Plumas National Forest; California; Diamond Vegetation Management Project, 68393-68394 [05-22435]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 217 / Thursday, November 10, 2005 / Notices
Summary of Collection: The export of
agricultural commodities, including
animals and animal products, is a major
business in the United States and
contributes to a favorable balance of
trade. The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) maintains
information regarding the import health
requirements of other countries for
animals and animal products exported
from the United States. The regulations
governing the export of animals and
products from the United States are
contained in 9 CFR parts 91, subchapter
D. ‘‘Exportation and Importation of
Animals (including Poultry) and Animal
Products,’’ and apply to farm-raised
aquatic animals and products, as well as
other livestock and products. These
regulations are authorized by the
Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C.
8301–8317). The National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), U.S.
Department of Commerce, and the Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S.
Department of Interior, as well as
APHIS, have legal authorities and
responsibilities related to aquatic
animal health in the United States. All
three agencies have therefore entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding
delineating their respective
responsibilities in the issuance of the
health certificate for the export of live
aquatic animals and animal products. A
new health certificate has been
developed that will bear the logo of all
three agencies, and can be used by all
three when issuing a health certificate
for the export of live crustaceans,
finfish, mollusks, and their related
products from the U.S.
Need and Use of the Information: The
health certificate will require the names
of the species being exported from the
U.S., their age and weights, and whether
they are cultured stock or wild stock;
their place of origin, their country of
destination and the date and method of
transport. The certificate will be
completed by an accredited inspector
with assistance from the producer and
must be signed by both the accredited
inspector as well as the appropriate
Federal official from APHIS, NOAA, or
FWS who certifies the health status of
the shipment being exported. The use of
the certificate will lend consistency to a
public service delivered by three
separate agencies, and should make the
aquatic export certification process less
confusing for those who require this
important service. Failing to use this
form could result in less efficient
service to the exporting public.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:02 Nov 09, 2005
Jkt 208001
Description of Respondents: Farms;
Individuals or households; Federal
Government.
Number of Respondents: 100.
Frequency of Responses: Reporting:
On occasion.
Total Burden Hours: 1,500.
Ruth Brown,
Departmental Information Collection
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 05–22404 Filed 11–9–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plumas National Forest; California;
Diamond Vegetation Management
Project
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service
Plumas National Forest will prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
on a proposal implement hazardous fuel
reduction and construction of
Defensible Fuel Profile Zones,
implement thinning, group selection
harvest, road system improvements, and
stream channel restoration. Also,
treatments of noxious weeds are
proposed using mechanical, fire, and
chemical methods. These actions are
proposed to occur in forested areas of
public land northeast of Quincy,
California.
Comments concerning the scope
of the analysis must be 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
˜
James M. Pena, Plumas National Forest,
P.O. Box 11500, Quincy, CA 95971. Fax:
(530) 283–7746. Electronic comments
should be sent to: commentspacificsouthwest-plumas@fs.fed.us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Emily Moghaddas, Interdisciplinary
Team Leader, Mt. Hough Ranger
District, telephone (530) 283–7652.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
Tentative or Preliminary Issues and
Possible Alternatives
Alternatives being considered at this
time include: (A) the Proposed Action
and (B) No Action.
The proposed action is designed to
meet the standards and guidelines for
land management activities in the
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68393
Plumas National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan (1988)
(LRMP) as amended by the Record of
Decision for the Herger-Feinstein
Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery
Act (1999) (HFQLG), and as amended by
the Record of Decision for the Sierra
Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2004).
The proposed action is located in
Plumas County, California, within the
Mt. Hough Ranger District of the Plumas
National Forest in all or portions of
Sections 1 and 2 T26N R11E; Sections
2–6, 8–11, 14–23, 26–29, 32, and 33
T26N R12E. Sections 1, 2, 10–14, 24,
and 25 T27N R10E; Sections 2–28, 30,
35, 36 T27N R11E; Sections 1–12, 14–
17, 19–21, 26–35 T27N R12E; Section 6
T27N R13E; Sections 13, 14, 23, 24, 25,
26, 35, 36 T28N R10E; Sections 1–5, 7–
20, 23–26, 29–36 T28N R11E; Sections
5–9, 14–36 T28N R12E; and Section 31
T28N R13E MDM. Section 1, T23N,
R9E; Section 6, T23N, R10E; Sections 4
& 8, T23N, R11E; Sections 1–6, 8–12,
13–16, 22–26, 31, and 32, T24N, R10E;
Sections 5–8, 15, 17, 21–28, and 33–35,
T24N, R11E; Sections 1, 10–12, 13, 14,
21–28, 33–34, and 26, T25N, R9E;
Sections 6–8 and 14–35, T25N, R10E;
and Sections 19, 29, 30, 31, and 32,
T25N, R11E, MDM.
