Enoree Ranger District; South Carolina; Chester County Stream and Riparian Restoration/Enhancement Project, 22618-22622 [2014-09215]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
22618
Notices
Federal Register
Vol. 79, No. 78
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
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.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
April 17, 2014.
The Department of Agriculture has
submitted the following information
collection requirement(s) to OMB for
review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. Comments
regarding (a) whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate
of burden including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be
collected; (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology.
Comments regarding this information
collection received by May 23, 2014 will
be considered. Written comments
should be addressed to: Desk Officer for
Agriculture, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), New
Executive Office Building, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20502.
Commenters are encouraged to submit
their comments to OMB via email to:
OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV or
fax (202) 395–5806 and to Departmental
Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail
Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250–
7602. Copies of the submission(s) may
be obtained by calling (202) 720–8958.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor a collection of information
unless the collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB control
number and the agency informs
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:37 Apr 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
potential persons who are to respond to
the collection of information that such
persons are not required to respond to
the collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Total Burden Hours: 17,611.
Ruth Brown,
Departmental Information Collection
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014–09264 Filed 4–22–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
Title: U.S. Origin Health Certificate.
OMB Control Number: 0579–0020.
Summary of Collection: The Animal
Health Protection Act (AHPA) of 2002 is
the primary Federal law governing the
protection of animal health. The AHPA
is contained in Title X, Subtitle E,
Sections 10401–18 of Public Law 107–
171, May 13, 2002, the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002. As
part of its mission to facilitate the export
of U.S. animals and products, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS), Veterinary Services (VS),
maintains information regarding the
import health requirements of other
countries for animals and animal
products exported from the United
States. Most countries require a
certification that the animals are disease
free. The VS form 17–140 and 17–
140A&B, U.S. Origin Health Certificate,
and VS form 17–145, U.S. Origin Health
Certificate for the Export of Horses from
the United States to Canada, are used to
meet these requirements. The forms are
authorized by 21 U.S.C. 112.
Need and Use of the Information: The
U.S. Origin Health Certificate is used in
connection with the exportation of
animals to foreign countries and is
completed and authorized by APHIS
veterinarian. The information collected
is used to: (1) Establish that the animals
are moved in compliance with USDA
regulations, (2) verify that the animals
destined for export are listed on the
health certificate by means of an official
identification, (3) verify to the consignor
and consignee that the animals are
healthy, (4) prevent unhealthy animals
from being exported and (5) satisfy the
import requirements of receiving
countries. Without the information,
APHIS would be unable to certify the
health status of animals exported from
the United States to other countries.
Description of Respondents: Farms;
Business or other for-profit.
Number of Respondents: 1,393.
Frequency of Responses: Reporting:
On occasion.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Enoree Ranger District; South
Carolina; Chester County Stream and
Riparian Restoration/Enhancement
Project
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Chester County Stream
and Riparian Restoration/Enhancement
Project will involve restoring and
enhancing the hydrologic, riparian and
aquatic functions within four
watersheds located on National Forest
System (NFS) lands in Chester County,
S.C., and help meet the stream
restoration goals outlined in the 2004
Revised Land and Resource
Management Plan, Sumter National
Forest (Forest Plan). More specifically,
the Project Area is located along the
western most portion of Chester County,
approximately two miles south of
Lockhart, and is bounded by the Broad
River to the west and Hwy. SC 49 to the
east. It includes four watersheds: Clarks
Creek, Little Turkey Creek, McCluney
Branch and an unnamed tributary to
Clarks Creek. Restoration work will be
accomplished through the use of the
following stream restoration design
approaches: Floodplain reconnection
(FR) (also known as a Rosgen Priority 1),
floodplain excavation (FE) (also known
as a Rosgen Priority 2), and floodplain
benches (FB) (also known as a Rosgen
Priority 3). Selection of a restoration
approach is made for each stream
segment based on individual stream and
floodplain conditions, and a
combination of approaches is typically
employed within an individual
watershed to meet site conditions.
Approximately 18 miles of streams are
proposed for restoration.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope
of the analysis must be received by May
23, 2014. The draft environmental
impact statement is expected July 2014
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23APN1.SGM
23APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 2014 / Notices
and the final environmental impact
statement is expected November 2014.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
USDA Forest Service, 4931 Broad River
Road, Columbia, SC 29212. Comments
may also be sent via email to commentssouthern-francismarion-sumter@
fs.fed.us, or via facsimile to 803–561–
4004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chris Evans (chrisevans@fs.fed.us), 864–
427–9858.
Individuals who use
telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose and need for this Project
is to restore and enhance the hydrologic
and aquatic functions within four
watersheds (Project Area) located upon
lands of the Sumter National Forest in
Chester County, SC. Hereinafter in this
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),
‘‘restore’’ is used synonymously with
‘‘rehabilitate’’. This change in condition
would restore riparian functions and
help move the current stream systems
toward stability and reestablishment of
natural stream and related habitat
forming processes. This may include,
but not be limited to, restoring the
hydrologic regime including
reconnecting streams to their respective
floodplains, reducing sedimentation and
stabilizing banks, improving in-stream
and riparian habitats, and improving
water quality.
