Plumas National Forest; Beckwourth Ranger District, California; Beckwourth Ranger District Tall Whitetop Project, 26921-26923 [E6-7022]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2006 / Notices
hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except holidays. To be
sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 690–2817 before
coming.
Other Information: Additional
information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information regarding livestock disease
surveillance programs, contact Ms.
Connie J. Osmundson, Financial
Analyst, National Veterinary Services
Laboratories, VS, APHIS, 1800 Dayton
Road, Ames, IA 50010; (515) 663–7571.
For copies of more detailed information
on the information collection, contact
Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS’
Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301) 734–7477.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Specimen Submission.
OMB Number: 0579–0090.
Type of Request: Extension of
approval of an information collection.
Abstract: The United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) is
responsible for, among other things,
preventing the interstate spread of
livestock diseases and for eradicating
such diseases from the United States
when feasible.
In connection with this mission, the
Veterinary Services (VS) program of
USDA’s Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service conducts disease
surveillance programs. The VS Form
10–4 and its supplemental sheet (VS
Form 10–4A) are critical components of
these programs. They are routinely used
whenever specimens (such as blood,
milk, tissue, or urine) from any animal
(including cattle, swine, sheep, goats,
horses, and poultry) are submitted to
our National Veterinary Services
Laboratories for disease testing.
We are asking the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to
approve our use of these information
collection activities for an additional 3
years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit
comments from the public (as well as
affected agencies) concerning our
information collection. These comments
will help us:
(1) Evaluate 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;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our
estimate of the burden of the
information collection, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the
information collection on those who are
to respond, through use, as appropriate,
of automated, electronic, mechanical,
and other collection technologies, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Estimate of burden: The public
reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 0.25
hours per response.
Respondents: State veterinarians,
accredited veterinarians, animal health
technicians, other State personnel who
are qualified and authorized to collect
and submit specimens for laboratory
analysis, and herd owners.
Estimated annual number of
respondents: 14,000.
Estimated annual number of
responses per respondent: 2.
Estimated annual number of
responses: 28,000.
Estimated total annual burden on
respondents: 7,000 hours. (Due to
averaging, the total annual burden hours
may not equal the product of the annual
number of responses multiplied by the
reporting burden per response.)
All responses to this notice will be
summarized and included in the request
for OMB approval. All comments will
also become a matter of public record.
Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of
May 2006.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E6–7009 Filed 5–8–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plumas National Forest; Beckwourth
Ranger District, California; Beckwourth
Ranger District Tall Whitetop 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)
to eradicate populations of the noxious
weed tall whitetop (Lepidium
latifolium), along the Middle Fork of the
Feather River approximately one-mile
southwest of the town of Beckwourth.
DATES: Although comments will be
accepted throughout any phase of this
project, it would be most helpful if
comments on the scope of the analysis
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26921
were received within 30 days of the date
of publication of this notice of intent in
the Federal Register. The draft EIS is
expected in September 2006 and the
final EIS is expected in January 2007.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
Acting District Ranger, Ronald L. Baer,
Plumas National Forest, P.O. Box 7,
Blairsden, CA 96103. Fax: (530) 836–
0493. Comments may be: (1) Mailed to
the Responsible Official; (2) hand
delivered between the hours of 8 a.m.–
4:30 p.m. weekdays Pacific Time; (3)
faxed to (530) 836–0493; or (4)
electronically mailed to: commentspacificsouthwest-plumas@fs.fed.us.
Comments submitted electronically
must be in Rich Text Format (.rtf).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Terry R. Miller, Interdisciplinary Team
Leader, Plumas National Forest,
Beckwourth Ranger District, P.O. Box 7,
Blairsden, CA 96103 (530) 836–2575.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Project Location
The project area is one-mile
southwest of the town of Beckwourth,
T23N, R14E Sec. 26, 27, 28, and 29. It
is comprised of the river corridor on
either side of the junction of county
road A–23 and highway 70.
Purpose and Need for Action
The effects of eradicating a noxious
weed using an integrative pest
management strategy will be analyzed
in this EIS. The purpose of the project
is to eradicate tall whitetop in the
project area. Tall whitetop is invading
the project area along the Middle Fork
of the Feather River at a rapid rate. In
2003 there was one known location.