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose and need for this
proposal is to shift the existing
conditions toward the desired
conditions. In the context of an
integrated management approach there
are several primary needs for this
proposal. They include:
(1) Modifying fire behavior to protect
communities, fire fighters, and
biological resources; (2) Modifying
forest structure and species composition
to promote the development of an
uneven-aged, multistoried, fire resilient
forest; (3) Restoring aquatic and riparian
habitat and improve watershed
conditions; (4) Contributing to the
economic stability of rural communities;
(5) Controlling spread and introduction
of noxious weeds; and (6) Providing
access to integrated resource treatments
and improving the road system.
Proposed Action
The project area for the proposed
action is about 100,000 acres. The
proposal is composed of eight actions:
(1) Reduce hazardous fuels; (2)
implement group selection timber
harvest; (3) implement thinning timber
harvest and biomass removal; (4)
improve transportation system; (5)
improve riparian and watershed
conditions, (6) thin conifers trees to
release aspen stands; (7) thin conifers
and reduce fuels in Baker cypress
E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM
10NON1
68394
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 217 / Thursday, November 10, 2005 / Notices
habitat, and (8) remove and abate
noxious weeds. Fuel treatments would
consist of construction of about 5,700
acres of defensible fuel profile zones
and prescribed burning on about 900
acres, totalling about 6, 600 acres. Group
selection timber harvest as part of the
HFQLG pilot project would be
conducted on about 1,200 acres.
Thinning and biomass removal are
proposed on about 4,255 acres. Also,
thinning is proposed in plantations
(about 800 acres) riparian habitat
conservation areas (about 1,256 acres),
aspen stands (about 820 acres), Baker
cypress stands (about 140 acres). Six
areas of stream channel restoration is
proposed. And about two miles of new
system roads would be constructed; ten
miles of temporary roads would be
constructed and decommissioned after
use; twelve miles of existing roads
would be permanently
decommissioned; 107 miles of
reconstruction fo existing roads, and
seven culverts would be replaced or
installed for fish passage. About 400
locations of Canada thistle (Cirsium
avense) would be treated with either
clopyralid or glyphopsate on about 120
acres. the remaining 2 acres of noxious
weed locations would be treated with
mechanical, hand, or burning methods.
Lead Agency
The USDA Forest Service is the lead
agency for this proposal.
Responsible Official
Plumas National Forest Supervisor
˜
James M. Pena is the responsible
official. Plumas National Forest, P.O.
Box 11500, Quincy, CA 95971.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
˜
Forest Supervisor James M. Pena will
decide whether to implement the
Diamond Project as proposed and
described above, implement the project
based on an alternative to this proposal
that is formulated to resolve identified
conflicts, or not implement this project
at this time.
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 develop 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 will be
mailed to adjacent landowners, as well
as those people and organizations that
have indicated a specific interest in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:02 Nov 09, 2005
Jkt 208001
Diamond project, interested individuals
who attended the open house held prior
to the development of a landscape
assessment for the watersheds
encompassing the project, to Native
American Tribes, Federal, State, and
local agencies. The public will be
notified of any meetings regarding this
proposal by mailings and press releases
sent to the local newspaper and media.
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 environmental
impact statement under NEPA, which
will guide 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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
that those interested in this proposal
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.
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: November 3, 2005.
˜
James M. Pena,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05–22435 Filed 11–9–05; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Revision of Land Management Plans,
Colville, Okanogan and Wenatchee
National Forests, Located in Central
WA
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of adjustment to Federal
Register Notice of Vol. 69, No. 46, p.
10974, March 9, 2004, and transition to
the 2005 Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219
(Federal Register Vol. 70, No.3/January
5, 2005, p. 1023).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Authority: 36 CFR 219.14(e).
The Responsible Officials
(Forest Supervisors) for the Colville
National Forest and the Okanogan and
Wenatchee National Forests will
exercise their option to adjust the land
management plan revision process from
compliance with the 1982 planning
regulations, to conformance with new
planning regulations adopted in January
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM
10NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 217 (Thursday, November 10, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68393-68394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22435]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plumas National Forest; California; Diamond Vegetation Management
Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
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) on a proposal implement hazardous
fuel reduction and construction of Defensible Fuel Profile Zones,
implement thinning, group selection harvest, road system improvements,
and stream channel restoration. Also, treatments of noxious weeds are
proposed using mechanical, fire, and chemical methods. These actions
are proposed to occur in forested areas of public land northeast of
Quincy, California.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be 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 James M. Pe[ntilde]a, Plumas
National Forest, P.O. Box 11500, Quincy, CA 95971. Fax: (530) 283-7746.
Electronic comments should be sent to: comments-pacificsouthwest-
plumas@fs.fed.us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Moghaddas, Interdisciplinary
Team Leader, Mt. Hough Ranger District, telephone (530) 283-7652.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Tentative or Preliminary Issues and Possible Alternatives
Alternatives being considered at this time include: (A) the
Proposed Action and (B) No Action.