In 2010, the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (the Corps)
approached the Forest Service about the
potential for completing compensatory
mitigation projects upon National Forest
System lands. The Corps’ Final
Mitigation Rule (the Rule) requires that
compensatory mitigation be completed
within or immediately adjacent to the
watershed where the impacts are
occurring. The Enoree Ranger District is
geographically located within the Lower
Broad, Enoree and Tyger sub-basins (8digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC)),
making it within the primary service
area for projects in Greenville,
Spartanburg and possibly the greater
Charlotte metro area. There is high
demand for compensatory mitigation in
these HUCs, while currently no private
mitigation banks are serving them. The
Rule also clarifies that public lands are
appropriate for use in completion of
compensatory mitigation projects,
provided a land management plan is in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:37 Apr 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
place to enable long-term protection and
management of the mitigation property.
Stream restoration is a primary goal of
the Forest Service’s 2004 Revised Land
and Resource Management Plan (Plan)
and the Plan includes multiple
objectives designed to restore and
enhance stream habitat and aquatic
communities within the Project Area
streams. The Forest Service and Corps
have entered into a regional
Conservation Land Use Agreement that
sets forth the policies, undertakings, and
responsibilities governing the use of
Sumter National Forest lands for
compensatory mitigation projects
required or authorized under the Corp’s
permit program. In May 2011, the Forest
Service began discussions with the
Corps and Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
(Duke Energy) regarding the potential
for a compensatory mitigation project to
be completed on the Enoree Ranger
District. The project would be used to
offset the impacts associated with Duke
Energy’s construction of a drought
contingency reservoir for the proposed
Lee Nuclear Station in Cherokee
County, SC.
It is the intent of this EIS to identify
those watersheds within the analysis
area that may benefit from restoration
and enhancement, and to provide the
required documentation so that they
may be considered for future use as
compensatory mitigation properties.
Background
The Project Area is located along the
western most portion of Chester County,
South Carolina, approximately 2 miles
south of Lockhart. The Project Area is
bounded by the Broad River to the west
and Highway SC–49 to the east. The
potential restoration work to be
completed within the Project Area
includes approximately 18 miles of
streams within four watersheds: Clarks
Creek, Little Turkey Creek, McCluney
Branch, and an unnamed tributary to
Clarks Creek.
Native Americans moved into the
Broad River valley about 12,000 years
ago. Their populations remained
relatively low throughout their
occupation and their impact on the
environment was limited. Small groups
of European settlers first moved into the
project area in the 1750s.They were
primarily farmers who cultivated level
terrain along the major streams and
rivers. An influx of settlement followed
the American Revolution with these
settlers moving into the uplands. Cotton
agriculture started in the early 1800’s
and continued as the main staple crop
in the Piedmont until the early 1900’s.
Extensive tracts of erosion prone land
were cleared for cultivation. Fields that
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22619
were allowed to lay fallow after the
growing season were soon subjected to
sheet erosion which quickly became
gullies. When federal acquisition began
in the 1930s, the South Carolina
Piedmont was one of the most severely
eroded regions in the United States
(SNF Cultural Resources Overview
2006). Sediment covers Piedmont
stream valleys in varying depths up to
several feet and has inundated once
pristine stream and wetland systems
(SNF Component Final Mitigation Plan
2012). Streams within the Project Area
reflect past land management practices
that have led to the deteriorated
conditions and reduced stream function.
Past land abuses as described above
within the Project Area have led to
deeply incised streambeds that are
subject to reduced floodplain
interactions and ongoing water quality
and aquatic habitat degradation (Forest
Service 2004). Streams are incised and
disconnected from an active floodplain,
which exacerbates in-stream channel
erosion and further down-cutting, and
substantially limits the hydrologic,
physical, chemical, and biological
function that would likely occur when
a stream has access to its floodplain.
Forest Goals and Objectives
This proposal is consistent with the
2004 Revised Land and Resource
Management Plan, Sumter National
Forest (Plan) that provides goals and
objectives for the Project Area.
Restoring and enhancing the historic
hydrologic and aquatic functions in the
Project Area would help meet the
following goals and objectives in the
Plan.
Goal 1 Watersheds are managed (and
where necessary restored) to provide
resilient and stable conditions to ensure
the quality and quantity of water
necessary to protect ecological functions
and support intended beneficial water
uses.
• Objective 1.01—Improve soil and
water conditions on 1,500 acres through
stabilization or rehabilitation of actively
eroding areas such as gullies, barren
areas, abandoned roads or trails, and
unstable stream banks over the 10-year
planning period.
Goal 2 Manage in-stream flows and
water levels, by working with other
agencies if possible, to protect stream
processes, aquatic and riparian habitats
and communities, and recreation and
aesthetic values.
• Objective 2.01—The in-stream
flows needed to protect stream
processes, aquatic and riparian habitats
and communities, and recreation and
aesthetic values will be determined on
50 streams.
E:\FR\FM\23APN1.SGM
23APN1
22620
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 2014 / Notices
Goal 3 Riparian ecosystems, wetlands,
and aquatic systems are managed (and
where necessary restored) to protect and
maintain their physical, chemical, and
biological integrity.
Goal 4 Maintain or restore natural
aquatic and riparian communities or
habitat conditions in amounts,
arrangements, and conditions to provide
suitable habitats for riparian dependent
and migratory species, especially
aquatic species including fish,
amphibians, and water birds within the
planning area. Perennial and
intermittent streams are managed in a
manner that emphasizes and recruits
large woody debris.
• Objective 4.01—Create and
maintain dense understory of native
vegetation on 1–5 percent of the total
riparian corridor acreage during the 10year planning period.
Goal 6 Cooperate with landowners
and other partners to address watershed
needs and participate in efforts to
identify stream problems, watershed
planning, BMP (Best Management
Practice(s)) and Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) implementation with the
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control, South
Carolina Forestry Commission and other
agencies.
