Plumas National Forest, Beckwourth Ranger District; Plumas County, California Lake Davis Northern Pike Eradication Project, 54350-54352 [05-18204]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
54350
Notices
Federal Register
Vol. 70, No. 177
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
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
Office of the Secretary
Notice of the Specialty Crop
Committee’s Listening Session
Research, Education, and
Economics, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of listening session on
specialty crops.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5
U.S.C. App 2, the United States
Department of Agriculture announces a
listening session of the Specialty Crop
Committee under the auspices of the
National Agricultural Research,
Extension, Education, and Economics
Advisory Board.
DATES: The Specialty Crop Committee
will hold a listening session from 9:30
a.m. to 4:45 p.m. on October 20, 2005,
and from 8:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. on
October 21, 2005.
The public may file written comments
before or up to two weeks after the
listening session with the contact
person.
The listening session of the
Specialty Crop Committee will take
place at the Best Western Capitol
Skyline Hotel, 10 I Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20024–4299. You may
submit comments by any of the
following methods to the contact person
identified in this notice: Mail/Handdelivery: National Agricultural
Research, Extension, Education, and
Economics Advisory Board Office; U.S.
Department of Agriculture; Room 344–
A, Jamie L. Whitten Building; 1400
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–2255; Fax: (202)
720–6199; E-mail:
dhanfman@csrees.usda.gov.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Deborah Hanfman, Executive Director,
National Agricultural Research,
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:17 Sep 13, 2005
Jkt 205001
Extension, Education, and Economics
Advisory Board, (202) 720–3684.
The
Specialty Crop Committee was
established in accordance with the
Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of
2004 under Title III, Section 303 of
Public Law 108–465. This Committee is
a permanent subcommittee of the
National Agricultural Research
Extension, Education, and Economics
Advisory Board (the Board). The
Committee’s charge is to study the scope
and effectiveness of research, extension,
and economics programs affecting the
specialty crop industry. The
congressional legislation defines
‘‘specialty crops’’ as fruits, vegetables,
tree nuts, dried fruits and nursery crops
(including floriculture). In order to carry
out its responsibilities effectively, the
Committee is holding a listening session
from October 20–21, 2005 in
conjunction with the Advisory Board’s
biannual meeting scheduled from
October 18–20, 2005 at the Best Western
Capitol Skyline Hotel, 10 I Street, SW.,
Washington, DC. The listening session
will elicit input from industry, national,
and state representatives from
organizations and institutions, local
producers, and other individuals and
groups interested in the specialty crop
issues with which the Specialty Crop
Committee is charged. The listening
session will be organized into five
specific panel sessions that correspond
to one or more topics delineated in the
Committee’s charge by Congress.
Panelists will provide a brief 10-minute
statement that will address their
respective panel topic(s) as well as
suggest ways by which agricultural
research, extension, and/or economics
can enhance the specialty crop industry.
Each panel session will be followed
with questions by Committee members
and brief public comments from the
floor. Opportunities for general
discussion from the floor will be held
on Friday, October 21, 2005 from 10:30–
11:30 a.m. Also, written comments by
attendees and other individuals will be
welcomed as additional public input
before and up to two weeks following
the listening session. All statements will
become part of the official public record
of the Board.
A copy of the draft agenda can be
requested from the contact person cited
above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Done at Washington, DC this 8th day of
September 2005.
Joseph J. Jen,
Under Secretary, Research, Education, and
Economics.
