Plumas National Forest; Beckwourth Ranger District, California; Freeman Project, 49907-49909 [05-16898]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices
Issues Identified From Previous
Scoping
The potential for impacts/effects as a
result of the establishment and spread of
invasive plants and the potential for
impacts/effects as a result of treatment
actions designed to manage invasive
plants are both important considerations
that need to be addressed in the
analysis. The following issues were
identified during the initial scoping
process:
• Human Health—Invasive plant
treatments may result in health risks to
forestry workers and the public,
including contamination of drinking
water and forest products. Mitigation
and protection measures should be
evaluated to ensure they protect human
health. Public notification measures
should be evaluated to ensure that
human exposure to herbicide is limited.
• Treatment Effectiveness—Invasive
plant treatments can vary in
effectiveness. The presence and spread
of invasive plants within National
Forest System lands may be affect the
presence and spread of invasive plants
on neighboring ownerships. Treatments
should be evaluated based on how
likely they are to reach desired
conditions in the foreseeable future.
• Social and Economic—Invasive
plant treatments vary in cost and affect
the acreage that can be effectively
treated each year given a set budget.
Manual treatment methods may cost
more per acre and provide more
employment.
• Non-Target Plants and Animals—
Impacts to non-target plant and animal
species varies by invasive plant
treatments. Mitigation and protection
measures should be evaluated to ensure
they protect plant and animal species
(including culturally important plants)
from adverse effects.
• Soils, Water Quality and Aquatic
Biota—Soil and ground disturbing
impacts, effects to aquatic organisms,
and water quality impacts vary by
invasive plant treatments. Mitigation
and protection measures should be
evaluated to ensure they protect soil,
water quality and aquatic biota from
adverse effects.
Alternatives Considered
The No Action alternative will serve
as a baseline for comparison of
alternatives. Under the No Action
alternative, the Gifford-Pinchot National
Forest/Columbia River Gorge National
Scenic Area would continue to treat
invasive plant species as authorized
under existing National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) documents. The
Gifford-Pinchot National Forest would
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Aug 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
continue to have a standard that
severely restricts herbicide use in
riparian areas.
Alternative Evaluation Criteria
The alternatives will be evaluated
based on how effectively they treat
known and respond to new infestations,
their monetary cost, and their potential
risks to human health and the
environment.
Estimated Dates for Draft and Final EIS
The Draft EIS is expected to be filed
with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and to be available for
public comment by March 2006. The
comment period on the draft EIS will be
45 days from the date the EPA 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 the draft EIS 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 objectives that could be
raised at the draft EIS stage but that are
not raised until after the 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 Heritage, Inc. v.
Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334 (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 EIS.
To assist the Forest Service in
identifying and considering issues and
concerns on 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 or
chapters of the draft statement.
Comments may also address the
adequacy of the draft EIS 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 provision
of the National Environmental Policy
Act (40 CFR 1503.3).
Comments received in response to
this solicitation, including names and
addresses of those who comment, will
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49907
be considered part of the public record
on this proposed action and will be
available for public inspection.
Comments submitted anonymously will
be accepted and considered; however,
those who submit anonymous
comments may not have standing to
appeal the subsequent decision under
36 CFR part 215. Additionally, pursuant
to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may
request the agency to withhold a
submission from the public record by
showing how the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) permits such
confidentiality. Persons requesting such
confidentiality should be aware that,
under the FOIA, confidentiality may be
granted in only very limited
circumstances, such as to protect trade
secrets. The Forest Service will inform
the requester of the agency’s decision
regarding the request for confidentiality,
and where the request is denied, the
agency will return the submission and
notify the requester that the comments
may be resubmitted with or without
name and address within a specified
number of days.
Comments on the draft EIS will be
analyzed, considered, and responded to
by the Forest Service in preparing the
final EIS. The Final EIS is scheduled to
be completed in 2006. The Responsible
Officials are Claire Lavendel, Gifford
Pinchot National Forest Supervisor and
Daniel T. Harkenrider, Columbia River
Gorge National Scenic Area Manager.
These officials will consider comments,
responses, environmental consequences
discussed in the final EIS, and
applicable laws, regulations, and
policies in making a decision regarding
this proposed action. The responsible
officials will document the decision and
rationale for the decision in the Record
of Decision. It will be subject to Forest
Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR
Part 215).
Dated: August 16, 2005.
Claire Lavendel,
Forest Supervisor, Gifford Pinchot National
Forest.
Dated: August 12, 2005.
