[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67268-67270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5861]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Clearwater National Forest; Idaho; Travel Management Plan

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Forest Service gives notice of its intent to prepare a 
Travel Planning Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Clearwater 
National Forest (CNF). The proposed action would designate a site-
specific transportation system and prohibit indiscriminate cross-
country traffic. The EIS will analyze the effects of the proposed 
action and alternatives. The Clearwater National Forest invites 
comments and suggestions on the issues to be addressed. The agency 
gives notice of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis 
and decision-making process on the proposal so interested and affected 
members of the public may participate and contribute to the final 
decision.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
by December 14, 2007. A 45-day public comment period will follow the 
release of the draft environmental impact statement that is expected in 
June 2008. The final environmental impact statement is expected in 
January 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send written or electronic comments to: Lochsa Ranger 
District, Kamiah Ranger Station; Attn: Lois Foster, Interdisciplinary 
Team Leader; Rt. 2 Box 191; Kamiah, ID 83536; FAX 208-935-4275; E-mail 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Foster, Interdisciplinary Team 
leader, (208) 935-4258.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action is to (1) 
Implement national OHV Rule direction, (2) Limit indiscriminate cross-
country motorized travel, (3) Designate selected roads and trails for 
motorized travel, (4) Designate appropriate acreas or routes for travel 
with over-snow vehicles, (5) Balance travel opportunities with 
maintenance and management capability including costs, (6) Provide for 
a better spectrum of motorized, non-motorized, and non-mechanized 
travel opportunities across

[[Page 67269]]

the CNF in recognition of the need to retain the charter of lands 
recommended for Wilderness designation and the CNF's ability to provide 
for non-motorized recreation opportunities that are not available on 
other land ownerships, (7) Manage impacts to Forest resources, (8) 
Improve clarity and consistency of existing travel restrictions, and 
(9) Amend the 1987 Forest Plan as necessary to accomplish the actions 
described above.
    The need for revision of the Forest Plan is supported by nationwide 
awareness within the Forest Service of the negative effects of 
indiscriminate off-road travel by motorized users. These concerns led 
to publication of the Travel Management final rule on November 9, 2005 
in the Federal Register, 36 CFR parts 212, 251, 261, 295 ``Travel 
Management:'' Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicles Use 
(Federal Register 2005: 79 FR 68264). The rule requires each National 
Forest to designate those roads, trails, and areas that are open to 
motor vehicle use. The rule prohibits use of motor vehicles off the 
designated system, as well as use of motor vehicles on routes and in 
areas that are not consistent with the designation. The rule does not 
require that over-snow vehicles, such as snowmobiles, are limited to a 
designated system by exempting them under 121.51, but also states in 
212.81 that ``use by over-snow vehicles * * * on National Forest System 
lands may allowed, restricted, or prohibit.'' The CNF chose to include 
over-snow vehicles in the analysis.
    The Proposed Action would designate motorized road and trail routes 
for summer travel on the Clearwater National Forest. Existing 
Conditions include roads and trails identified as open to motorized 
travel in the 2005 Travel Guide, plus any error corrections or project-
level NEPA decisions made since then. The Proposed Action would include 
any changes from existing conditions, such as road to trail 
conversions, designating some roads previously not thought to be 
travelable, and not designating some roads that were previously thought 
to be travelable.
    The transportation system for snow-free travel would include:
     1,623 miles of roads open yearlong to all highway-legal 
vehicles (an increase of 8 miles compared to existing conditions);
     509 miles of road open yearlong to small vehicles such as 
ATV's and motorcycles, but not including UTV's (an increase of 9 
miles);
     633 miles of roads open seasonally to all highway-legal 
vehicles (a decrease of 13 miles);
     151 miles of roads open seasonally to small vehicles (a 
decrease of 1 mile);
     93 miles of trails open yearlong to small vehicles (a 
change of 0 miles);
     226 miles of trails open yearlong to motorcycles (a 
decrease of 178 miles);
     75 miles of trails open seasonally to small vehicles (an 
increase of 2 miles); and
     93 miles of trails open seasonally to motorcycles (a 
change of 0 miles).
    The proposed action would also modify the dates of seasonal 
restrictions for roads and trails to reduce the variety of restricted 
periods, and ultimately improve the clarity of the Motor Vehicle Use 
Map (MVUM). Motorized travel up to 300 fee off of designated routes to 
access established campsites would be permitted in most areas. In 
certain areas, off-route travel would be permitted only to access 
specifically designated campsites.
    Existing restrictions for bicycles on all but one road would be 
eliminated. Bicycle restrictions on roads would drop from a total of 10 
miles currently to only 1 mile, which would be entirely within the CNF 
seed orchard. Areas recommended for wilderness by the Forest Plan would 
become off limits to bicycles. System trails available to bicycles 
would drop from 811 miles to 730 miles (a reduction of 81 miles).
    Over-snow vehicle use would be restricted in areas recommended for 
wilderness by the Forest Plan. Within the areas where over-snow vehicle 
use would generally be permitted, there would continue to be some 
specific routes where over-snow vehicles would be restricted. Over-snow 
vehicle use would be prohibited forest-wide from October 1 to November 
4. The transportation system for over-snow vehicles would include:
     364 miles of groomed snowmobile routes (no change from 
existing conditions);
     1,322,943 acres generally open to over-snow vehicles 
except for certain restricted routes;
     3,484 acres of roads where over-snow vehicles would be 
permitted from November 5 until snowmelt in the spring, compared to 
3,174 acres available currently (an increase of 310 acres); and
     503,057 acres closed to over-snow vehicles, compared to 
302,856 acres available currently (a decrease of 200,201 acres).

