Eldorado National Forest; California; Freds Fire Reforestation Project, 19160-19162 [06-3539]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19160
Notices
Federal Register
Vol. 71, No. 71
Thursday, April 13, 2006
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
Farm Service Agency
Request for Revision and Extension of
a Currently Approved Information
Collection; Servicing Minor Program
Loans
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
HSRObinson on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
ACTION:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces the intent of the Farm
Service Agency (FSA) to request
renewal of the information collection
currently approved and used in support
of the FSA Farm Loan Programs (FLP).
DATES: Comments on this notice must be
received on or before June 12, 2006, to
be assured consideration.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mel
Thompson, USDA, Farm Service
Agency, Loan Servicing and Property
Management Division, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW., STOP
0523, Washington, DC 20250–0523;
Telephone (202) 720–7862; Electronic
mail: mel.thompson@wdc.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Servicing Minor Program Loans.
OMB Control Number: 0560–0230.
Expiration Date: November 30, 2006.
Type of Request: Revision and
Extension of a Currently Approved
Information Collection.
Abstract: Section 331 of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, 7 U.S.C. 1981,
(‘‘CONACT’’) in part, authorizes the
Secretary of Agriculture to modify,
subordinate and release terms of
security instruments, leases, contracts,
and agreements entered into by FSA.
That section also authorizes transfers of
security property, as the Secretary
deems necessary, to carry out the
purpose of the loan or protect the
Government’s financial interest. Section
335 of the CONACT (7 U.S.C. 1985),
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:20 Apr 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
provides servicing authority for real
estate security; operation or lease of
realty; disposition of property;
conveyance of real property interest of
the United States; easements; and
condemnations. The information
collection relates to a program benefit
recipient or loan borrower requesting
action on security they own, which was
purchased with FSA loan funds,
improved with FSA loan funds or has
otherwise been mortgaged to FSA to
secure a Government loan. The
information collected is primarily
financial data not already on file, such
as borrower asset values, current
financial information and public use
and employment data.
Estimate of Annual Burden: Public
reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average .52
hours per response.
Respondents: Individuals,
associations, partnerships, or
corporations.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
226.
Estimated Number of Responses per
Respondent: 1.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on
Respondents: 117.5 hours.
Comments are invited on: (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. These
comments should be sent to the Desk
Officer for Agriculture, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503 and to Mel
Thompson, Senior Loan Officer, USDA,
FSA, Farm Loan Programs, Loan
Servicing Division, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW., STOP 0523, Washington,
DC 20250–0523.
Comments will be summarized and
included in the request for Office of
Management and Budget approval of the
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
information collection. All comments
will also become a matter of public
record.
Signed in Washington, DC, on April 6,
2006.
Teresa C. Lasseter,
Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
[FR Doc. E6–5466 Filed 4–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Eldorado National Forest; California;
Freds Fire Reforestation Project
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service,
Eldorado National Forest will prepare
an environmental impact statement
(EIS) to restore, reforest, and reduce
fuels on approximately 4,300 acres that
burned in the Freds Fire of 2004. The
Freds Fire Reforestation project area is
located in El Dorado County, California,
on the Eldorado National Forest,
Placerville and Pacific Ranger Districts.
The project area is located immediately
north of U.S. Highway 50, near the town
of Kyburz. The legal description is:
Township 11 North, Range 14 East,
Sections 13, 14, 23, 24, 25; Township 11
North, Range 15 East, Sections 14–23,
27–30; Township 11 North, Range 16
East, Sections 17–20, 30, MDM.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope
of the analysis must be received by May
19, 2006. The draft environmental
impact statement is expected in July
2006 and the final environmental
impact statement is expected in October
2006.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
Kathryn D. Hardy, Placerville Ranger
District, 4260 Eight Mile Road, Camino,
CA 95709, Attention: Freds Fire
Reforestation Project.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Carroll, Project Leader,
Placerville Ranger District, 4260 Eight
Mile Road, Camino, CA 95709, or by
telephone at 530–647–5386.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose and Need for Action
On areas impacted by the Freds Fire
of 2004 the purpose of the project is to:
E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM
13APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 2006 / Notices
1. Reestablish a forested landscape and
promote its survival and growth; 2.
incorporate fuel treatments to reduce
wildfire spread and intensity or
interrupt fire spread; and 3. restore
aquatic and riparian habitats to improve
water quality and provide for the native
plant and animal species associated
with these ecosystems. The Freds Fire
resulted in adverse effects to forest
resources such as soil, riparian areas,
and wildlife habitat, and caused
extensive tree mortality. Removal of
most of the fire-killed trees occurred in
2005. Live and dead trees remain,
distributed across the landscape as
described in the Freds Fire Restoration
FEIS. Without additional treatment to
restore the fire area, additional impacts
are likely over the short and long term.