Daniel T. Harkenrider,
Area Manager, Columbia River Gorge
National Scenic Area.
[FR Doc. 05–16901 Filed 8–24–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plumas National Forest; Beckwourth
Ranger District, California; Freeman
Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM
25AUN1
49908
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement.
SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service,
Plumas National Forest will prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
to reduce hazardous fuels, improve
forest health, improve bald eagle
habitat, cost effectively support the local
communities, improve aspen stands,
provide access needed to meet other
project objectives and reduce
transportation system impacts on the
west side of Lake Davis near Portola,
CA.
DATES: Although comments will be
accepted throughout any phase of this
project, it would be most helpful if
comments on the scope of the analysis
were received within 30 days of the date
of publication of this notice of intent in
the Federal Register. The draft EIS is
expected in April 2006 and the final EIS
is expected in August 2006.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
Robert Mac Whorter, Plumas National
Forest, PO Box 11500, Quincy, CA
95971; fax: (530) 283–7746. Comments
may be: (1) Mailed to the Responsible
Official; (2) hand-delivered between the
hours of 8 a.m.–4:30 p.m. weekdays
Pacific time; (3) faxed to (530) 283–
7746; or (4) electronically mailed to:
comments-pacificsouthwestplumas@fs.fed.us. Comments submitted
electronically must be in Rich Text
Format (.rtf).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sabrina Stadler, Interdisciplinary Team
Leader, Plumas National Forest,
Beckwourth Ranger District, P.O. Box 7,
Blairsden, CA 96103, (530) 836–2575.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Project Location
The project area is located north of
Portola and west of Lake Davis, in the
Beckwourth Ranger District of the
Plumas National Forest. It is within all
or parts of T23N, R12E; T23N, R13E;
T24N, R12E; T24N, R13E.
Purpose and Need for Action
The effects of several vegetation
management projects will be analyzed
in this EIS. The need for and purpose of
the project has six elements: to reduce
hazardous fuels in the wildland/urban
interface (WUI) and to create a strategic
network of linear fuel treatments across
the landscape referred to as defensible
fuel profile zones (DFPZs); to improve
forest health; to improve bald eagle
habitat; to implement the project in a
cost effective manner and contribute to
local community economic stability; to
improve aspen stands; to provide the
access needed to meet other project
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Aug 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
objectives and reduce transportation
system impacts.
In its effort to reduce excessive fuel,
the Forest Service intends to work with
the Plumas County Fire Safe Council to
reduce hazardous fuels around local
communities, as well as to develop a
strategic network of linear fuel
treatments across the landscape. This
will reduce the potential for large-scale,
high-intensity fire where wildfire
behavior would be modified to allow for
safer, more effective fire suppression.
Many stands in the project are
infected with small pockets of insects
and disease. The insects include both
bark beetles (Dendroctonus brevicomus,
D. valens) and pine engravers (Ips spp.).
The diseases include mistletoe
(Arceuthobium spp.), white pine blister
rust (Cronartium ribicola) and annosus
root rot (Heterobasidion annosum).
Stands in the Lake Davis Bald Eagle
Habitat Management Area (BEHMA) in
the Freeman project area are
overstocked, largely unable to recruit
nesting structure, and at risk of loss
from wildlife and disease/insect
infestation.
In addition to reducing the risk of
catastrophic wildfire and improving
forest health, this project would provide
products that contribute to community
stability in the most cost-effective
manner possible, considering other
resource objectives, by creating
employment and income that contribute
to local economic activity.
Aspen stands in the project area are
low in productivity and health, and
most are not successfully regenerating.
Field evaluation indicates that,
regardless of the relative contribution of
these various factors, at present,
competition by conifers is a major factor
in aspen decline. Aspen stand
improvement work will maintain or
improve diverse and productive native
plant communities in the riparian zone,
as well as to support populations of
well-distributed native plant, vertebrate
and invertebrate populations that
contribute to the viability of riparian
plant communities.
The proposed road relocation and
decommissioning work is needed to
achieve desired riparian conditions and
to reduce the total area of compacted
soil.
Proposed Action
The project area consists of 14,967
acres of the PNF managed by the
Beckwourth Ranger District. The
proposed action will treat 5,792 acres,
approximately 39 percent of the project
area by: reducing hazardous fuels;
improving forest health, improving bald
eagle habitat, cost effectively supporting
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the local communities; improving aspen
stands; and providing the access needed
to meet other project objectives and
reducing transportation system impacts.
Fuel reduction treatments will occur
over 3,066 acres of the DFPZ and WUI.
