Plantation Fuel Reduction, Eldorado National Forest, El Dorado County, CA, 59428-59429 [06-8557]
Download as PDF
59428
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 10, 2006 / Notices
hours at 1400 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC.
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.
Dated: October 3, 2006.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. E6–16634 Filed 10–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plantation Fuel Reduction, Eldorado
National Forest, El Dorado County, CA
Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service,
Eldorado National Forest will prepare
an environmental impact statement
(EIS) for a proposal to treat
approximately 4,637 acres of selected
plantations on the Georgetown and
Pacific Ranger Districts. The proposal
will involve mechanical precommercial
thinning and control of competitive
vegetation using mechanical and
chemical treatments.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope
of the analysis must be received by
November 3, 2006. The draft
environmental impact statement is
expected in January 2007 and the final
environmental impact statement is
expected May 2007.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
Tim Dabney, District Ranger,
Georgetown Ranger District, 7600
Wentworth Springs Road, Georgetown,
CA 95634, Attention: Plantation Fuel
Reduction Project.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim
Howard, Project Leader, Georgetown
Ranger Station, 7600 Wentworth
Springs Road, Georgetown, CA 95634,
or by telephone at 530–333–4312 or by
e-mail at thoward@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Purpose and Need for Action
It is the purpose of the Plantation Fuel
Reduction Project to begin the process
of enhancing forest health, vigor,
growth, resilience to fire, and
sustainability of the desired vegetation
of the plantations, and thereby improve,
maintain, and perpetuate the other
dependent resources as directed in the
Eldorado Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan (LRMP) as amended
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:42 Oct 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan
Amendment, 2004 (SNFPA).
The specific purpose and need of the
Proposed Action is to: Reduce present
and future fuel loads; alter the
vegetative structure in plantations to
reduce the risk of loss to wildland fire
by maintaining flame lengths below six
feet (four feet in defense and threat
zones); reduce rate of spread and
increase the fire line production rates;
maintain the effectiveness of fuel
treatments for more than five years;
improve forest health, and, maintain
valuable wildlife habitat and to create
conditions that accelerate the
development of old forest
characteristics.
Proposed Action
The Georgetown and Pacific Ranger
Districts propose precommercial
thinning and control of competitive
vegetation using mechanical and
chemical treatments of vegetation on
approximately 4,637 acres of selected
conifer plantations about 20 air miles
north and east of Placerville, California
on the Eldorado National Forest in El
Dorado County. The legal description is:
T.11N., R.11E.; T.11N., R.13E; T.11N.;
R.14E; T.11N., R.15E; T.12N., R.11E.;
T12N., R.13E.; T.12N., R14E.; T.12N.,
R.15E.; T13N., R.11E.; T.13N., R.12E.;
T.13N., R.13E.; T.13N., R.14E.; T.13N.,
R.15E.; T.14N., R.12E.; T.14N., R.13E.;
and, T.14N., R.14E. The project proposal
would involve the following timber
stand improvement activities: (1)
Mechanical mastication treatment of
approximately 3,039 acres using low
ground pressure equipment to flail or
‘‘masticate’’ undesirable vegetation and
conifers. Follow-up chemical treatment
with ground-based application of
herbicides (2,738 acres of foliar
treatment using a 3% glyphosate
solution and 301 acres of foliar
treatment using a 1.5% triclopyr
solution) within one year following the
completion of mechanical mastication
activities. (2) Hand cut treatment of
approximately 136 acres using hand
tools. Follow-up chemical treatment
with ground-based application of
herbicides (136 acres of foliar treatment
using a 3% glyphosate solution) within
one year following the completion of
hand cutting activities. (3) Chemical
treatment of approximately 1,462 acres
(1,193 acres of foliar treatment using a
3% glyphosate solution and 269 acres of
foliar treatment using a 1.5% triclopyr
solution). Follow-up chemical treatment
(1,193 acres of foliar treatment using a
3% glyphosate solution and 269 acres of
foliar treatment using a 1.5% triclopyr
solution), if necessary, three to five
years after the initial treatment.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The proposed project activities would
begin in 2007 and with the goal of being
completed by 2015, dependent upon
funding.
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
The lead agency will be the U.S.D.A.
Forest Service.
Responsible Official
Tim Dabney, Georgetown District
Ranger is the responsible Official. As
the responsible official he 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 conduct fuel
reduction and timber stand
improvement treatments in plantations.
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 individuals 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:
(1) Identifying the potential issues; (2)
Identifying issues to be analyzed in
depth; (3) Eliminating nonsignificant
issues or those previously covered by a
relevant previous environmental
analysis; (4) Exploring additional
alternatives; and, (5) Identifying
potential environmental effects of the
proposed action and alternatives.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the
scoping process which guides the
development of the environmental
impact statement.
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 10, 2006 / Notices
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22;
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section
21)
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
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
comment period so that 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:42 Oct 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
59429
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Census Bureau
Dated: September 29, 2006.