Currently there are eighty-six tall
whitetop locations. These locations total
an estimated 36,000 plants over
approximately 8 total acres. Hand
pulling, over the last four years, at the
original known site has proven
ineffective for controlling the relatively
small population there. Without
effective treatment tall whitetop would
continue to spread, invading additional
acres nearby and potentially spreading
throughout the entire corridor of the
Middle Fork of the Feather River.
Proposed Action
Scattered populations of the noxious
weed, tall whitetop, would be treated in
order to eradicate it from the 844-acre
project area. These scattered areas total
approximately 8 acres, less than 1
percent of the project area.
A three-step process would be used
over a period of five years to ensure
successful eradication of tall whitetop
from the project area. First plants would
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES
26922
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2006 / Notices
be mechanically removed by hand
pulling or mowing. Then resprouting
plants would be chemically treated with
herbicides. The three herbicides that are
being proposed for use are glyphosate
(such as RodeoTM), 2,4-D (such as
Weedar 64TM), and chlorsulfuron (such
as TelarTM). Finally, the areas would be
seeded with native grasses to revegetate
the areas.
Herbicide treatments would be
designed to be as effective as possible in
eradicating noxious weeds while
protecting sensitive resources. By using
different herbicides on uplands (areas
upslope from the river) and floodplains
(areas along the river), treatments would
balance effectiveness and resource
protection.
Upland habitat in the project area
consists of 504 acres, of which two areas
totaling 50 square feet are currently
infested with tall whitetop. Within this
area the use of more persistent
herbicides will be prescribed for this
area and if new populations are
discovered in this habitat over the life
of the project. Chlorsulfuron has the
necessary persistence and selectivity to
be the most effective choice for
treatment in upland areas where water
quality and riparian habitats are not
affected. The advantage of using this
herbicide is that the treatment is more
effective. Therefore, the number of times
the area will be retreated is limited.
Floodplains can generally be
described as the area between the
water’s edge and its high water line.
Floodplains make up 340 acres in the
project area. Currently, most of the tall
whitetop, approximately 8 acres, within
the project area exists within the
floodplain of the Middle Fork of the
Feather River. The least persistent
herbicides (glyphosate and the amine
formulation of 2,4-D) would be used in
the floodplain area where the intent is
to minimize any opportunity for
residual chemicals to be present in the
soil and wash or leach into the
watercourse. Herbicides selected for
these areas are those approved for use
because they are proven to have the
lowest potential impacts to water and
aquatic species and related habitat. The
application of herbicides in these areas
would occur after the last high water
event of the season, with ample time
allowed for chemical degradation prior
to the first high water event of the next
year. It is anticipated that chemical
treatment in the floodplain zone would
occur from May through July.
The proposed herbicides and their
maximum application rates in acid
equivalent per acre or active ingredient
per acre are 2,4-D (1.9 lbs AE/ac ),
Glyphosate (3.0 lbs AE/ac),
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
Chlorsulfuron (1.125 oz a.i./ac/). In
addition to the specific herbicides, the
additive R-11 and a colorant would be
utilized. R-11 is a spreader/activator
that improves the activity and
penetration of the herbicide by reducing
surface tension, allowing the herbicide
mixture to spread evenly over the
surface of the vegetation. The colorant is
added to indicate where the herbicide
has been applied.
Lead Agency: The USDA Forest
Service is the lead agency for this
proposal.
Responsible Official: Beckwourth
Ranger District Acting District Ranger,
Ronald L. Baer is the responsible
official. Beckwourth Ranger District,
P.O. Box 7, Blairsden, CA 96103.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The responsible official will decide
whether to implement this project as
proposed, implement the project based
on an alternative to this proposal that is
formulated to resolve identified issues
or not implement this project at this
time. The responsible official will be the
Beckwourth Ranger District Acting
District Ranger.
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 and/or
a summary of the proposed action will
be mailed to adjacent landowners, as
well as to those people and
organizations that have indicated a
specific interest in the Beckwourth
Ranger District Tall Whitetop project, to
Native American entities, and 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. There are no meetings planned
at this time.