[FR Doc. 05–18218 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plumas National Forest, Beckwourth
Ranger District; Plumas County,
California Lake Davis Northern Pike
Eradication Project
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service,
Plumas National Forest, gives notice of
the Agency’s intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
in cooperation with the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
issuing a joint Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). The EIS will consider
Federal and State actions associated
with CDFG’s proposal to eradicate
northern pike, Esox lucius, from Lake
Davis and its tributaries. Northern pike
are restricted in California and it is
unlawful to import, transport, or possess
live animals. This proposed project is
designed to help protect the fishery
resources of the state by eradicating pike
from Lake Davis and its upstream
tributaries. CDFG has proposed to treat
the reservoir and its tributaries with
rotenone, at a concentration sufficient to
eradicate northern pike and to restock
the reservoir with trout. The associated
actions are: (1) the Forest Service
issuing CDFG a special use permit for
access through, and use of National
Forest lands adjacent to Lake Davis and
its tributaries for implementing the
proposed project. (2) a Forest order to
close the entire area to the public during
implementation of the proposed project
and to close access to the lake bed as the
lake level is lowered.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope
of the analysis must be postmarked no
later than October 31, 2005. The draft
EIS is expected March 2006 and the
final EIS is expected November 2006.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
Julie Cunningham, P.O. Box 1858,
Portola CA 96122. Email comments may
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Notices
be submitted to:
northernpike@dfg.ca.gov. Comments
may also be submitted at the Web site:
https://www.dfg.ca.gov/northernpike.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
California Department of Fish and
Game, Portola Field Office, P.O. Box
1858, Portola, CA 96122, (530) 832–
4068. U.S. Forest Service, Plumas
National Forest Supervisors Office,
Angela Dillingham, 159 Lawrence
Street, P.O. Box 11500, Quincy CA
95971, (530) 283–2050.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Lake
Davis is located in Plumas County,
California, at an elevation of 5,775 feet
above sea level. Included in the project
area are Lake Davis, all the tributaries in
the watershed to Lake Davis and Big
Grizzly Creek below Lake Davis. These
all occur in the upper reaches of the
Middle Fork Feather River watershed in
the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Lake
Davis is a State Water Project reservoir
that was first impounded in 1966–68 by
the construction of Grizzly Valley Dam
on Big Grizzly Creek. Three main
tributaries, Big Grizzly, Freeman and
Cow Creeks, feed the reservoir. The total
drainage area is about 44 square miles.
Lake Davis has a surface area of 4,025
acres when full, a capacity of 84,371
acre-feet and an average depth of 21
feet. The deepest point of the reservoir
is 108 feet, just upstream of Big Grizzly
Dam. The reservoir is operated by the
California Department of Water
Resources (CDWR), and lies within the
U.S. Forest Service, Plumas National
Forest.
Lake Davis water is used for
recreation, irrigation, and for the benefit
of fish and wildlife. It supports a trout
fishery managed by CDFG. Lake Davis
has been developed as a source of
domestic water for the City of Portola
and the Grizzly Lake Resort
Improvement District. The Plumas
County water treatment plant, which
treats Lake Davis water, was taken
offline, as it did not meet regulatory
standards, and remains offline pending
improvements to the water treatment
plant. Currently neither entity uses Lake
Davis as a water supply. Nearby
residences depend on ground water
from private wells.
Pike were first discovered in Lake
Davis in 1994. In 1997, a chemical
treatment was conducted to remove pike
from Lake Davis and its tributary
streams. Pike were rediscovered in Lake
Davis in May 1999, about eighteen
months following what appeared to be
a successful rotenone treatment of the
reservoir. In 2000 CDFG and the Lake
Davis Steering Committee developed a
management plan to suppress the pike
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:17 Sep 13, 2005
Jkt 205001
population, contain it within Lake Davis
and to remove as many pike as possible
from the reservoir (to date
approximately 50,000). In September
2003 CDFG evaluated the previous 31⁄2
years of pike removal, which can be
viewed on the Web at https://
www.dfg.ca.gov/northenpike/
summary_report.pdf. Data indicated
pike numbers continued to increase in
spite of the concerted control efforts.
Purpose and Need for Action
Pike are a nonnative invasive fish
species illegally introduced to
California. Pike can seriously impact
aquatic ecosystems by heavy predation
on other fish species, where habitat
conditions are favorable. Introduced
pike have the potential to become the
dominant fish species, often to the near
total exclusion of native fish species.
Portions of the Feather River,
Sacramento River, and the SacramentoSan Joaquin Delta, as well as many
aquatic environments in other California
watersheds, match the preferred habitat
of the pike in terms of temperature,
aquatic vegetation, current speed and
other features. The geographical extent
of pike in California is thought to be
limited to Lake Davis and its upstream
tributary streams. Lake Davis flows into
the Middle Fork Feather River, which
flows into Lake Oroville and then into
the Sacramento River and the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Within
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
system, a number of fish species have
life history stages and habitat
preferences, that make them vulnerable
to pike predation. These include the
state and federally listed out migrating
juveniles of winter and spring run
Chinook salmon, steelhead and delta
smelt. Other species of concern are
splittail, Sacramento perch and a variety
of fish species including stocked trout.