Goal 9 Provide habitats to sustain the
diversity and distribution of resident
reptile and amphibian species as well as
breeding, wintering, and migration
staging and stopover habitat for
migratory birds in ways that contributes
to their long-term conservation.
Goal 11:
• Objective 2—Restore and enhance
stream habitat and aquatic communities
in 50 miles of streams. This includes
woody debris, stream bank stabilization,
brook trout restoration, and in stream
habitat improvement.
Goal 14 Manage forest ecosystems and
associated communities to maintain or
restore composition, structure, function
and productivity over time.
Proposed Action
The Proposed Action is to restore and
enhance the hydrologic and aquatic
functions on approximately 18 miles of
streams within the Project Area’s four
watersheds, namely McCluney Branch,
Little Turkey Creek, Clarks Creek, and
an unnamed tributary to Clarks Creek).
The Proposed Action represents an
effort to restore ecosystem functions
across multiple watersheds and at a
landscape-scale, which when completed
would provide regionally-significant
ecological benefits.
To accomplish the restoration work,
the following restoration design
approaches would be used: Floodplain
reconnection (FR), floodplain
excavation (FE), and floodplain benches
(FB). The stream restoration approaches
are summarized in Table 1; definitions
for the design approaches are provided
in Table 2.
Selection of a restoration approach is
made for each stream segment based on
individual stream and floodplain
conditions, and a combination of
approaches is typically employed
within an individual watershed to meet
site conditions. An understanding of the
approach can be used to generally
describe the project footprint, the
amount of excavation and fill material
needed to complete the work, and the
ecological outcome of the proposed
project. Implementation would
ultimately require more detailed designs
that identify specific construction
details (e.g., channel patterns,
longitudinal profiles, cross-sections, instream channel structures for aquatic
species habitat (e.g., large wood, rock
substrate), substrate modifications,
planting native vegetation, and
restoration of work areas). The proposed
stream restoration approaches for the
various stream reaches are identified in
Table 1.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED RESTORATION
Restoration
length*
Stream
McCluney Branch ...............................................................................................................................
3.1
Little Turkey Creek .............................................................................................................................
4.6
Clarks Creek .......................................................................................................................................
7.0
Unnamed Tributary to Clarks Creek ...................................................................................................
3.1
Total Length .................................................................................................................................
Restoration approach
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Reconnection.
Excavation.
Reconnection.
Excavation.
Reconnection.
Excavation.
Benches.
Benches
Excavation.
17.9
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
*Approximate lengths.
For the four watersheds, the
restoration would include a variety of
methods to return natural channel form,
floodplain function and habitat
conditions. Restoration would involve
some earthmoving and shaping of the
channel and floodplain and to the
extent possible, soil borrow and
disposal areas would occur within these
small watersheds. Activities would
include some temporary roads and
repair or replacement of facilities such
as roads, culverts and bridges. Other
restoration activities would involve
some removal of trees and vegetation to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:37 Apr 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
accommodate the restoration work.
Stream restoration would include
planting native tree, shrub, and
herbaceous vegetation to help stabilize
the stream banks and adjacent areas,
provide habitat improvements and to
speed recovery within the areas
temporarily disturbed by construction
activities. Mitigation measures would be
chosen to accelerate stabilization rates
to limit erosion and restore native forest
and vegetation types.
• McCluney Branch: Proposed
activities for restoration within
McCluney Branch include floodplain
reconnection and floodplain excavation.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
A hybrid restoration approach would be
used in smaller drainage areas to create
a wetland/intermittent stream complex
with little or no defined stream
channels, similar to what was
historically present in these areas.
Restoration would involve some
earthmoving and shaping of the
floodplain, including the use of soil
borrowed from areas both within and
potentially outside of the watershed. In
the lower portion of McCluney Branch,
floodplain excavation would be used to
transition the stream bed to the existing
E:\FR\FM\23APN1.SGM
23APN1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 2014 / Notices
elevation of the stream near Broad
River.
• Little Turkey Creek: The floodplain
excavation approach would be used in
the upstream part of the watershed, and
then the floodplain reconnection
approach would be used in the middle
part of the watershed. Floodplain
excavation would be used to transition
the restored channel back into the
existing stream channel in the lower
portion of the watershed. Restoration
would involve some earthmoving and
shaping of the floodplain, including the
use of soil borrowed from areas both
within and potentially outside of the
watershed. Also, some additional
structural diversity such as boulders
and cobble rock may be added to a
portion of the newly created stream
channel.
• Clarks Creek: All three restoration
approaches (i.e., floodplain
reconnection, floodplain excavation,
and floodplain benches) would be used
to restore Clarks Creek. The upstream
portions of Clarks North Fork tributary
would begin with the floodplain
excavation, transitioning quickly to the
floodplain reconnection approach below
the first tributary stream; this tributary
stream would have a short section of
floodplain reconnection in its
headwaters. Downstream of this area,
the floodplain reconnection approach
would be used before reaching a short
segment where no restoration is
proposed. The approach for the middle
sections of Clark Creek would transition
from floodplain excavation down into
floodplain reconnection along the
mainstem of Clarks Creek, where the
approach would have a final transition
back to floodplain excavation so that the
stream can tie into the existing stream
bed. Within the Clarks South Fork
tributary, the stream would transition
from floodplain reconnection to
floodplain excavation, and then through
a short segment adjacent to the Project
Area boundary that would be restored
using the floodplain bench approach.