Permits or Licenses Required: None.
Comment
This notice of intent initiates the
scoping process which guides the
development of the EIS. Our desire is to
receive substantive comments on the
merits of the proposed action, as well as
comments that address errors,
misinformation, or information that has
been omitted. Substantive comments are
defined as comments within the scope
of the proposal, that have a direct
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 proposed
action participate by the close of the 45day comment period so that substantive
comments and objections are made
available to the Forest Service at a time
when it can meaningfully consider them
and respond to them in the final
environmental impact statement.
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.
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2006 / Notices
Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22;
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, section 21.
Dated: May 1, 2006.
Ronald L. Baer,
Acting District Ranger.
[FR Doc. E6–7022 Filed 5–8–06; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Siskiyou County Resource Advisory
Committee
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Siskiyou County
Resource Advisory Committee will meet
in Yreka, California, May 15, 2006. The
meeting will include routine business,
and discussion and recommendation of
fifteen (15) previously submitted project
proposals.
DATES: The meeting will be held May
15, 2006, from 4 p.m. until 6 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Yreka High School Library, Preece
Way, Yreka, California.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob
Talley, RAC Coordinator, Klamath
National Forest, (530) 841–4423 or
electronically at rtalley@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
meeting is open to the public. Public
comment opportunity will be provided
and individuals will have the
opportunity to address the Committee at
that time.
Dated: May 3, 2006.
Margaret J. Boland,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 06–4308 Filed 5–8–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Notice of Sanders County Resource
Advisory Committee Meeting
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES
ACTION:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in
the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Pub. L. 92–463) and under the Secure
Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–
393) the Lolo and Kootenai National
Forests’ Sanders County Resource
Advisory Committee will meet on May
18 at 7 p.m. in Thompson Falls,
Montana for a business meeting. The
meeting is open to the public.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:02 May 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
ADDRESSES:
Dated: May 3, 2006.
Carol Booker,
Legal Counsel.
[FR Doc. 06–4345 Filed 5–5–06; 11:07 am]
BILLING CODE 8230–01–M
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P
ACTION:
May 18, 2006.
The meeting will be held at
the Thompson Falls Courthouse, 1111
Main Street, Thompson Falls, MT
59873.
DATES:
26923
Randy Hojem, Designated Federal
Official (DFO), District Ranger, Plains
Ranger District, Lolo National Forest at
(406) 826–3821.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda
topics include reviewing progress on
current RAC projects, and receiving
public comment. If the meeting location
is changed, notice will be posted in the
local newspapers, including the Clark
Fork Valley Press, and Sanders County
Ledger.
Dated: May 1, 2006.
Randy Hojem,
DFO, Plains Ranger District, Lolo National
Forest.
[FR Doc. 06–4313 Filed 5–8–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
BROADCASTING BOARD OF
GOVERNORS
Sunshine Act; Meeting
Wednesday, May 10,
2006, 2–3 p.m.
PLACE: Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330
Independence Ave., SW., Washington,
DC 20237.
CLOSED MEETING: The members of the
Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)
will meet in closed session to review
and discuss a number of issues relating
to U.S. Government-funded nonmilitary international broadcasting.
They will address internal procedural,
budgetary, and personnel issues, as well
as sensitive foreign policy issues
relating to potential options in the U.S.
international broadcasting field. This
meeting is closed because if open it
likely would either disclose matters that
would be properly classified to be kept
secret in the interest of foreign policy
under the appropriate executive order (5
U.S.C. 552b.(c)(1)) or would disclose
information the premature disclosure of
which would be likely to significantly
frustrate implementation of a proposed
agency action. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(9)(B)).
In addition, part of the discussion will
relate solely to the internal personnel
and organizational issues of the BBG or
the International Broadcasting Bureau.
(5 U.S.C. 552b–k.(c)(2) and (6)).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Persons interested in obtaining more
information should contact Carol
Booker at (202) 203–4545.