The goal of this project is to move the
project area more quickly toward
desired future conditions for the land
allocations within the fire area, as
defined by the Sierra Nevada Forest
Plan Amendment (SNFP). These land
allocations are threat zone, defense
zone, general forest, protected activity
centers for spotted owls, spotted owl
home range core areas, and riparian
conservation areas adjacent to
perennial, seasonal and ephemeral
streams.
HSRObinson on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Proposed Action
The proposed action would consist of
combinations of site preparation,
reforestation, release, noxious weed,
and fuel treatments. Site preparation
treatments would be by chemical
methods, utilizing ground-based
herbicide applications (glyphosate or
triclopyr). Reforestation treatments
would include planting and re-planting
if needed. Release treatments would
include hand grubbing and groundbased herbicide (glyphosate, triclopyr,
or hexazinone) applications. Noxious
weed treatments would include hand
treatments by manual and chemical
(glyphosate and clopyralid) methods.
Fuel treatments would include manual
and chemical methods. No road
construction is proposed.
The proposed action is consistent
with the 1989 Eldorado National Forest
Land and Resource Management Plan as
amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest
Plan Amendment Record of Decision
(2004).
Possible Alternatives
Other alternatives will be developed
based on significant issues identified
during the scoping process for the
environmental impact statement. All
alternatives will need to respond to the
specific condition of providing benefits
equal to or better than the current
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:20 Apr 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
condition. Alternatives being
considered at this time include: (1) The
Proposed Action and (2) No Action.
Responsible Official
Kathryn D. Hardy, District Ranger,
Placerville Ranger District, Eldorado
National Forest, is the responsible
official. As the responsible official she
will document the decision and reasons
for the decision in the Record of
Decision. That decision will be subject
to Forest Service appeal regulations (36
CFR part 215).
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The decision to be made is whether to
adopt and implement the proposed
action, an alternative to the proposed
action, or take no action to plant trees,
take steps to promote their survival and
growth, or conduct fuel treatments.
Scoping Process
Public participation will be especially
important at several points during the
analysis. The Forest Service will be
seeking information, comments, and
assistance from the Federal, State, and
local agencies and other individual or
organizations who may be interested in
or affected by the proposed action. To
facilitate public participation,
information about the proposed action
will be mailed to all who express
interest in the proposed action and
notification of the public scoping period
will be published in the Mountain
Democrat, Placerville, CA.
Comments submitted during the
scoping process should be in writing
and should be specific to the proposed
action. The comments should describe
as clearly and completely as possible
any issues the commenter has with the
proposal. The scoping process includes:
(a) Identifying potential issues;
(b) Identifying issues to be analyzed
in depth.
(c) Eliminating nonsignificant issues
or those previously covered by a
relevant previous environmental
analysis;
(d) Exploring additional alternatives;
(e) Identifying potential
environmental effects of the proposed
action and alternatives.
A public meeting will be held on
Tuesday, May 9, 2006, from 7 p.m. to 9
p.m. at the County Fire Station 16,
Kyburz, California.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the
scoping process which guides the
development of the environmental
impact statement.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19161
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 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 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
E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM
13APN1
19162
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 2006 / Notices
21) The final EIS is scheduled to be
completed in June, 2005. In the final EIS, The
Forest Service is required to respond to
substantive comments received during the
comment period that pertain to the
environmental consequences discussed in
the draft EIS and applicable laws,
regulations, and policies considered in
making the decision regarding this proposal.
Dated: April 6, 2006.
Judie L. Tartaglia,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 06–3539 Filed 4–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest,
Oregon and Washington; WallowaWhitman National Forest Invasive
Plants Treatment
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
AGENCY:
HSRObinson on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Wallowa-Whitman
National Forest proposes to treat
approximately 25,000 acres of invasive
plants located across the 2.4 million
acre National Forest. The Forest
anticipates to treat approximately 4,000
acres of invasive plant sites annually.
The proposed treatment methods
include: manual pulling and hand tools,
mechanized hand tools, herbicides, and
biological controls. The method
proposed for a given site would depend
largely on the protection of resources
and the effectiveness of the method on
the target invasive plant species.