Based upon current knowledge of the
physical and biological processes that
influence the spread and impact of pike
on aquatic ecosystems, the pike
population in Lake Davis appears
poised to have a serious and widespread
environmental impact on California’s
aquatic ecosystems. If the pike
population is not eradicated, biological
and physical processes or physical
movement by humans will eventually
result in the spread of the pike
population to downstream locations.
The risk of such a spread has steadily
increased since 1999 as the pike
population in Lake Davis has increased
in numbers. Due to the pike
containment in just the Lake Davis area,
a window of opportunity exists to
eliminate the species from the state.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54351
Proposed Action
The EIS proposed action is to issue
the required Forest Service Special Use
Permit needed to carry out CDFG’s
proposed project. This would include a
Forest Closure in the immediate area
surrounding Lake Davis for public safety
and to protect archaeological sites. The
CDFG proposed project involves the
draw down of Lake Davis to a volume
of about 10,000–20,000 acre-feet. A
liquid rotenone formulation would then
be applied to eliminate pike. The
remaining water held in Lake Davis and
any ponded water, and waters flowing
into Lake Davis, potentially from the
headwaters of the three main tributaries,
Big Grizzly, Freeman and Cow Creeks,
to the reservoir, or wetland areas, ponds
etc., adjacent to the flowing waters that
are tributary to Lake Davis within its
watershed would be treated with liquid
rotenone at concentrations sufficient to
eradicate the pike. It is anticipated at
this time that the concentration of
rotenone used would be 2 ppm.
Possible Alternatives
To date, the following alternatives
have been preliminarily identified: (1)
Proposed Action (preferred alternative);
(2) No action alternative that would
continue the current management plan;
(3) Draw down the reservoir to
minimum pool (approximate surface
area of 25 acres, remaining volume
about 90 acre feet) and use liquid
rotenone; (4) Draw reservoir down to
48,000 acre-feet and eradicate with
liquid rotenone; (5) Completely dewater
reservoir and tributaries.
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
The Forest Service is the lead agency
in the preparation of the EIS. CDFG is
the lead agency for the preparation of
the EIR. Both agencies are cooperating
to prepare a joint EIR/EIS.
Responsible Official
Angela L. Dillingham, District Ranger,
Beckwourth Ranger District, P.O. Box 7,
Blairsden, CA 96103.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
Whether to issue a special use permit
to CDFG for access through, and use of,
National Forest lands to Lake Davis for
implementing the proposed northern
pike eradication project. Whether to
implement a Forest Closure during
implementation of the proposed project.
Scoping Process
Public scoping meetings are
scheduled as follows:
September 26, 2005, there will be two
sessions, 1–3 pm and 6:30–9 pm, at the
Easterm Plumas Health Care Education
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
54352
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Notices
Center, 500 1st Avenue, Portola,
California;
September 28, 2005, there will be two
sessions, 1–3 pm and 6:30–9 pm, at the
Radisson Hotel, 500 Leisure Lane,
Sacramento, California.
Permits or Licenses Required
Approval from the following Agencies
is required: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; U.S. Forest Service; Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board; California Department of Water
Resources; California Department of
Health Services; Northern Sierra Air
Quality Management District; California
Department of Pesticide Regulation;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
Environmental Protection Agency.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the
scoping process which guides the
development of the EIS. Comments
submitted during the scoping process
should be in writing or e-mail, and
should be specific to the proposed
action. The comments should describe
as clearly and completely as possible
any point of dispute, debate or
disagreement the commentater has with
the proposed action. Once scoping
letters are received, all potential issues
will be identified to analyze in depth,
and a reasonable range of alternatives
will be developed to address those
significant issues. Potential
environmental effects of the proposed
action as well as alternatives will be
analyzed in the EIS.