Treatments are specifically designed to
cause advancing wildfire to drop to the
ground and burn with reduced intensity
and will involve several methods (i.e.,
grapple pile, handthin, mastication,
mechanical thinning, underburn only).
Forest health improvement will
involve the use of group selection to
remove insect and disease infected
pockets within the stands. Group
selection will be on 175 acres, ranging
from 0.5–2 acres in size. The health of
plantations and young conifer stands
will also be addressed, through area
thinning, mastication and grapple
piling.
Over half of the eagle habitat within
the project area would receive some
kind of treatment, consisting of
mechanical thinning, hand thinning,
underburn only, group selection and
mechanical aspen treatments, covering
1,964 acres. Treatments would focus on
removing diseased pockets of trees and
increasing the quantity of nesting
habitat by thinning stands to accelerate
growth.
Aspen stands would be treated to
remove conifers to enhance aspen
health and growth. Aspen would be
released from conifer competition in 40
units totaling approximately 645 acres,
ranging in size between 1–85 acres.
Conifers to be removed are within the
existing aspen stand (i.e., those trees
actively suppressing aspen community
productivity and function) or trees
bordering a stand, which directly affect
the health of the stand. All conifers up
to 29.9″ dbh would also be removed
within a variable-width treatment zone
extending up to 150′ beyond the outer
boundary of the aspen stands.
The Forest proposes to improve
transportation system needed to access
the vegetation/fuels treatment units and
to mitigate existing adverse effects on
heritage resources, soils, and water
quality. These improvements to the
transportation system will include:
building approximately 17 short
segments of temporary roads
(decommissioned upon completion),
totaling 2-miles, needed to implement
planned activities; decommissioning
approximately 12.5-miles of existing
system roads and 1.9-miles of nonsystem roads; closing 0.7-miles of
system roads; relocating 0.2-mile of
system road and 0.7-mile of system road
would be reduced to single-track, in
order to provide for recreational
opportunities near Lake Davis.
E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM
25AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices
Hazard trees would be removed from
along Maintenance Level 3, 4 and 5
roads (generally, surfaced roads) and
high-use Maintenance Level 2 roads
(generally native-surface roads).
Identification of hazard trees would
follow guidelines in the Plumas
National Forest Roadside/Facility
Hazard Tree Abatement Action Plan
(2003).
Lead Agency: The USDA Forest
Service is the lead agency for this
proposal.
Responsible Official: Plumas National
Acting Forest Supervisor, Robert G.
MacWhorter is the responsible official;
Plumas National Forest, P.O. Box 11500,
Quincy, CA 95971.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The responsible official will decide
whether to implement this project as
proposed, implement the project based
on an alternative to this proposal that is
formulated to resolve identified issues
or not implement this project at this
time. The responsible official will be the
Plumas National Forest Forest
Supervisor.
Scoping Process
Public questions and comments
regarding this proposal are an integral
part of this environmental analysis
process. Comments will be used to
identify issues and disqualification
alternatives to the proposed action. To
assist the Forest Service in identifying
and considering issues and concerns on
the proposed action, comments should
be as specific as possible.
A copy of the proposed action and/or
a summary of the proposed action will
be mailed to adjacent landowners, as
well as to those people and
organizations that have indicated a
specific interest in the Freeman project,
to Native American entities, and
Federal, State and local agencies. The
public will be notified of any meetings
regarding this proposed by mailings and
press releases sent to the local
newspaper and media. There are no
meetings planned at this time.
Permits or Licenses Required: An Air
Pollution Permit and a Smoke
Management Plan are required by local
agencies.
Comment
This notice of intent initiates the
scoping process which guides the
development of the EIS. Our desire is to
receive substantive comments on the
merits of the proposed action, as well as
comments that address errors,
misinformation, or information that has
been omitted. Substantive comments are
defined as comments within the scope
of the proposal, that have a direct
relationship to the proposal, and that
include supporting reasons for the
responsible official’s consideration.
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 as 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 45day 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.
49909
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 proposed action,
comments on the draft environmental
impact statement should be as specific
as possible. It is also helpful if
comments refer to specific pages or
chapters of the draft statement.
Comments may also address the
adequacy of the draft environmental
impact statement or the merits of the
alternatives formulated and discussed in
the statement. Reviewers may wish to
refer to the Council on Environmental
Quality Regulations for implementing
the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act at 40
CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Comments received, including the
names and addresses of those who
comment, will be considered part of the
public record on this proposal and will
be available for public inspection.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22;
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section
21)
Dated: August 19, 2005.