DATES: Comments regarding the
proposed action must be received by
May 17, 2006. The draft environmental
impact statement is expected in March,
2007 and the final environmental
impact statement is expected in
September, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Please address written
comments about this project to Steven
A. Ellis, Forest Supervisor, WallowaWhitman National Forest, P.O. Box 907,
Baker City, OR 97814. Electronic
comments can be mailed to: commentspacificnorthwest-wallowawhitman@fs.fed.us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gene Yates, Wallowa-Whitman National
Forest, PO Box 907, Baker City, OR
97814. Phone: 541–523–1390 or e-mail
gyates@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Proposed and Need for Action
Using a technologically modern
approach to control or eradicate
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:20 Apr 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
invasive plants, the purpose of this
action is to maintain or improve the
diversity, function, and sustainability of
desired native plant communities and
other natural resources that can be
adversely impacted by invasive plant
species. Specifically, there is an
underlying need on the Forest to: (1)
Implement treatment actions to contain
and reduce the extent of invasive plants
at existing inventoried sites, and (2)
rapidly respond to new or expanded
invasive plant sites as they may occur
in the future.
Proposed Action
A detailed project description can be
requested by using the information
request form at this Internet address:
https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/w-w/contact/
feedback.shtml or by contacting the
person listed above.
In 2005 the Pacific Northwest Region
completed an FEIS and ROD for
Preventing and Managing Invasive
Plants, which provided new direction to
Forests for preventing and managing
invasive plant sites including an
updated list of herbicides that are
approved for use. These new herbicides
offer many advantages over the more
limited set previously allowed,
including greater selectivity for invasive
plants, less harm to desired vegetation,
reduced application rates, and lower
toxicity to wildlife and people. The
proposed invasive plant treatments will
be guided by this FEIS.
Various methods would be used to
contain, control or eradicate invasive
plants including herbicides, manual or
power tools and biological control. The
approximate cumulative area of
invasive plant sites that would be
treated by these methods are: (a)
Herbicides: 19,950 acres: (b) biological
control: 4975 acres, (c) manual or
mechanical methods: 300 acres. A
description of each method follows.
Herbicide Treatments: Chemical
herbicides would be applied in
accordance with USDA Forest Service
regulations, policies, Forest Plan
Standards and the manufacturer’s
product label requirements. Herbicides
approved for use in the Pacific
Northwest Region Invasive Plant
Program Preventing and Managing
Invasive Plants FEIS (Regional Invasive
Plant EIS), April 2005 and Record of
Decision. These herbicides include:
chlorosulfuron, clopyralid, glyphosate,
imazapic, imazapyr, metsulfuron
methyl, picloram, sethoxydim,
sulfometuron methyl, and triclopyr. The
application rates and methods will
depend on the target invasive plant
species and environmental conditions,
such as soil type; depth to the water
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
table; the distance to open water
sources; wetland or upland status;
proximity to sensitive, rare or endemic
plants; and the requirements of the
herbicide manufacturer’s label. Followup treatments may be needed depending
on the effectiveness of level of control
attained by the initial treatment.
Ground based or aerial application
methods would be chosen based on the
accessibility, topography and size of a
given treatment area. The following are
examples of the proposed methods of
application:
• Spot spraying—The applicator
sprays individual plants usually from a
backpack sprayer, but the method can
also be used with a hose originating
from a tank mounted on a truck or ATV.
• Wicking—The applicator wipes an
herbicide-saturated sponge or cloth over
the target plant. This is often used in
sensitive areas, such as near water, to
avoid herbicide drift or contact with the
soil and non-target vegetation.
• Stem injection—A new hand
application technique currently being
used on Japanese knotweed in western
OR & WA. A tool is used to inject
herbicide directly into a plant.
• Broadcast application—Herbicide is
applied to a broad area of ground rather
than individual plants. This method is
used when the target invasive plant is
so large and dense that spot spraying
becomes impractical. Broadcast
application is normally accomplished
with a boom apparatus mounted on a
truck or ATV.
• Aerial application—a boom is
mounted on a helicopter or fixed-wing
aircraft. This method is used where
invasive plant sites are too large,
remote, or steep to be reached by ground
based equipment.
If needed, sites would be restored
using native seed, where practical.
Manual Treatment Methods: These
methods include non-mechanized
approaches, such as hand pulling or
using hand tools to dig or grub out
plants or cut off seed heads. Handsaws,
axes, shovel, rakes, machetes, grubbing
hoes, mattocks, brush hooks, and hand
clippers may all be used to remove
invasive plant species.
Mechanical Treatment Methods: This
method uses power tools and includes
one or more of the following actions:
mowing, weed whipping, road brushing,
tilling or steaming.
Biological Control: Biological control
is the release of inspects, parasites, or
disease pathogens which feed on or
parasitize specific invasive plants.
