Stanislaus National Forest, Mi-Wok Ranger District, California, Great Hunt Reforestation and Release Project, 71459-71460 [05-23426]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
71459
Notices
Federal Register
Vol. 70, No. 228
Tuesday, November 29, 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
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
November 23, 2005.
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 should be addressed to: Desk
Officer for Agriculture, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Pamela_Beverly_
OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV or
fax (202) 395–5806 and to Departmental
Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail
Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250–
7602. Comments regarding these
information collections are best assured
of having their full effect if received
within 30 days of this notification.
Copies of the submission(s) may be
obtained by calling (202) 720–8681.
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
potential persons who are to respond to
the collection of information that such
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:13 Nov 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
persons are not required to respond to
the collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service
Title: Expanded Food and Nutrition
Education Program (EFNEP).
OMB Control Number: 0524–0044.
Summary of Collection: The
Department of Agriculture’s Cooperative
State Research, Education, and
Extension Service (CSREES), Expanded
Food and Nutrition Education Program
(EFNEP) is a unique program that began
in 1969, designed to reach limited
resource audiences, especially youth
and families with young children.
EFNEP operates in 50 states of the
United States, American Samoa, Guam,
Micronesia, and the Commonwealth of
the Northern Marianas, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the
Virgin Islands of the United States. The
objectives of EFNEP are to assist limited
resource families and youth in acquiring
the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and
changed behaviors necessary for making
diet decisions that are nutritionally
sound, and to contribute to their
personal development and the
improvement of the total family diet and
nutritional well being.
Need and Use of the Information:
CSREES will collect information using
the Evaluation/Reporting System (E/RS)
a database that was develop to capture
the impacts of EFNEP. The system will
provide a variety of reports that are
useful for management purposes,
provide diagnostic assessments of
participants needs and export summary
data for State and National assessment
of the program’s impact. E/RS stores
information in the form of records about
the program participants, their family
structure and their dietary practices.
Without the information it would be
extremely difficult for the national
office to compare, assess, and analyze
the effectiveness and the impact of
EFNEP without the annual collection of
data.
Description of Respondents: State,
Local or Tribal Government.
Number of Respondents: 56.
Frequency of Responses:
Recordkeeping; Reporting: Annually.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Total Burden Hours: 69,588.
Charlene Parker,
Departmental Information Collection
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E5–6665 Filed 11–28–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Stanislaus National Forest, Mi-Wok
Ranger District, California, Great Hunt
Reforestation and Release Project
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Stanislaus National
Forest is in the process of preparing an
environmental analysis for the Great
Hunt Reforestation and Release Project.
This project is being planned on
National Forest lands encompassing
portions of the Groveland, Mi-Wok and
Summit Ranger Districts. The proposal
to be analyzed consists of conducting
site preparation, planting, and
plantation release treatments using a
combination of methods on
approximately 2330 acres. Treatments
will include backpack application of the
herbicide glyphosate on approximately
545 acres; mechanically shredding or
hand cutting competing vegetation on
1,655 acres with follow-up glyphosate
applications on 1,530 acres; and burning
and hand cutting competing vegetation
with follow up glyphosate applications
on 30 acres. Treatments are designed to
assure adequate survival and growth of
planted conifers by reducing competing
vegetation.
The goals tied to this project in the
Stanislaus National Forest Plan
Direction 2005 (STF FPD) are to
increase the frequency of large trees,
improve the continuity and distribution
of old forests, and restore forest species
composition and structure following
large scale, stand-replacing disturbance
events (STF FPD page 9). The areas
under consideration for management
activities are old timber harvest units, as
well as areas burned by the following
wildfires: Granite Fire, 1973; River Fire,
1987; Cotton Fire, 1990; Ruby Fire,
1992; and Creek Fire, 1994. In areas
identified for site preparation and
planting, natural regeneration of conifer
seedlings following the harvest or fire
disturbance events is inadequate due to
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
71460
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Notices
rapid and vigorous growth of competing
vegetation and the lack of a seed source
in some areas (STF FPD page 146,
Standard and Guideline 15–J: ‘‘Reforest
all openings in available, capable, and
suitable lands for timber production
created by timber harvest, wind, fire, or
insect and disease pests (36 CFR
219.27(b)(2))’’). These areas are not on
track to meet the goals of the STF FPD.
As such, the benefits of a forested
environment, and all the associated
benefits of forest structure have not
occurred.
Decision to be Made: The decision to
be made is whether to implement the
proposed action as described above, to
meet the purpose and need for action
through some other combination of
activities, or to take no action at this
time.