The proposed action is designed to meet the standards and
guidelines for land management activities in the Plumas National Forest
Land and Resource Management Plan (1988) (LRMP) as amended by the
Record of Decision for the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest
Recovery Act (1999) (HFQLG), and as amended by the Record of Decision
for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2004).
The proposed action is located in Plumas County, California, within
the Mt. Hough Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest in all or
portions of Sections 1 and 2 T26N R11E; Sections 2-6, 8-11, 14-23, 26-
29, 32, and 33 T26N R12E. Sections 1, 2, 10-14, 24, and 25 T27N R10E;
Sections 2-28, 30, 35, 36 T27N R11E; Sections 1-12, 14-17, 19-21, 26-35
T27N R12E; Section 6 T27N R13E; Sections 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 36
T28N R10E; Sections 1-5, 7-20, 23-26, 29-36 T28N R11E; Sections 5-9,
14-36 T28N R12E; and Section 31 T28N R13E MDM. Section 1, T23N, R9E;
Section 6, T23N, R10E; Sections 4 & 8, T23N, R11E; Sections 1-6, 8-12,
13-16, 22-26, 31, and 32, T24N, R10E; Sections 5-8, 15, 17, 21-28, and
33-35, T24N, R11E; Sections 1, 10-12, 13, 14, 21-28, 33-34, and 26,
T25N, R9E; Sections 6-8 and 14-35, T25N, R10E; and Sections 19, 29, 30,
31, and 32, T25N, R11E, MDM.
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose and need for this proposal is to shift the existing
conditions toward the desired conditions. In the context of an
integrated management approach there are several primary needs for this
proposal. They include:
(1) Modifying fire behavior to protect communities, fire fighters,
and biological resources; (2) Modifying forest structure and species
composition to promote the development of an uneven-aged, multistoried,
fire resilient forest; (3) Restoring aquatic and riparian habitat and
improve watershed conditions; (4) Contributing to the economic
stability of rural communities; (5) Controlling spread and introduction
of noxious weeds; and (6) Providing access to integrated resource
treatments and improving the road system.
Proposed Action
The project area for the proposed action is about 100,000 acres.
The proposal is composed of eight actions: (1) Reduce hazardous fuels;
(2) implement group selection timber harvest; (3) implement thinning
timber harvest and biomass removal; (4) improve transportation system;
(5) improve riparian and watershed conditions, (6) thin conifers trees
to release aspen stands; (7) thin conifers and reduce fuels in Baker
cypress
[[Page 68394]]
habitat, and (8) remove and abate noxious weeds. Fuel treatments would
consist of construction of about 5,700 acres of defensible fuel profile
zones and prescribed burning on about 900 acres, totalling about 6, 600
acres. Group selection timber harvest as part of the HFQLG pilot
project would be conducted on about 1,200 acres. Thinning and biomass
removal are proposed on about 4,255 acres. Also, thinning is proposed
in plantations (about 800 acres) riparian habitat conservation areas
(about 1,256 acres), aspen stands (about 820 acres), Baker cypress
stands (about 140 acres). Six areas of stream channel restoration is
proposed. And about two miles of new system roads would be constructed;
ten miles of temporary roads would be constructed and decommissioned
after use; twelve miles of existing roads would be permanently
decommissioned; 107 miles of reconstruction fo existing roads, and
seven culverts would be replaced or installed for fish passage. About
400 locations of Canada thistle (Cirsium avense) would be treated with
either clopyralid or glyphopsate on about 120 acres. the remaining 2
acres of noxious weed locations would be treated with mechanical, hand,
or burning methods.
Lead Agency
The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal.
Responsible Official
Plumas National Forest Supervisor James M. Pe[ntilde]a is the
responsible official. Plumas National Forest, P.O. Box 11500, Quincy,
CA 95971.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
Forest Supervisor James M. Pe[ntilde]a will decide whether to
implement the Diamond Project as proposed and described above,
implement the project based on an alternative to this proposal that is
formulated to resolve identified conflicts, or not implement this
project at this time.
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 develop 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 will be mailed to adjacent
landowners, as well as those people and organizations that have
indicated a specific interest in the Diamond project, interested
individuals who attended the open house held prior to the development
of a landscape assessment for the watersheds encompassing the project,
to Native American Tribes, Federal, State, and local agencies. The
public will be notified of any meetings regarding this proposal by
mailings and press releases sent to the local newspaper and media.
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 environmental impact statement under NEPA, which
will guide 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 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 proposal action
participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that
substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest
Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to
them in the final environmental impact statement.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft
environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is
also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the
draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft
environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives
formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer
to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing
the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at
40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Comments received, including the names and 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: November 3, 2005.
James M. Pe[ntilde]a,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05-22435 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