Presently, insects are the primary
biological control agent in use. Mites,
nematodes, and pathogens are
occasionally used. Biological control
E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM
13APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19160-19162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3539]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Eldorado National Forest; California; Freds Fire Reforestation
Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest will
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to restore, reforest,
and reduce fuels on approximately 4,300 acres that burned in the Freds
Fire of 2004. The Freds Fire Reforestation project area is located in
El Dorado County, California, on the Eldorado National Forest,
Placerville and Pacific Ranger Districts. The project area is located
immediately north of U.S. Highway 50, near the town of Kyburz. The
legal description is: Township 11 North, Range 14 East, Sections 13,
14, 23, 24, 25; Township 11 North, Range 15 East, Sections 14-23, 27-
30; Township 11 North, Range 16 East, Sections 17-20, 30, MDM.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received
by May 19, 2006. The draft environmental impact statement is expected
in July 2006 and the final environmental impact statement is expected
in October 2006.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Kathryn D. Hardy, Placerville
Ranger District, 4260 Eight Mile Road, Camino, CA 95709, Attention:
Freds Fire Reforestation Project.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Carroll, Project Leader,
Placerville Ranger District, 4260 Eight Mile Road, Camino, CA 95709, or
by telephone at 530-647-5386.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose and Need for Action
On areas impacted by the Freds Fire of 2004 the purpose of the
project is to:
[[Page 19161]]
1. Reestablish a forested landscape and promote its survival and
growth; 2. incorporate fuel treatments to reduce wildfire spread and
intensity or interrupt fire spread; and 3. restore aquatic and riparian
habitats to improve water quality and provide for the native plant and
animal species associated with these ecosystems. The Freds Fire
resulted in adverse effects to forest resources such as soil, riparian
areas, and wildlife habitat, and caused extensive tree mortality.
Removal of most of the fire-killed trees occurred in 2005. Live and
dead trees remain, distributed across the landscape as described in the
Freds Fire Restoration FEIS. Without additional treatment to restore
the fire area, additional impacts are likely over the short and long
term. The goal of this project is to move the project area more quickly
toward desired future conditions for the land allocations within the
fire area, as defined by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment
(SNFP). These land allocations are threat zone, defense zone, general
forest, protected activity centers for spotted owls, spotted owl home
range core areas, and riparian conservation areas adjacent to
perennial, seasonal and ephemeral streams.
Proposed Action
The proposed action would consist of combinations of site
preparation, reforestation, release, noxious weed, and fuel treatments.
Site preparation treatments would be by chemical methods, utilizing
ground-based herbicide applications (glyphosate or triclopyr).
Reforestation treatments would include planting and re-planting if
needed. Release treatments would include hand grubbing and ground-based
herbicide (glyphosate, triclopyr, or hexazinone) applications. Noxious
weed treatments would include hand treatments by manual and chemical
(glyphosate and clopyralid) methods. Fuel treatments would include
manual and chemical methods. No road construction is proposed.
The proposed action is consistent with the 1989 Eldorado National
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the Sierra
Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision (2004).
Possible Alternatives
Other alternatives will be developed based on significant issues
identified during the scoping process for the environmental impact
statement. All alternatives will need to respond to the specific
condition of providing benefits equal to or better than the current
condition. Alternatives being considered at this time include: (1) The
Proposed Action and (2) No Action.
Responsible Official
Kathryn D. Hardy, District Ranger, Placerville Ranger District,
Eldorado National Forest, is the responsible official. As the
responsible official she will document the decision and reasons for the
decision in the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to
Forest Service appeal regulations (36 CFR part 215).
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The decision to be made is whether to adopt and implement the
proposed action, an alternative to the proposed action, or take no
action to plant trees, take steps to promote their survival and growth,
or conduct fuel treatments.
Scoping Process
Public participation will be especially important at several points
during the analysis. The Forest Service will be seeking information,
comments, and assistance from the Federal, State, and local agencies
and other individual or organizations who may be interested in or
affected by the proposed action. To facilitate public participation,
information about the proposed action will be mailed to all who express
interest in the proposed action and notification of the public scoping
period will be published in the Mountain Democrat, Placerville, CA.
Comments submitted during the scoping process should be in writing
and should be specific to the proposed action. The comments should
describe as clearly and completely as possible any issues the commenter
has with the proposal. The scoping process includes:
(a) Identifying potential issues;
(b) Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth.
(c) Eliminating nonsignificant issues or those previously covered
by a relevant previous environmental analysis;
(d) Exploring additional alternatives;
(e) Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed
action and alternatives.
A public meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 9, 2006, from 7 p.m.
to 9 p.m. at the County Fire Station 16, Kyburz, California.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides
the development of the environmental impact statement.
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 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 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
[[Page 19162]]
21) The final EIS is scheduled to be completed in June, 2005. In the
final EIS, The Forest Service is required to respond to substantive
comments received during the comment period that pertain to the
environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS and applicable
laws, regulations, and policies considered in making the decision
regarding this proposal.
Dated: April 6, 2006.
Judie L. Tartaglia,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 06-3539 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