Scoping Process: Comments
concerning the scope of the analysis
should be received in writing within 15
days of the date of publication of this
Notice of Intent in the Federal Register.
The project was initially listed in the
Forest’s July and October 2005 quarterly
edition of the Schedule of Proposed
Actions (SOPA). Scoping letters were
sent in September 1, 2005 to those who
responded to the SOPA and to other
identified interested and affected
individuals and government agencies. In
the SOPA, the mode of environmental
documentation was predicted as an
environmental assessment.
It has now been determined that the
environmental analysis will be
documented in an environmental
impact statement. Since there are no
changes being made to the proposed
action that was previously scoped, the
scoping period at this point is brief.
Scoping letters previously received by
the Forest Service from the first scoping
period will continue to be used for this
process. A public scoping meeting is not
anticipated at this time.
The scoping process will be used to
identify issues regarding the proposed
action. An issue is defined as a point of
dispute, debate, or disagreement related
to a specific proposed action based on
its anticipated effects. Significant issues
brought to our attention are used during
environmental analysis to develop
alternatives to the proposed action.
Some issued raised in scoping may be
considered non-significant because they
are: (1) Beyond the scope of the
proposed action and its purpose and
need; (2) already decided by law,
regulation, or the Land and Resource
Management Plan; (3) irrelevant to the
decision to be made; or (4) conjectural
and not supported by scientific or
factual evidence.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:13 Nov 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
Alternatives: Alternatives proposed to
date are the Proposed Action as
described above and the No Action.
Identification of Permits or Licenses
Required: No permits or licenses have
been identified to implement the
proposed action.
Lead, Joint Lead, and Cooperating
Agencies: The USDA Forest Service is
the lead agency for this proposal; there
are no cooperating agencies.
Estimated Dates for Filing: The
expected filing date with the
Environmental Protection Agency for
the draft EIS is March 1, 2006. The
expected filing date for the final EIS is
July 1, 2006.
Person to Whom Comments May Be
Mailed: Comments may be submitted to:
District Ranger, Mi-Wok Ranger District,
P.O. Box 100, Mi-Wuk Village, CA
95346 or (209) 586–0643 (fax) during
normal business hours. The Mi-Wok
Ranger District business hours are from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m Monday through
Friday. Electronic comments, in
acceptable plain text (.txt), rich text
(.rtf), or Word (.doc) formats, may be
submitted to: mgmelin@fs.fed.us using
Subject: Great Hunt Reforestation and
Release Project.
Reviewer’s Obligation to Comment:
The comment period on the draft EIS
will be 45 days from the date the
Environmental Protection Agency
publishes the notice of availability of
the draft EIS 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 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 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
To assist the Forest Service in
identifying and considering issues and
concerns with 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.
Further Information: Marty Gmelin,
Interdisciplinary Team Leader may be
contacted by phone at (209) 586–3234
ex. 629 for more information about the
proposed action and the environmental
impact statement or at the Mi-Wok
Ranger District, P.O. Box 100, Mi-Wuk
Village, CA 95348.
Responsible Official and Mailing
Address: Tom Quinn, Forest Supervisor,
19777 Greenly Road, Sonora, CA 95370.
Dated: November 22, 2005
Tom Quinn,
Forest Supervisor, Stanislaus National Forest.
[FR Doc. 05–23426 Filed 11–28–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5410–99– M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Notice of Intent To Revise and Extend
a Currently Approved Information
Collection
National Agricultural Statistics
Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104–13) and Office of Management
and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part
1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995),
this notice announces the intention of
the National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS) to request revision and
extension of a currently approved
information collection, the Vegetable
Surveys Program.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be
received by January 30, 2006 to be
assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to
Ginny McBride, NASS Clearance
Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Room 5336 South Building, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250 or sent
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 29, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71459-71460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23426]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Stanislaus National Forest, Mi-Wok Ranger District, California,
Great Hunt Reforestation and Release Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Stanislaus National Forest is in the process of preparing
an environmental analysis for the Great Hunt Reforestation and Release
Project. This project is being planned on National Forest lands
encompassing portions of the Groveland, Mi-Wok and Summit Ranger
Districts. The proposal to be analyzed consists of conducting site
preparation, planting, and plantation release treatments using a
combination of methods on approximately 2330 acres. Treatments will
include backpack application of the herbicide glyphosate on
approximately 545 acres; mechanically shredding or hand cutting
competing vegetation on 1,655 acres with follow-up glyphosate
applications on 1,530 acres; and burning and hand cutting competing
vegetation with follow up glyphosate applications on 30 acres.