The downstream area would then
transition from floodplain excavation
back to floodplain reconnection, as it
joins the mainstem at the confluence
with Clarks North Fork. Restoration
would involve extensive earthmoving
and shaping of the floodplain, including
both the use of borrowed soil and
disposal of excess soil to areas outside
of the floodplain.
• Unnamed Tributary to Clarks
Creek: The Unnamed Tributary to Clarks
Creek would be restored using the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:37 Apr 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
floodplain benches approach as well as
floodplain excavation in localized
sections. Restoration activities proposed
on this stream would be targeted to key
problem areas to help augment natural
channel changes the stream is
undergoing as it moves toward greater
stability. Restoration would involve
moderate to extensive earthmoving and
shaping of the floodplain in key areas,
including both the use of borrowed soil
and disposal of excess soil to areas
outside of the floodplain. To the extent
possible, soil borrow and disposal areas
would occur within watershed.
Forest Service Plan Amendment
The proposed action includes a nonsignificant forest plan amendment to the
Revised Land and Resource
Management Plan, Sumter National
Forest (Forest Plan). The amendment
would change current Forest Plan
management direction to allow for
implementation (construction,
reconstruction and maintenance) of the
Chester County Stream and Riparian
Restoration/Enhancement Project
(stream restoration project) in project
streams only.
Proposed Forest Plan changes would:
1. Allow heavy equipment within
project stream channels during
implementation and maintenance
activities.
2. Allow removal of trees and other
vegetation on project stream banks
during implementation and
maintenance activities.
3. Allow removal of hardwood
inclusions (1⁄2 acre in size or larger) in
pine stands dominated by hard and soft
mast species where needed during
implementation activities.
4. Allow removal of trees in areas
with old growth characteristics where
necessary during implementation of the
steam restoration project.
5. Allow removal of healthy shortleaf
pine in areas where necessary during
implementation of the steam restoration
project.
6. Allow stream restoration project
work to take place on plastic soils with
approval of the forest soil scientist on a
case-by-case basis.
7. In the short term, change the scenic
integrity objective for stream restoration
work to moderate in management
prescriptions 6.C, 7.D, 7.E.1, 7.E.2,
9.A.3, 9F, and 11 in the project area to
allow the restoration work to be
completed.
8. Allow temporary removal of large
woody material during restoration and
maintenance work.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22621
9. Allow minimal impacts to rare
communities during stream restoration
and maintenance work.
Connected Actions
The following activities would be
conducted in connection with stream
restoration and enhancement activities.
• Road Reconstruction and
Maintenance: Road maintenance and/or
reconstruction would be needed on
existing Forest Service system roads.
Reconstruction work would consist of
but not be limited to graveling road
surfaces, replacing culverts—including
replacements for aquatic organism
passage, ditch cleaning, removing brush
and trees along road rights-of-way,
installing, repairing or replacing gates
and correcting road safety hazards.
Bridge replacements may be necessary
on some roads to accommodate the
restored stream. Road maintenance
would consist of spot gravel
replacement, blading, cleaning culverts,
light brushing and mowing.
• Temporary Roads: Stream
restoration work would require the
construction of temporary roads during
project implementation work. Upon
completion of restoration activities,
temporary roads would be closed,
obliterated and adequate erosion and
stormwater control measures completed.
Road surfaces would be replanted with
native and desirable non-native
vegetation.
• Soil Borrow and Soil Deposition
Areas: Implementation of the project
would generate the need for soil borrow
to fill in and shape the new channels
and adjacent areas. Likewise, sediment
deposited by past land erosion would be
removed in some locations, generating
soil that would need to be deposited
elsewhere. Soil borrow and deposition
areas would be established on national
forest system lands within the project
area and transported to the stream
restoration areas as needed.
• Merchantable Timber: The project
would result in the removal of trees
within the stream restoration areas and
from the soil borrow and deposition
areas. Merchantable timber would likely
be sold. Some of the woody material
would be utilized in the restoration
work. Trees would be cut down and
skidded to landings where it would be
transported off site or used in the
restoration work. All landings and skid
trails would be closed, water-barred,
and reseeded.
E:\FR\FM\23APN1.SGM
23APN1
22622
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 2014 / Notices
TABLE 2—STREAM RESTORATION METHODS—DEFINITIONS
Restoration approach
(based on
Rosgen, 1997)
Terms and definitions for EIS
Floodplain Reconnection (FR) ........
•
•
•
•
Floodplain Excavation (FE) .............
•
•
Floodplain Benches (FB) ................
•
•
•
Raise the streambed and use the existing valley elevation as the floodplain.
Create a meandering stable channel on existing forest bottom with alternating riffle and pool bed forms.
Small headwater streams may have a small step-pool channel or swale.
Fill/plug sections of old stream channel and create oxbow ponds and wetlands; may include the use of
groundwater dams.
Excavate, at the stream’s existing bankfull elevation, a new floodplain that is wide enough to support a
meandering channel. The stream bed elevation remains nearly the same.
Create or allow for the natural development of a meandering channel with alternating riffle and pool bed
forms.
Constraints in the stream corridor will not support a meandering channel.
Excavate relatively narrow, floodplain benches at the stream’s existing bankfull elevation.
Create a relatively straight channel that dissipates energy through a step-pool bed form rather than a
meandering stream.
Rosgen. D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Management of
Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision, S.S.Y Wang, E.J. Langendoen, & F.D. Shields (Editors). University of Mississippi. Oxford.
anonymously will also be accepted and
considered, however.