DATE AND TIME:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign–Trade Zones Board
[Docket 16–2006]
Foreign–Trade Zone 202 Los Angeles,
California, Application for Subzone,
Sony Electronics, Inc., (Audio, Video,
Communications and Information
Technology Products and
Accessories), Los Angeles, Carson
and Lynwood, California
An application has been submitted to
the Foreign–Trade Zones Board (the
Board) by the Board of Harbor
Commissioners of the City of Los
Angeles, grantee of FTZ 202, requesting
special–purpose subzone status for the
warehousing and distribution facilities
of Sony Electronics, Inc. (Sony), located
in Los Angeles, Carson and Lynwood,
California. The application was
submitted pursuant to the provisions of
the Foreign–Trade Zones Act, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the
regulations of the Board (15 CFR part
400). It was formally filed on April 28,
2006.
The Sony facilities (250 employees)
consist of five sites on 65 acres: Site 1
(21.5 acres) is located at 2201 East
Carson St., Carson; Site 2 (20.1 acres) is
located at 1651 E. Glenn Curtiss St.,
Carson; Site 3 (1 acre) is located at 6041
W. Imperial Highway, Los Angeles; Site
4 (7 acres) is located at 1071 E. 233rd
St., Carson; and Site 5 (15 acres) is
located at 2700 E. Imperial Highway,
Lynwood. The facilities are used for the
storage, distribution, packaging, kitting,
inspecting, testing and repair of audio,
video, communications and information
technology products and accessories.
Zone procedures would exempt Sony
from customs duty payments on
products that are re–exported. Some 5
percent of the products are re–exported.
On its domestic sales, the company
would be able to defer duty payments
until merchandise is shipped from the
facilities and entered for consumption.
FTZ designation would further allow
Sony to utilize certain customs
procedures resulting in increased
efficiencies for its logistics and
distribution operations. In addition,
Sony is requesting authority to choose
the duty rates during customs entry
procedures that apply to digital camera
and camcorder kits (HTS 8525.40, duty
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26921-26923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7022]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plumas National Forest; Beckwourth Ranger District, California;
Beckwourth Ranger District Tall Whitetop 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) to eradicate populations of the
noxious weed tall whitetop (Lepidium latifolium), along the Middle Fork
of the Feather River approximately one-mile southwest of the town of
Beckwourth.
DATES: Although comments will be accepted throughout any phase of this
project, it would be most helpful if comments on the scope of the
analysis were received within 30 days of the date of publication of
this notice of intent in the Federal Register. The draft EIS is
expected in September 2006 and the final EIS is expected in January
2007.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Acting District Ranger, Ronald L.
Baer, Plumas National Forest, P.O. Box 7, Blairsden, CA 96103. Fax:
(530) 836-0493. Comments may be: (1) Mailed to the Responsible
Official; (2) hand delivered between the hours of 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
weekdays Pacific Time; (3) faxed to (530) 836-0493; or (4)
electronically mailed to: comments-pacificsouthwest-plumas@fs.fed.us.
Comments submitted electronically must be in Rich Text Format (.rtf).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry R. Miller, Interdisciplinary
Team Leader, Plumas National Forest, Beckwourth Ranger District, P.O.
Box 7, Blairsden, CA 96103 (530) 836-2575.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Project Location
The project area is one-mile southwest of the town of Beckwourth,
T23N, R14E Sec. 26, 27, 28, and 29. It is comprised of the river
corridor on either side of the junction of county road A-23 and highway
70.
Purpose and Need for Action
The effects of eradicating a noxious weed using an integrative pest
management strategy will be analyzed in this EIS. The purpose of the
project is to eradicate tall whitetop in the project area. Tall
whitetop is invading the project area along the Middle Fork of the
Feather River at a rapid rate. In 2003 there was one known location.
Currently there are eighty-six tall whitetop locations. These locations
total an estimated 36,000 plants over approximately 8 total acres. Hand
pulling, over the last four years, at the original known site has
proven ineffective for controlling the relatively small population
there. Without effective treatment tall whitetop would continue to
spread, invading additional acres nearby and potentially spreading
throughout the entire corridor of the Middle Fork of the Feather River.