Kathleen L. Gay,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05–16898 Filed 8–24–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Economic Development Administration
Notice of Petitions by Producing Firms
for Determination of Eligibility To
Apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance
AGENCY: Economic Development
Administration (EDA), Commerce.
ACTION: To give all interested parties an
opportunity to comment.
Petitions have been accepted for filing
on the dates indicated from the firms
listed below.
LIST OF PETITION ACTION BY TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR PERIOD JULY 16, 2005–AUGUST 19, 2005
Firm name
Source Code Corporation .......
ITA Corporation .......................
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Aug 24, 2005
Address
290 Vanderbilt Avenue Norwood, MA 02062.
2401 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850.
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Date
petition
accepted
Product
10–Aug–05 ....
Computers and servers.
25–Jul–05 ......
Accounting and human resource software.
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM
25AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 164 (Thursday, August 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49907-49909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16898]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plumas National Forest; Beckwourth Ranger District, California;
Freeman Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
[[Page 49908]]
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest will prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to reduce hazardous fuels,
improve forest health, improve bald eagle habitat, cost effectively
support the local communities, improve aspen stands, provide access
needed to meet other project objectives and reduce transportation
system impacts on the west side of Lake Davis near Portola, CA.
DATES: Although comments will be accepted throughout any phase of this
project, it would be most helpful if comments on the scope of the
analysis were received within 30 days of the date of publication of
this notice of intent in the Federal Register. The draft EIS is
expected in April 2006 and the final EIS is expected in August 2006.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Robert Mac Whorter, Plumas National
Forest, PO Box 11500, Quincy, CA 95971; fax: (530) 283-7746. Comments
may be: (1) Mailed to the Responsible Official; (2) hand-delivered
between the hours of 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m. weekdays Pacific time; (3) faxed
to (530) 283-7746; or (4) electronically mailed to: comments-
pacificsouthwest-plumas@fs.fed.us. Comments submitted electronically
must be in Rich Text Format (.rtf).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sabrina Stadler, Interdisciplinary
Team Leader, Plumas National Forest, Beckwourth Ranger District, P.O.
Box 7, Blairsden, CA 96103, (530) 836-2575.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Project Location
The project area is located north of Portola and west of Lake
Davis, in the Beckwourth Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest.
It is within all or parts of T23N, R12E; T23N, R13E; T24N, R12E; T24N,
R13E.
Purpose and Need for Action
The effects of several vegetation management projects will be
analyzed in this EIS. The need for and purpose of the project has six
elements: to reduce hazardous fuels in the wildland/urban interface
(WUI) and to create a strategic network of linear fuel treatments
across the landscape referred to as defensible fuel profile zones
(DFPZs); to improve forest health; to improve bald eagle habitat; to
implement the project in a cost effective manner and contribute to
local community economic stability; to improve aspen stands; to provide
the access needed to meet other project objectives and reduce
transportation system impacts.
In its effort to reduce excessive fuel, the Forest Service intends
to work with the Plumas County Fire Safe Council to reduce hazardous
fuels around local communities, as well as to develop a strategic
network of linear fuel treatments across the landscape. This will
reduce the potential for large-scale, high-intensity fire where
wildfire behavior would be modified to allow for safer, more effective
fire suppression.
Many stands in the project are infected with small pockets of
insects and disease. The insects include both bark beetles
(Dendroctonus brevicomus, D. valens) and pine engravers (Ips spp.). The
diseases include mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.), white pine blister rust
(Cronartium ribicola) and annosus root rot (Heterobasidion annosum).
Stands in the Lake Davis Bald Eagle Habitat Management Area (BEHMA)
in the Freeman project area are overstocked, largely unable to recruit
nesting structure, and at risk of loss from wildlife and disease/insect
infestation.
In addition to reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire and
improving forest health, this project would provide products that
contribute to community stability in the most cost-effective manner
possible, considering other resource objectives, by creating employment
and income that contribute to local economic activity.
Aspen stands in the project area are low in productivity and
health, and most are not successfully regenerating. Field evaluation
indicates that, regardless of the relative contribution of these
various factors, at present, competition by conifers is a major factor
in aspen decline. Aspen stand improvement work will maintain or improve
diverse and productive native plant communities in the riparian zone,
as well as to support populations of well-distributed native plant,
vertebrate and invertebrate populations that contribute to the
viability of riparian plant communities.