Responsible Official
International Trade Administration
invited to comment on these
preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: April 23, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sandra Dreisonstok or Minoo Hatten,
AD/CVD Operations, Office I,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–0768, and (202) 482–1690,
respectively.
The Forest Supervisior for the Francis
Marion/Sumter National Forests.
[A–469–805]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
To view project vicinity, location map
and more detailed information about
proposed treatments go to: https://
www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_
exp.php?project=44310.
Dated: April 17, 2014.
Robin Mackie,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
[FR Doc. 2014–09215 Filed 4–22–14; 8:45 am]
The United States Army, Corps of
Engineers—Regulatory Division,
Charleston District, Charleston, South
Carolina will be a cooperating agency on
this project.
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P
Nature of Decision To Be Made
Whether or not to implement the
action as proposed or an alternative way
to achieve the desired outcome.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Scoping Process
This notice of intent initiates the
scoping process, which guides the
development of the environmental
impact statement. A public scoping
meeting will be held in Chester County
at the West Chester Community Center,
located at 2684 West Chester School
Road, Chester, SC 29706 on April 28,
2014 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
It is important that reviewers provide
their comments at such times and in
such manner that they are useful to the
agency’s preparation of the
environmental impact statement.
Therefore, comments should be
provided prior to the close of the
comment period and should clearly
articulate the reviewer’s concerns and
contentions.
Comments received in response to
this solicitation, including names and
addresses of those who comment, will
be part of the public record for this
proposed action. Comments submitted
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:37 Apr 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Stainless Steel Bar From Spain:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; 2012–
2013
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel bar (SSB) from Spain. The period
of review (POR) is March 1, 2012,
through February 28, 2013. The review
covers one producer/exporter of the
subject merchandise, Gerdau Aceros
Especiales Europa, S.L. (Gerdau).1 We
preliminarily find that subject
merchandise has not been sold at less
than normal value. Interested parties are
AGENCY:
1 We preliminarily determine that Gerdau is the
successor-in-interest to Sidenor Industrial S.L. For
further discussion, see the memorandum from
James Maeder, Director, Office II, Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from
Spain’’ dated concurrently with this notice
(Preliminary Decision Memorandum), which is
hereby adopted by this notice.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the order
is SSB. The SSB subject to the order is
currently classifiable under subheadings
7222.10.00, 7222.11.00, 7222.19.00,
7222.20.00, 7222.30.00 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes.2
The written description is dispositive.
The Preliminary Decision
Memorandum is a public document and
is on file electronically via Enforcement
and Compliance’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS).
Access to IA ACCESS is available to
registered users at https://
iaaccess.trade.gov and is available to all
parties in the Central Records Unit,
room 7046 of the main Department of
Commerce building. In addition, a
complete version of the Preliminary
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the Internet at https://
enforcement.trade.gov. The signed
Preliminary Decision Memorandum and
2 A full description of the scope of the order is
contained in the Preliminary Decision
Memorandum.
E:\FR\FM\23APN1.SGM
23APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 78 (Wednesday, April 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22618-22622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09215]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Enoree Ranger District; South Carolina; Chester County Stream and
Riparian Restoration/Enhancement Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Chester County Stream and Riparian Restoration/Enhancement
Project will involve restoring and enhancing the hydrologic, riparian
and aquatic functions within four watersheds located on National Forest
System (NFS) lands in Chester County, S.C., and help meet the stream
restoration goals outlined in the 2004 Revised Land and Resource
Management Plan, Sumter National Forest (Forest Plan). More
specifically, the Project Area is located along the western most
portion of Chester County, approximately two miles south of Lockhart,
and is bounded by the Broad River to the west and Hwy. SC 49 to the
east. It includes four watersheds: Clarks Creek, Little Turkey Creek,
McCluney Branch and an unnamed tributary to Clarks Creek. Restoration
work will be accomplished through the use of the following stream
restoration design approaches: Floodplain reconnection (FR) (also known
as a Rosgen Priority 1), floodplain excavation (FE) (also known as a
Rosgen Priority 2), and floodplain benches (FB) (also known as a Rosgen
Priority 3). Selection of a restoration approach is made for each
stream segment based on individual stream and floodplain conditions,
and a combination of approaches is typically employed within an
individual watershed to meet site conditions. Approximately 18 miles of
streams are proposed for restoration.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received
by May 23, 2014. The draft environmental impact statement is expected
July 2014
[[Page 22619]]
and the final environmental impact statement is expected November 2014.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to USDA Forest Service, 4931 Broad
River Road, Columbia, SC 29212. Comments may also be sent via email to
comments-southern-francismarion-sumter@fs.fed.us, or via facsimile to
803-561-4004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Evans (chrisevans@fs.fed.us),
864-427-9858.
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD)
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose and need for this Project is to restore and enhance the
hydrologic and aquatic functions within four watersheds (Project Area)
located upon lands of the Sumter National Forest in Chester County, SC.
Hereinafter in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), ``restore''
is used synonymously with ``rehabilitate''. This change in condition
would restore riparian functions and help move the current stream
systems toward stability and reestablishment of natural stream and
related habitat forming processes. This may include, but not be limited
to, restoring the hydrologic regime including reconnecting streams to
their respective floodplains, reducing sedimentation and stabilizing
banks, improving in-stream and riparian habitats, and improving water
quality.