Proposed Action
Scattered populations of the noxious weed, tall whitetop, would be
treated in order to eradicate it from the 844-acre project area. These
scattered areas total approximately 8 acres, less than 1 percent of the
project area.
A three-step process would be used over a period of five years to
ensure successful eradication of tall whitetop from the project area.
First plants would
[[Page 26922]]
be mechanically removed by hand pulling or mowing. Then resprouting
plants would be chemically treated with herbicides. The three
herbicides that are being proposed for use are glyphosate (such as
RodeoTM), 2,4-D (such as Weedar 64TM), and
chlorsulfuron (such as TelarTM). Finally, the areas would be
seeded with native grasses to revegetate the areas.
Herbicide treatments would be designed to be as effective as
possible in eradicating noxious weeds while protecting sensitive
resources. By using different herbicides on uplands (areas upslope from
the river) and floodplains (areas along the river), treatments would
balance effectiveness and resource protection.
Upland habitat in the project area consists of 504 acres, of which
two areas totaling 50 square feet are currently infested with tall
whitetop. Within this area the use of more persistent herbicides will
be prescribed for this area and if new populations are discovered in
this habitat over the life of the project. Chlorsulfuron has the
necessary persistence and selectivity to be the most effective choice
for treatment in upland areas where water quality and riparian habitats
are not affected. The advantage of using this herbicide is that the
treatment is more effective. Therefore, the number of times the area
will be retreated is limited.
Floodplains can generally be described as the area between the
water's edge and its high water line. Floodplains make up 340 acres in
the project area. Currently, most of the tall whitetop, approximately 8
acres, within the project area exists within the floodplain of the
Middle Fork of the Feather River. The least persistent herbicides
(glyphosate and the amine formulation of 2,4-D) would be used in the
floodplain area where the intent is to minimize any opportunity for
residual chemicals to be present in the soil and wash or leach into the
watercourse. Herbicides selected for these areas are those approved for
use because they are proven to have the lowest potential impacts to
water and aquatic species and related habitat. The application of
herbicides in these areas would occur after the last high water event
of the season, with ample time allowed for chemical degradation prior
to the first high water event of the next year. It is anticipated that
chemical treatment in the floodplain zone would occur from May through
July.
The proposed herbicides and their maximum application rates in acid
equivalent per acre or active ingredient per acre are 2,4-D (1.9 lbs
AE/ac ), Glyphosate (3.0 lbs AE/ac), Chlorsulfuron (1.125 oz a.i./ac/).
In addition to the specific herbicides, the additive R-11 and a
colorant would be utilized. R-11 is a spreader/activator that improves
the activity and penetration of the herbicide by reducing surface
tension, allowing the herbicide mixture to spread evenly over the
surface of the vegetation. The colorant is added to indicate where the
herbicide has been applied.
Lead Agency: The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this
proposal.
Responsible Official: Beckwourth Ranger District Acting District
Ranger, Ronald L. Baer is the responsible official. Beckwourth Ranger
District, P.O. Box 7, Blairsden, CA 96103.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The responsible official will decide whether to implement this
project as proposed, implement the project based on an alternative to
this proposal that is formulated to resolve identified issues or not
implement this project at this time. The responsible official will be
the Beckwourth Ranger District Acting District Ranger.
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 and/or a summary of the proposed
action will be mailed to adjacent landowners, as well as to those
people and organizations that have indicated a specific interest in the
Beckwourth Ranger District Tall Whitetop project, to Native American
entities, and 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. There are no meetings
planned at this time.
Permits or Licenses Required: None.
Comment
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides
the development of the EIS. Our desire is to receive substantive
comments on the merits of the proposed action, as well as comments that
address errors, misinformation, or information that has been omitted.
Substantive comments are defined as comments within the scope of the
proposal, that have a direct relationship to the proposal, and that
include supporting reasons for the responsible official's
consideration.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be
prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental
impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental
Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal
Register.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of
draft environmental impact statements must structure their
participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is
meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,
553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised 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.
[[Page 26923]]
Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, section 21.
Dated: May 1, 2006.
Ronald L. Baer,
Acting District Ranger.
[FR Doc. E6-7022 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