The numbers above are only approximate at this time.
    The existing Forest Plan will be amended. When the Forest Plan was 
completed in 1987, trail vehicles were few and travel planning was 
focused almost completely on roads and highway vehicles. Motorized use 
has increased dramatically since then, and modern vehicles such as 
snowmobiles, ATV's, and motorcycles have capabilities that could not 
have been envisioned in 1987. The Forest Plan also contains some 
conflicting information regarding the intent for management of certain 
areas. Changes may include:
     Better coordination between the level of motorized travel 
and the focus of certain management areas, primarily those in roadless 
areas;
     Additions or changes to Forest Plan standards to permit 
implementation of the national Travel Management rule; and
     Other goals, objectives, and standards affecting travel 
management.
    Possible Alternatives the Forest Service will consider include a 
no-action alternative, which will serve as a baseline for comparison of 
alternatives. The proposed action will be considered along with 
additional alternatives that will be developed to meet the purpose and 
need for action, and to address significant issues identified during 
scoping.
    The Responsible Official is Thomas K. Reilly, Clearwater Forest 
Supervisor, Clearwater National Forest, 12730 Highway 12, Orofino, ID 
83544.
    The Decision to be Made is whether to adopt the proposed action, in 
whole or in part, or another alternative; and what mitigation measures 
and management requirements will be implemented.
    The Scoping Process for the EIS is being initiated with this 
notice. The scoping process will identify issues to be analyzed in 
detail and will lead to the development of alternatives to the 
proposal. The Forest Service is seeking information and comments from 
other Federal, State, and local agencies; Tribal governments; and 
organizations and individuals who may be interested in or affected by 
the proposed action. Comments received in response to this notice, 
including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of 
the project record and available for public review. Public meetings 
will be scheduled during the scoping period. Times, dates and locations 
for the public meetings will be published in the Lewiston, Idaho 
Lewiston Morning Tribune.
    Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be 
prepared for comment. The second major opportunity for public input 
will

[[Page 67270]]

be when the Draft EIS is published. 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 Draft EIS is anticipated to be available for 
public review in June 2008. The comment period on the Draft EIS 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 is it 
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. Ho del, 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 comment period for the 
Draft EIS 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 a 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.
    After the comment period for the Draft EIS ends, the Forest Service 
will analyze comments received and address them in the Final EIS. The 
Final EIS is scheduled to be released by January 2009. The Responsible 
Official (Forest Supervisor Thomas K. Reilly) will document the 
decision and rationale in a Record of Decision (ROD). The decision will 
be subject to review under Forest Service appeal regulations at 36 CFR 
Part 215.
    Preliminary Issues identified by the Forest Service 
interdisciplinary team include: Changing motorized and non-motorized 
recreation opportunities, costs of road and trail management and 
maintenance, soil issues, effects on aquatic environments and species, 
effects on wildlife, the spread of noxious weeds, changes in motorized 
access to roads, trails and areas that are not designated as part of 
the travel planning analysis, and motorized access for people with 
disabilities.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 
1909.15, Section 21)

    Dated: November 7, 2007.
Thomas K. Reilly,
Clearwater Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 07-5861 Filed 11-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M