In 2010, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps)
approached the Forest Service about the potential for completing
compensatory mitigation projects upon National Forest System lands. The
Corps' Final Mitigation Rule (the Rule) requires that compensatory
mitigation be completed within or immediately adjacent to the watershed
where the impacts are occurring. The Enoree Ranger District is
geographically located within the Lower Broad, Enoree and Tyger sub-
basins (8-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC)), making it within the
primary service area for projects in Greenville, Spartanburg and
possibly the greater Charlotte metro area. There is high demand for
compensatory mitigation in these HUCs, while currently no private
mitigation banks are serving them. The Rule also clarifies that public
lands are appropriate for use in completion of compensatory mitigation
projects, provided a land management plan is in place to enable long-
term protection and management of the mitigation property.
Stream restoration is a primary goal of the Forest Service's 2004
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Plan) and the Plan includes
multiple objectives designed to restore and enhance stream habitat and
aquatic communities within the Project Area streams. The Forest Service
and Corps have entered into a regional Conservation Land Use Agreement
that sets forth the policies, undertakings, and responsibilities
governing the use of Sumter National Forest lands for compensatory
mitigation projects required or authorized under the Corp's permit
program. In May 2011, the Forest Service began discussions with the
Corps and Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) regarding the
potential for a compensatory mitigation project to be completed on the
Enoree Ranger District. The project would be used to offset the impacts
associated with Duke Energy's construction of a drought contingency
reservoir for the proposed Lee Nuclear Station in Cherokee County, SC.
It is the intent of this EIS to identify those watersheds within
the analysis area that may benefit from restoration and enhancement,
and to provide the required documentation so that they may be
considered for future use as compensatory mitigation properties.
Background
The Project Area is located along the western most portion of
Chester County, South Carolina, approximately 2 miles south of
Lockhart. The Project Area is bounded by the Broad River to the west
and Highway SC-49 to the east. The potential restoration work to be
completed within the Project Area includes approximately 18 miles of
streams within four watersheds: Clarks Creek, Little Turkey Creek,
McCluney Branch, and an unnamed tributary to Clarks Creek.
Native Americans moved into the Broad River valley about 12,000
years ago. Their populations remained relatively low throughout their
occupation and their impact on the environment was limited. Small
groups of European settlers first moved into the project area in the
1750s.They were primarily farmers who cultivated level terrain along
the major streams and rivers. An influx of settlement followed the
American Revolution with these settlers moving into the uplands. Cotton
agriculture started in the early 1800's and continued as the main
staple crop in the Piedmont until the early 1900's. Extensive tracts of
erosion prone land were cleared for cultivation. Fields that were
allowed to lay fallow after the growing season were soon subjected to
sheet erosion which quickly became gullies. When federal acquisition
began in the 1930s, the South Carolina Piedmont was one of the most
severely eroded regions in the United States (SNF Cultural Resources
Overview 2006). Sediment covers Piedmont stream valleys in varying
depths up to several feet and has inundated once pristine stream and
wetland systems (SNF Component Final Mitigation Plan 2012). Streams
within the Project Area reflect past land management practices that
have led to the deteriorated conditions and reduced stream function.
Past land abuses as described above within the Project Area have
led to deeply incised streambeds that are subject to reduced floodplain
interactions and ongoing water quality and aquatic habitat degradation
(Forest Service 2004). Streams are incised and disconnected from an
active floodplain, which exacerbates in-stream channel erosion and
further down-cutting, and substantially limits the hydrologic,
physical, chemical, and biological function that would likely occur
when a stream has access to its floodplain.
Forest Goals and Objectives
This proposal is consistent with the 2004 Revised Land and Resource
Management Plan, Sumter National Forest (Plan) that provides goals and
objectives for the Project Area.
Restoring and enhancing the historic hydrologic and aquatic
functions in the Project Area would help meet the following goals and
objectives in the Plan.
Goal 1 Watersheds are managed (and where necessary restored) to
provide resilient and stable conditions to ensure the quality and
quantity of water necessary to protect ecological functions and support
intended beneficial water uses.
Objective 1.01--Improve soil and water conditions on 1,500
acres through stabilization or rehabilitation of actively eroding areas
such as gullies, barren areas, abandoned roads or trails, and unstable
stream banks over the 10-year planning period.
Goal 2 Manage in-stream flows and water levels, by working with
other agencies if possible, to protect stream processes, aquatic and
riparian habitats and communities, and recreation and aesthetic values.
Objective 2.01--The in-stream flows needed to protect
stream processes, aquatic and riparian habitats and communities, and
recreation and aesthetic values will be determined on 50 streams.
[[Page 22620]]
Goal 3 Riparian ecosystems, wetlands, and aquatic systems are
managed (and where necessary restored) to protect and maintain their
physical, chemical, and biological integrity.
Goal 4 Maintain or restore natural aquatic and riparian communities
or habitat conditions in amounts, arrangements, and conditions to
provide suitable habitats for riparian dependent and migratory species,
especially aquatic species including fish, amphibians, and water birds
within the planning area. Perennial and intermittent streams are
managed in a manner that emphasizes and recruits large woody debris.
Objective 4.01--Create and maintain dense understory of
native vegetation on 1-5 percent of the total riparian corridor acreage
during the 10-year planning period.
Goal 6 Cooperate with landowners and other partners to address
watershed needs and participate in efforts to identify stream problems,
watershed planning, BMP (Best Management Practice(s)) and Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) implementation with the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control, South Carolina Forestry Commission
and other agencies.
Goal 9 Provide habitats to sustain the diversity and distribution
of resident reptile and amphibian species as well as breeding,
wintering, and migration staging and stopover habitat for migratory
birds in ways that contributes to their long-term conservation.