The proposed road relocation and decommissioning work is needed to
achieve desired riparian conditions and to reduce the total area of
compacted soil.
Proposed Action
The project area consists of 14,967 acres of the PNF managed by the
Beckwourth Ranger District. The proposed action will treat 5,792 acres,
approximately 39 percent of the project area by: reducing hazardous
fuels; improving forest health, improving bald eagle habitat, cost
effectively supporting the local communities; improving aspen stands;
and providing the access needed to meet other project objectives and
reducing transportation system impacts.
Fuel reduction treatments will occur over 3,066 acres of the DFPZ
and WUI. Treatments are specifically designed to cause advancing
wildfire to drop to the ground and burn with reduced intensity and will
involve several methods (i.e., grapple pile, handthin, mastication,
mechanical thinning, underburn only).
Forest health improvement will involve the use of group selection
to remove insect and disease infected pockets within the stands. Group
selection will be on 175 acres, ranging from 0.5-2 acres in size. The
health of plantations and young conifer stands will also be addressed,
through area thinning, mastication and grapple piling.
Over half of the eagle habitat within the project area would
receive some kind of treatment, consisting of mechanical thinning, hand
thinning, underburn only, group selection and mechanical aspen
treatments, covering 1,964 acres. Treatments would focus on removing
diseased pockets of trees and increasing the quantity of nesting
habitat by thinning stands to accelerate growth.
Aspen stands would be treated to remove conifers to enhance aspen
health and growth. Aspen would be released from conifer competition in
40 units totaling approximately 645 acres, ranging in size between 1-85
acres. Conifers to be removed are within the existing aspen stand
(i.e., those trees actively suppressing aspen community productivity
and function) or trees bordering a stand, which directly affect the
health of the stand. All conifers up to 29.9'' dbh would also be
removed within a variable-width treatment zone extending up to 150'
beyond the outer boundary of the aspen stands.
The Forest proposes to improve transportation system needed to
access the vegetation/fuels treatment units and to mitigate existing
adverse effects on heritage resources, soils, and water quality. These
improvements to the transportation system will include: building
approximately 17 short segments of temporary roads (decommissioned upon
completion), totaling 2-miles, needed to implement planned activities;
decommissioning approximately 12.5-miles of existing system roads and
1.9-miles of non-system roads; closing 0.7-miles of system roads;
relocating 0.2-mile of system road and 0.7-mile of system road would be
reduced to single-track, in order to provide for recreational
opportunities near Lake Davis.
[[Page 49909]]
Hazard trees would be removed from along Maintenance Level 3, 4 and
5 roads (generally, surfaced roads) and high-use Maintenance Level 2
roads (generally native-surface roads). Identification of hazard trees
would follow guidelines in the Plumas National Forest Roadside/Facility
Hazard Tree Abatement Action Plan (2003).
Lead Agency: The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this
proposal.
Responsible Official: Plumas National Acting Forest Supervisor,
Robert G. MacWhorter is the responsible official; Plumas National
Forest, P.O. Box 11500, Quincy, CA 95971.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The responsible official will decide whether to implement this
project as proposed, implement the project based on an alternative to
this proposal that is formulated to resolve identified issues or not
implement this project at this time. The responsible official will be
the Plumas National Forest Forest Supervisor.
Scoping Process
Public questions and comments regarding this proposal are an
integral part of this environmental analysis process. Comments will be
used to identify issues and disqualification alternatives to the
proposed action. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and
considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments should
be as specific as possible.
A copy of the proposed action and/or a summary of the proposed
action will be mailed to adjacent landowners, as well as to those
people and organizations that have indicated a specific interest in the
Freeman project, to Native American entities, and Federal, State and
local agencies. The public will be notified of any meetings regarding
this proposed by mailings and press releases sent to the local
newspaper and media. There are no meetings planned at this time.
Permits or Licenses Required: An Air Pollution Permit and a Smoke
Management Plan are required by local agencies.
Comment
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides
the development of the EIS. Our desire is to receive substantive
comments on the merits of the proposed action, as well as comments that
address errors, misinformation, or information that has been omitted.
Substantive comments are defined as comments within the scope of the
proposal, that have a direct relationship to the proposal, and that
include supporting reasons for the responsible official's
consideration.
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 as 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 proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact
statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if
comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement.
Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental
impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and
discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council
on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in
addressing these points.
Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who
comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal
and will be available for public inspection.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, Section 21)
Dated: August 19, 2005.
Kathleen L. Gay,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05-16898 Filed 8-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
