potential use of a Federal fish stamp to identify recreational fishermen fishing in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Finally, the LEAP will discuss any enforcement problems and successes of the recently implemented IFQ program for red snapper and review the status of various FMP amendments and other regulatory actions previously approved by the Council. The LEAP consists of principal law enforcement officers in each of the Gulf States, as well as the NMFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Coast Guard, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's

(NOAA)General Counsel. A copy of the agenda and related materials can be obtained by calling the Council office at 813-348-1630. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the LEAP for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (M-SFCMA), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the LEAP will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the M-SFCMA, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency. These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) five working days prior to the meeting. Dated: February 20, 2007. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-3244 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [I.D. 012607A] RIN 0648-AU26 Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery; Amendment 12 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Availability of an amendment to a fishery management plan; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 12 to the Coastal Pelagic Species

(CPS)Fishery Management Plan

(FMP)for Secretary of Commerce review. The intent of Amendment 12 to the CPS FMP is to protect all species of krill off the West Coast (i.e., California, Oregon and Washington). This action would prohibit the harvest of all species of krill by any fishing vessel operating in the Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ)off the West Coast and would deny the use of exempted fishing permits to allow krill fishing. DATES: Comments on Amendment 12 must be received by April 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this NOA identified by “I.D. 012607-NOA” by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *0648-AU26.SWR@noaa.gov* . Include the I.D. number in the subject line of the message. • Federal e-Rulemaking portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Rodney R. McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. • Fax:

(562)980-4047. Copies of Amendment 12, which includes an Environmental Assessment/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis/Regulatory Impact Review, are available from Donald O. McIssac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220-1384. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua B. Lindsay, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, at 562-980-4034 or Mike Burner, Pacific Fishery Management Council, at 503-820-2280. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CPS fishery in the EEZ off the West Coast is managed under the CPS FMP, which was developed by the Council pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The CPS FMP was approved by the Secretary of Commerce and was implemented by regulations that can be found at 50 CFR part 660, subpart I. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires each Regional Fishery Management Council to submit any amendment to an FMP to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an amendment to an FMP, publish notification in the **Federal Register** that the amendment is available for public review and comment. NMFS will consider the public comments received during the comment period described above in determining whether to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 12. As the principal food source for many fish and non-fish species, krill are a critical component of the marine ecosystem. Off the West Coast krill are important prey for a variety of fish species, including many Council-managed stocks. Krill are also a principal food source for many species of marine mammals and seabirds; some of which are listed as threatened or endangered and warrant special efforts for protection and recovery. Protecting krill will likely minimize adverse impacts on these fish stocks and living marine resources and in turn, help to maintain ecological relationships and ensure the long-term health and productivity of the West Coast ecosystem. Amendment 12 is an attempt to incorporate ecosystem conservation principles into fishery management programs by protecting, to the extent practicable, krill resources, which are an integral part of that ecosystem. At this time, while a krill fishery off the U.S. West Coast does not exist, there also are no Federal regulations that limit fishing for krill in the EEZ. The states of Washington, Oregon, and California prohibit their vessels from fishing for krill and prohibit landings of krill into their respective ports. However, these prohibitions would not prevent a fishery from developing in the West Coast EEZ by vessels from outside of the region, as long as landings were not made into a West Coast port. If adopted, Amendment 12 would add all species of krill as a management unit species under the CPS FMP and would place krill under a newly established “prohibited harvest species” category. This new category would differ from the existing “prohibited species” definition in the FMP because “prohibited harvest species” may not be taken by any fishery or gear type in the U.S. EEZ. Optimum yield

(OY)for krill would be zero and the harvest of krill would be prohibited. In contrast, “prohibited species” may not be taken and retained incidentally by CPS fishery participants, but are legally harvested under provisions in other Council FMPs and Federal regulations. Amendment 12 also proposes that no exempted fishing permits

(EFPs)be issued under the EFP procedures of the CPS FMP to allow individuals to harvest krill as an exception to the prohibition of harvest. These actions would fully achieve the objectives of the amendment to the extent practicable, recognizing that environmental conditions and the responses of krill and other resources to changes in environmental conditions are beyond the control of the Council. NMFS and the Council have considered the potential for development of a krill fishery and the potentially drastic effects a fishery could have on krill resources and on the fish and other species, such as birds and mammals, that are dependent on, or that are sensitive to, the abundance and availability of krill. The Council has agreed it is critical to take preventive action at this time to ensure that a krill fishery will not develop that could potentially harm krill stocks, and in turn harm other fish and non-fish stocks. Therefore, NMFS proposes to prohibit krill fishing in the EEZ off the West Coast. Public comments on Amendment 12 must be received by April 27, 2007, to be considered by NMFS in the decision whether to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 12. A proposed rule to implement Amendment 12 has been submitted for Secretarial review and approval. NMFS expects to publish and request public comment on the proposed regulation to implement Amendment 12 in the near future. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: February 20, 2007. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-3247 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 37 Monday, February 26, 2007 Notices 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, Humboldt-Toiyabe 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 non-significant Forest Plan Amendments. Responsible Official The responsible official is: Edward C. Monnig, Forest Supervisor, Humboldt-Toiyabe 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 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 non-significant 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: *comments-pacificnorthwest-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 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: February 20, 2007. Kevin Martin, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 07-841 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 4

Traces to 4 documents

U.S. Code