Early Notice of Importance of Public
Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review: A draft
environmental impact statement (as part
of a joint EIR/EIS) will be prepared for
comment. The comment period on the
draft EIS will be 45 days from the date
the Environmental Protection Agency
publishes the notice of availability in
the Federal Register.The Forest Service
believes, at this early stage, it is
important to give reviewers notice of
several court rulings related to public
participation in the environmental
review process. First, reviewers of draft
environmental impact statements must
structure their participation in the
environmental review of the proposal so
that it is meaningful and alerts an
agency to the reviewer’s position and
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear
Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553
(1978). Also, environmental objections
that could be raised at the draft
environmental impact statement stage
but that are not raised until after
completion of the final environmental
impact statement may be waived or
dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:17 Sep 13, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 for the draft EIS so that
substantive comments and objections
are made available to the Forest Service
at a time when it can meaningfully
consider them and respond to them in
the final environmental impact
statement.
To assist the Forest Service in
identifying and considering issues and
concerns on the proposed action,
comments on the draft environmental
impact statement should be as specific
as possible. It is also helpful if
comments refer to specific pages or
chapters of the draft statement.
Comments may also address the
adequacy of the draft environmental
impact statement or the merits of the
alternatives formulated and discussed in
the statement. Reviewers may wish to
refer to the Council on Environmental
Quality Regulations for implementing
the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act at 40
CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Comments received, including the
names and addresses of those who
comment, will be considered part of the
public record on this proposal and will
be available for public inspection.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22;
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section
21).
Dated: September 7, 2005.
Angela L. Dillingham,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 05–18204 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Ketchikan Resource Advisory
Committee
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Ketchikan Resource
Advisory Committee will meet in
Ketchikan, Alaska, October 13, 2005 and
December 15, 2005. The purpose of
these meetings is to discuss potential
projects under the Secure Rural Schools
and Community Self-Determination Act
of 2000.
DATES: The meetings will be held
October 12, 2005 and December 15,
2005 at 6 p.m.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The meetings will be held at
the Southeast Alaska Discovery Center
Learning Center (back entrance), 50
Main Street, Ketchikan, Alaska. Send
written comments to Ketchikan
Resource Advisory Committee, c/o
District Ranger, USDA Forest Service,
3031 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK
99901, or electronically to
ikolund@fs.fed.us.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lynn Kolund, District Ranger,
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District,
Tongass National Forest, (907) 228–
4100.
The
meetings are open to the public
Committee discussion is limited to
Forest Service staff and Committee
members. However, public input
opportunity will be provided and
individuals will have the opportunity to
address the Committee at that time.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: September 6, 2005.
Forrest Cole,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05–18207 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
DOC has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
clearance the following proposal for
collection of information under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.
Title: 2006 Person Interview and
Person Interview Reinterview
Operations.
Form Number(s): None (automated
instrument).
Agency Approval Number: None.
Type of Request: New collection.
Burden: 2,017 hours.
Number of Respondents: 6,050.
Average Hours Per Response: 20
minutes.
Needs and Uses: The U.S. Census
Bureau requests authorization from the
Office of Management and Budget to
conduct a Census Coverage
Measurement (CCM) Operation in
preparation for the 2010 Census. The
CCM operation is to occur during the
2006 Census Test to evaluate new
approaches that would produce
improved measures of coverage error
components for persons enumerated
while making reductions in the number
of people duplicated.