Goal 11:
Objective 2--Restore and enhance stream habitat and
aquatic communities in 50 miles of streams. This includes woody debris,
stream bank stabilization, brook trout restoration, and in stream
habitat improvement.
Goal 14 Manage forest ecosystems and associated communities to
maintain or restore composition, structure, function and productivity
over time.
Proposed Action
The Proposed Action is to restore and enhance the hydrologic and
aquatic functions on approximately 18 miles of streams within the
Project Area's four watersheds, namely McCluney Branch, Little Turkey
Creek, Clarks Creek, and an unnamed tributary to Clarks Creek). The
Proposed Action represents an effort to restore ecosystem functions
across multiple watersheds and at a landscape-scale, which when
completed would provide regionally-significant ecological benefits.
To accomplish the restoration work, the following restoration
design approaches would be used: Floodplain reconnection (FR),
floodplain excavation (FE), and floodplain benches (FB). The stream
restoration approaches are summarized in Table 1; definitions for the
design approaches are provided in Table 2.
Selection of a restoration approach is made for each stream segment
based on individual stream and floodplain conditions, and a combination
of approaches is typically employed within an individual watershed to
meet site conditions. An understanding of the approach can be used to
generally describe the project footprint, the amount of excavation and
fill material needed to complete the work, and the ecological outcome
of the proposed project. Implementation would ultimately require more
detailed designs that identify specific construction details (e.g.,
channel patterns, longitudinal profiles, cross-sections, in-stream
channel structures for aquatic species habitat (e.g., large wood, rock
substrate), substrate modifications, planting native vegetation, and
restoration of work areas). The proposed stream restoration approaches
for the various stream reaches are identified in Table 1.
Table 1--Summary of the Proposed Restoration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restoration
Stream length* Restoration approach
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCluney Branch.............................. 3.1 Floodplain Reconnection.
Floodplain Excavation.
Little Turkey Creek.......................... 4.6 Floodplain Reconnection.
Floodplain Excavation.
Clarks Creek................................. 7.0 Floodplain Reconnection.
Floodplain Excavation.
Floodplain Benches.
Unnamed Tributary to Clarks Creek............ 3.1 Floodplain Benches
Floodplain Excavation.
----------------
Total Length............................. 17.9 .................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Approximate lengths.
For the four watersheds, the restoration would include a variety of
methods to return natural channel form, floodplain function and habitat
conditions. Restoration would involve some earthmoving and shaping of
the channel and floodplain and to the extent possible, soil borrow and
disposal areas would occur within these small watersheds. Activities
would include some temporary roads and repair or replacement of
facilities such as roads, culverts and bridges. Other restoration
activities would involve some removal of trees and vegetation to
accommodate the restoration work. Stream restoration would include
planting native tree, shrub, and herbaceous vegetation to help
stabilize the stream banks and adjacent areas, provide habitat
improvements and to speed recovery within the areas temporarily
disturbed by construction activities. Mitigation measures would be
chosen to accelerate stabilization rates to limit erosion and restore
native forest and vegetation types.
McCluney Branch: Proposed activities for restoration
within McCluney Branch include floodplain reconnection and floodplain
excavation. A hybrid restoration approach would be used in smaller
drainage areas to create a wetland/intermittent stream complex with
little or no defined stream channels, similar to what was historically
present in these areas. Restoration would involve some earthmoving and
shaping of the floodplain, including the use of soil borrowed from
areas both within and potentially outside of the watershed. In the
lower portion of McCluney Branch, floodplain excavation would be used
to transition the stream bed to the existing
[[Page 22621]]
elevation of the stream near Broad River.
Little Turkey Creek: The floodplain excavation approach
would be used in the upstream part of the watershed, and then the
floodplain reconnection approach would be used in the middle part of
the watershed. Floodplain excavation would be used to transition the
restored channel back into the existing stream channel in the lower
portion of the watershed. Restoration would involve some earthmoving
and shaping of the floodplain, including the use of soil borrowed from
areas both within and potentially outside of the watershed. Also, some
additional structural diversity such as boulders and cobble rock may be
added to a portion of the newly created stream channel.
Clarks Creek: All three restoration approaches (i.e.,
floodplain reconnection, floodplain excavation, and floodplain benches)
would be used to restore Clarks Creek. The upstream portions of Clarks
North Fork tributary would begin with the floodplain excavation,
transitioning quickly to the floodplain reconnection approach below the
first tributary stream; this tributary stream would have a short
section of floodplain reconnection in its headwaters. Downstream of
this area, the floodplain reconnection approach would be used before
reaching a short segment where no restoration is proposed. The approach
for the middle sections of Clark Creek would transition from floodplain
excavation down into floodplain reconnection along the mainstem of
Clarks Creek, where the approach would have a final transition back to
floodplain excavation so that the stream can tie into the existing
stream bed. Within the Clarks South Fork tributary, the stream would
transition from floodplain reconnection to floodplain excavation, and
then through a short segment adjacent to the Project Area boundary that
would be restored using the floodplain bench approach. The downstream
area would then transition from floodplain excavation back to
floodplain reconnection, as it joins the mainstem at the confluence
with Clarks North Fork. Restoration would involve extensive earthmoving
and shaping of the floodplain, including both the use of borrowed soil
and disposal of excess soil to areas outside of the floodplain.