Treatments are designed to assure adequate survival and growth of
planted conifers by reducing competing vegetation.
The goals tied to this project in the Stanislaus National Forest
Plan Direction 2005 (STF FPD) are to increase the frequency of large
trees, improve the continuity and distribution of old forests, and
restore forest species composition and structure following large scale,
stand-replacing disturbance events (STF FPD page 9). The areas under
consideration for management activities are old timber harvest units,
as well as areas burned by the following wildfires: Granite Fire, 1973;
River Fire, 1987; Cotton Fire, 1990; Ruby Fire, 1992; and Creek Fire,
1994. In areas identified for site preparation and planting, natural
regeneration of conifer seedlings following the harvest or fire
disturbance events is inadequate due to
[[Page 71460]]
rapid and vigorous growth of competing vegetation and the lack of a
seed source in some areas (STF FPD page 146, Standard and Guideline 15-
J: ``Reforest all openings in available, capable, and suitable lands
for timber production created by timber harvest, wind, fire, or insect
and disease pests (36 CFR 219.27(b)(2))''). These areas are not on
track to meet the goals of the STF FPD. As such, the benefits of a
forested environment, and all the associated benefits of forest
structure have not occurred.
Decision to be Made: The decision to be made is whether to
implement the proposed action as described above, to meet the purpose
and need for action through some other combination of activities, or to
take no action at this time.
Scoping Process: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis
should be received in writing within 15 days of the date of publication
of this Notice of Intent in the Federal Register.
The project was initially listed in the Forest's July and October
2005 quarterly edition of the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA).
Scoping letters were sent in September 1, 2005 to those who responded
to the SOPA and to other identified interested and affected individuals
and government agencies. In the SOPA, the mode of environmental
documentation was predicted as an environmental assessment.
It has now been determined that the environmental analysis will be
documented in an environmental impact statement. Since there are no
changes being made to the proposed action that was previously scoped,
the scoping period at this point is brief. Scoping letters previously
received by the Forest Service from the first scoping period will
continue to be used for this process. A public scoping meeting is not
anticipated at this time.
The scoping process will be used to identify issues regarding the
proposed action. An issue is defined as a point of dispute, debate, or
disagreement related to a specific proposed action based on its
anticipated effects. Significant issues brought to our attention are
used during environmental analysis to develop alternatives to the
proposed action. Some issued raised in scoping may be considered non-
significant because they are: (1) Beyond the scope of the proposed
action and its purpose and need; (2) already decided by law,
regulation, or the Land and Resource Management Plan; (3) irrelevant to
the decision to be made; or (4) conjectural and not supported by
scientific or factual evidence.
Alternatives: Alternatives proposed to date are the Proposed Action
as described above and the No Action.
Identification of Permits or Licenses Required: No permits or
licenses have been identified to implement the proposed action.
Lead, Joint Lead, and Cooperating Agencies: The USDA Forest Service
is the lead agency for this proposal; there are no cooperating
agencies.
Estimated Dates for Filing: The expected filing date with the
Environmental Protection Agency for the draft EIS is March 1, 2006. The
expected filing date for the final EIS is July 1, 2006.
Person to Whom Comments May Be Mailed: Comments may be submitted
to: District Ranger, Mi-Wok Ranger District, P.O. Box 100, Mi-Wuk
Village, CA 95346 or (209) 586-0643 (fax) during normal business hours.
The Mi-Wok Ranger District business hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m
Monday through Friday. Electronic comments, in acceptable plain text
(.txt), rich text (.rtf), or Word (.doc) formats, may be submitted to:
mgmelin@fs.fed.us using Subject: Great Hunt Reforestation and Release
Project.
Reviewer's Obligation to Comment: The comment period on the draft
EIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency
publishes the notice of availability of the draft EIS 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 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 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 with 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.
Further Information: Marty Gmelin, Interdisciplinary Team Leader
may be contacted by phone at (209) 586-3234 ex. 629 for more
information about the proposed action and the environmental impact
statement or at the Mi-Wok Ranger District, P.O. Box 100, Mi-Wuk
Village, CA 95348.
Responsible Official and Mailing Address: Tom Quinn, Forest
Supervisor, 19777 Greenly Road, Sonora, CA 95370.
Dated: November 22, 2005
Tom Quinn,
Forest Supervisor, Stanislaus National Forest.
[FR Doc. 05-23426 Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5410-99- M