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54350-54352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18204]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plumas National Forest, Beckwourth Ranger District; Plumas
County, California Lake Davis Northern Pike Eradication Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, gives notice
of the Agency's intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) in cooperation with the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) issuing a joint Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIS will
consider Federal and State actions associated with CDFG's proposal to
eradicate northern pike, Esox lucius, from Lake Davis and its
tributaries. Northern pike are restricted in California and it is
unlawful to import, transport, or possess live animals. This proposed
project is designed to help protect the fishery resources of the state
by eradicating pike from Lake Davis and its upstream tributaries. CDFG
has proposed to treat the reservoir and its tributaries with rotenone,
at a concentration sufficient to eradicate northern pike and to restock
the reservoir with trout. The associated actions are: (1) the Forest
Service issuing CDFG a special use permit for access through, and use
of National Forest lands adjacent to Lake Davis and its tributaries for
implementing the proposed project. (2) a Forest order to close the
entire area to the public during implementation of the proposed project
and to close access to the lake bed as the lake level is lowered.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be postmarked
no later than October 31, 2005. The draft EIS is expected March 2006
and the final EIS is expected November 2006.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Julie Cunningham, P.O. Box 1858,
Portola CA 96122. Email comments may
[[Page 54351]]
be submitted to: northernpike@dfg.ca.gov. Comments may also be
submitted at the Web site: https://www.dfg.ca.gov/northernpike.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: California Department of Fish and
Game, Portola Field Office, P.O. Box 1858, Portola, CA 96122, (530)
832-4068. U.S. Forest Service, Plumas National Forest Supervisors
Office, Angela Dillingham, 159 Lawrence Street, P.O. Box 11500, Quincy
CA 95971, (530) 283-2050.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Lake Davis is located in Plumas County,
California, at an elevation of 5,775 feet above sea level. Included in
the project area are Lake Davis, all the tributaries in the watershed
to Lake Davis and Big Grizzly Creek below Lake Davis. These all occur
in the upper reaches of the Middle Fork Feather River watershed in the
Sierra Nevada Mountains. Lake Davis is a State Water Project reservoir
that was first impounded in 1966-68 by the construction of Grizzly
Valley Dam on Big Grizzly Creek. Three main tributaries, Big Grizzly,
Freeman and Cow Creeks, feed the reservoir. The total drainage area is
about 44 square miles. Lake Davis has a surface area of 4,025 acres
when full, a capacity of 84,371 acre-feet and an average depth of 21
feet. The deepest point of the reservoir is 108 feet, just upstream of
Big Grizzly Dam. The reservoir is operated by the California Department
of Water Resources (CDWR), and lies within the U.S. Forest Service,
Plumas National Forest.
Lake Davis water is used for recreation, irrigation, and for the
benefit of fish and wildlife. It supports a trout fishery managed by
CDFG. Lake Davis has been developed as a source of domestic water for
the City of Portola and the Grizzly Lake Resort Improvement District.
The Plumas County water treatment plant, which treats Lake Davis water,
was taken offline, as it did not meet regulatory standards, and remains
offline pending improvements to the water treatment plant. Currently
neither entity uses Lake Davis as a water supply. Nearby residences
depend on ground water from private wells.
Pike were first discovered in Lake Davis in 1994. In 1997, a
chemical treatment was conducted to remove pike from Lake Davis and its
tributary streams. Pike were rediscovered in Lake Davis in May 1999,
about eighteen months following what appeared to be a successful
rotenone treatment of the reservoir. In 2000 CDFG and the Lake Davis
Steering Committee developed a management plan to suppress the pike
population, contain it within Lake Davis and to remove as many pike as
possible from the reservoir (to date approximately 50,000). In
September 2003 CDFG evaluated the previous 3\1/2\ years of pike
removal, which can be viewed on the Web at https://www.dfg.ca.gov/
northenpike/summary_report.pdf. Data indicated pike numbers continued
to increase in spite of the concerted control efforts.
Purpose and Need for Action
Pike are a nonnative invasive fish species illegally introduced to
California. Pike can seriously impact aquatic ecosystems by heavy
predation on other fish species, where habitat conditions are
favorable. Introduced pike have the potential to become the dominant
fish species, often to the near total exclusion of native fish species.
Portions of the Feather River, Sacramento River, and the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta, as well as many aquatic environments in other California
watersheds, match the preferred habitat of the pike in terms of
temperature, aquatic vegetation, current speed and other features. The
geographical extent of pike in California is thought to be limited to
Lake Davis and its upstream tributary streams. Lake Davis flows into
the Middle Fork Feather River, which flows into Lake Oroville and then
into the Sacramento River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Within
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta system, a number of fish species have
life history stages and habitat preferences, that make them vulnerable
to pike predation. These include the state and federally listed out
migrating juveniles of winter and spring run Chinook salmon, steelhead
and delta smelt. Other species of concern are splittail, Sacramento
perch and a variety of fish species including stocked trout.