Unnamed Tributary to Clarks Creek: The Unnamed Tributary
to Clarks Creek would be restored using the floodplain benches approach
as well as floodplain excavation in localized sections. Restoration
activities proposed on this stream would be targeted to key problem
areas to help augment natural channel changes the stream is undergoing
as it moves toward greater stability. Restoration would involve
moderate to extensive earthmoving and shaping of the floodplain in key
areas, including both the use of borrowed soil and disposal of excess
soil to areas outside of the floodplain. To the extent possible, soil
borrow and disposal areas would occur within watershed.
Forest Service Plan Amendment
The proposed action includes a non-significant forest plan
amendment to the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Sumter
National Forest (Forest Plan). The amendment would change current
Forest Plan management direction to allow for implementation
(construction, reconstruction and maintenance) of the Chester County
Stream and Riparian Restoration/Enhancement Project (stream restoration
project) in project streams only.
Proposed Forest Plan changes would:
1. Allow heavy equipment within project stream channels during
implementation and maintenance activities.
2. Allow removal of trees and other vegetation on project stream
banks during implementation and maintenance activities.
3. Allow removal of hardwood inclusions (\1/2\ acre in size or
larger) in pine stands dominated by hard and soft mast species where
needed during implementation activities.
4. Allow removal of trees in areas with old growth characteristics
where necessary during implementation of the steam restoration project.
5. Allow removal of healthy shortleaf pine in areas where necessary
during implementation of the steam restoration project.
6. Allow stream restoration project work to take place on plastic
soils with approval of the forest soil scientist on a case-by-case
basis.
7. In the short term, change the scenic integrity objective for
stream restoration work to moderate in management prescriptions 6.C,
7.D, 7.E.1, 7.E.2, 9.A.3, 9F, and 11 in the project area to allow the
restoration work to be completed.
8. Allow temporary removal of large woody material during
restoration and maintenance work.
9. Allow minimal impacts to rare communities during stream
restoration and maintenance work.
Connected Actions
The following activities would be conducted in connection with
stream restoration and enhancement activities.
Road Reconstruction and Maintenance: Road maintenance and/
or reconstruction would be needed on existing Forest Service system
roads. Reconstruction work would consist of but not be limited to
graveling road surfaces, replacing culverts--including replacements for
aquatic organism passage, ditch cleaning, removing brush and trees
along road rights-of-way, installing, repairing or replacing gates and
correcting road safety hazards. Bridge replacements may be necessary on
some roads to accommodate the restored stream. Road maintenance would
consist of spot gravel replacement, blading, cleaning culverts, light
brushing and mowing.
Temporary Roads: Stream restoration work would require the
construction of temporary roads during project implementation work.
Upon completion of restoration activities, temporary roads would be
closed, obliterated and adequate erosion and stormwater control
measures completed. Road surfaces would be replanted with native and
desirable non-native vegetation.
Soil Borrow and Soil Deposition Areas: Implementation of
the project would generate the need for soil borrow to fill in and
shape the new channels and adjacent areas. Likewise, sediment deposited
by past land erosion would be removed in some locations, generating
soil that would need to be deposited elsewhere. Soil borrow and
deposition areas would be established on national forest system lands
within the project area and transported to the stream restoration areas
as needed.
Merchantable Timber: The project would result in the
removal of trees within the stream restoration areas and from the soil
borrow and deposition areas. Merchantable timber would likely be sold.
Some of the woody material would be utilized in the restoration work.
Trees would be cut down and skidded to landings where it would be
transported off site or used in the restoration work. All landings and
skid trails would be closed, water-barred, and reseeded.
[[Page 22622]]
Table 2--Stream Restoration Methods--Definitions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restoration approach (based on
Rosgen, 1997) Terms and definitions for EIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floodplain Reconnection (FR)...... Raise the streambed and use
the existing valley elevation as
the floodplain.
Create a meandering stable
channel on existing forest bottom
with alternating riffle and pool
bed forms.
Small headwater streams may
have a small step-pool channel or
swale.
Fill/plug sections of old
stream channel and create oxbow
ponds and wetlands; may include the
use of groundwater dams.
Floodplain Excavation (FE)........ Excavate, at the stream's
existing bankfull elevation, a new
floodplain that is wide enough to
support a meandering channel. The
stream bed elevation remains nearly
the same.
Create or allow for the
natural development of a meandering
channel with alternating riffle and
pool bed forms.
Floodplain Benches (FB)........... Constraints in the stream
corridor will not support a
meandering channel.
Excavate relatively narrow,
floodplain benches at the stream's
existing bankfull elevation.
Create a relatively
straight channel that dissipates
energy through a step-pool bed form
rather than a meandering stream.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosgen. D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised
Rivers. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes
Disturbed by Channel Incision, S.S.Y Wang, E.J. Langendoen, & F.D.
Shields (Editors). University of Mississippi. Oxford.
To view project vicinity, location map and more detailed
information about proposed treatments go to: https://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=44310.
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
The United States Army, Corps of Engineers--Regulatory Division,
Charleston District, Charleston, South Carolina will be a cooperating
agency on this project.
Responsible Official
The Forest Supervisior for the Francis Marion/Sumter National
Forests.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
Whether or not to implement the action as proposed or an
alternative way to achieve the desired outcome.
Scoping Process
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides
the development of the environmental impact statement. A public scoping
meeting will be held in Chester County at the West Chester Community
Center, located at 2684 West Chester School Road, Chester, SC 29706 on
April 28, 2014 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times
and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of
the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be
provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly
articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names
and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record
for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will also be
accepted and considered, however.
Dated: April 17, 2014.
Robin Mackie,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2014-09215 Filed 4-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