Based upon current knowledge of the physical and biological
processes that influence the spread and impact of pike on aquatic
ecosystems, the pike population in Lake Davis appears poised to have a
serious and widespread environmental impact on California's aquatic
ecosystems. If the pike population is not eradicated, biological and
physical processes or physical movement by humans will eventually
result in the spread of the pike population to downstream locations.
The risk of such a spread has steadily increased since 1999 as the pike
population in Lake Davis has increased in numbers. Due to the pike
containment in just the Lake Davis area, a window of opportunity exists
to eliminate the species from the state.
Proposed Action
The EIS proposed action is to issue the required Forest Service
Special Use Permit needed to carry out CDFG's proposed project. This
would include a Forest Closure in the immediate area surrounding Lake
Davis for public safety and to protect archaeological sites. The CDFG
proposed project involves the draw down of Lake Davis to a volume of
about 10,000-20,000 acre-feet. A liquid rotenone formulation would then
be applied to eliminate pike. The remaining water held in Lake Davis
and any ponded water, and waters flowing into Lake Davis, potentially
from the headwaters of the three main tributaries, Big Grizzly, Freeman
and Cow Creeks, to the reservoir, or wetland areas, ponds etc.,
adjacent to the flowing waters that are tributary to Lake Davis within
its watershed would be treated with liquid rotenone at concentrations
sufficient to eradicate the pike. It is anticipated at this time that
the concentration of rotenone used would be 2 ppm.
Possible Alternatives
To date, the following alternatives have been preliminarily
identified: (1) Proposed Action (preferred alternative); (2) No action
alternative that would continue the current management plan; (3) Draw
down the reservoir to minimum pool (approximate surface area of 25
acres, remaining volume about 90 acre feet) and use liquid rotenone;
(4) Draw reservoir down to 48,000 acre-feet and eradicate with liquid
rotenone; (5) Completely dewater reservoir and tributaries.
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
The Forest Service is the lead agency in the preparation of the
EIS. CDFG is the lead agency for the preparation of the EIR. Both
agencies are cooperating to prepare a joint EIR/EIS.
Responsible Official
Angela L. Dillingham, District Ranger, Beckwourth Ranger District,
P.O. Box 7, Blairsden, CA 96103.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
Whether to issue a special use permit to CDFG for access through,
and use of, National Forest lands to Lake Davis for implementing the
proposed northern pike eradication project. Whether to implement a
Forest Closure during implementation of the proposed project.
Scoping Process
Public scoping meetings are scheduled as follows:
September 26, 2005, there will be two sessions, 1-3 pm and 6:30-9
pm, at the Easterm Plumas Health Care Education
[[Page 54352]]
Center, 500 1st Avenue, Portola, California;
September 28, 2005, there will be two sessions, 1-3 pm and 6:30-9
pm, at the Radisson Hotel, 500 Leisure Lane, Sacramento, California.
Permits or Licenses Required
Approval from the following Agencies is required: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; U.S. Forest Service; Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board; California Department of Water Resources;
California Department of Health Services; Northern Sierra Air Quality
Management District; California Department of Pesticide Regulation;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Environmental Protection Agency.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides
the development of the EIS. Comments submitted during the scoping
process should be in writing or e-mail, and should be specific to the
proposed action. The comments should describe as clearly and completely
as possible any point of dispute, debate or disagreement the
commentater has with the proposed action. Once scoping letters are
received, all potential issues will be identified to analyze in depth,
and a reasonable range of alternatives will be developed to address
those significant issues. Potential environmental effects of the
proposed action as well as alternatives will be analyzed in the EIS.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement (as part
of a joint EIR/EIS) will be prepared for comment. The comment period on
the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental
Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal
Register.The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is
important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to
public participation in the environmental review process. First,
reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their
participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is
meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,
553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the
draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised
until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may
be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d
1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490
F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings,
it is very important that those interested in this proposed action
participate by the close of the 45-day comment period for the draft EIS
so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the
Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and
respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft
environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is
also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the
draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft
environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives
formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer
to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing
the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at
40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who
comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal
and will be available for public inspection.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, Section 21).
Dated: September 7, 2005.
Angela L. Dillingham,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 05-18204 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