Timothy A. Dabney,
Georgetown District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 06–8557 Filed 10–6–06; 8:45 am]
Census Coverage Measurement
Independent Listing and Relisting
Operations
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
ACTION:
Proposed collection; comment
request.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket No.: 060615168–6243–02]
Privacy Act of 1974: System of
Records
Department of Commerce.
Final Notice to amend a Privacy
Act System of Records: COMMERCE/
DEPARTMENT–18, ‘‘Employees
Personnel Files Not Covered by Notices
of Other Agencies.’’
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) publishes this notice to
announce the amendment of a Privacy
Act System of Records notice entitled
COMMERCE/DEPARTMENT–18,
‘‘Employees Personnel Files Not
Covered by Notices of Other Agencies.’’
DATES: The system of records becomes
effective on October 10, 2006.
ADDRESSES: For a copy of the system of
records please mail requests to Brenda
Dolan, Department of Commerce
Freedom of Information and Privacy Act
Officer, Room 5327, 1401 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,
202–482–3258.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brenda Dolan, Department of Commerce
Freedom of Information and Privacy Act
Officer, Room 5327, 1401 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,
202–482–3258.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 6,
2006, the Commerce published and
requested comments on a proposed
amended Privacy Act System of Records
notice entitled COMMERCE/
DEPARTMENT–18, ‘‘Employees
Personnel Files Not Covered by Notices
of Other Agencies.’’ No comments were
received in response to the request for
comments. By this notice, the
Department is adopting the proposed
system as final without changes
effective October 10, 2006.
Dated: October 2, 2006.
Brenda Dolan,
Department of Commerce, Freedom of
Information and Privacy Act Officer.
[FR Doc. E6–16693 Filed 10–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–BW–P
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUMMARY: The Department of
Commerce, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to
take this opportunity to comment on
proposed and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)).
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before December 11,
2006.
ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to
Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork
Clearance Officer, Department of
Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington
DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Dhynek@doc.gov).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection
instrument(s) and instructions should
be directed to Magdalena Ramos, U.S.
Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Rd.,
Room 4H265, Washington, DC 20233,
301–763–4295 (or via the Internet at
Magdalena.Ramos@census.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
In preparation for the 2010 Census,
the U.S. Census Bureau will conduct a
Census Coverage Measurement (CCM)
test as part of the 2008 Census Dress
Rehearsal. The 2008 Census Dress
Rehearsal will be conducted in two
sites, one urban, and the other one, a
mix of urban and suburban. San Joaquin
County, California is the urban site.
South Central North Carolina has been
selected as the urban/suburban mix test
site. This area consists of Fayetteville
and nine counties surrounding
Fayetteville (Chatham, Cumberland,
Harnett, Hoke, Lee, Montgomery,
Moore, Richmond, and Scotland). As is
typical, the CCM operations and
activities will be conducted separate
from and independent of the census
operations. The CCM program for the
dress rehearsal is designed to test that
all planned coverage measurement
operations are working as expected, that
they are integrated internally, and that
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 10, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59428-59429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8557]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plantation Fuel Reduction, Eldorado National Forest, El Dorado
County, CA
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) for a proposal to treat
approximately 4,637 acres of selected plantations on the Georgetown and
Pacific Ranger Districts. The proposal will involve mechanical
precommercial thinning and control of competitive vegetation using
mechanical and chemical treatments.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received
by November 3, 2006. The draft environmental impact statement is
expected in January 2007 and the final environmental impact statement
is expected May 2007.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Tim Dabney, District Ranger,
Georgetown Ranger District, 7600 Wentworth Springs Road, Georgetown, CA
95634, Attention: Plantation Fuel Reduction Project.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Howard, Project Leader, Georgetown
Ranger Station, 7600 Wentworth Springs Road, Georgetown, CA 95634, or
by telephone at 530-333-4312 or by e-mail at thoward@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose and Need for Action
It is the purpose of the Plantation Fuel Reduction Project to begin
the process of enhancing forest health, vigor, growth, resilience to
fire, and sustainability of the desired vegetation of the plantations,
and thereby improve, maintain, and perpetuate the other dependent
resources as directed in the Eldorado Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan (LRMP) as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan
Amendment, 2004 (SNFPA).
The specific purpose and need of the Proposed Action is to: Reduce
present and future fuel loads; alter the vegetative structure in
plantations to reduce the risk of loss to wildland fire by maintaining
flame lengths below six feet (four feet in defense and threat zones);
reduce rate of spread and increase the fire line production rates;
maintain the effectiveness of fuel treatments for more than five years;
improve forest health, and, maintain valuable wildlife habitat and to
create conditions that accelerate the development of old forest
characteristics.
Proposed Action
The Georgetown and Pacific Ranger Districts propose precommercial
thinning and control of competitive vegetation using mechanical and
chemical treatments of vegetation on approximately 4,637 acres of
selected conifer plantations about 20 air miles north and east of
Placerville, California on the Eldorado National Forest in El Dorado
County. The legal description is: T.11N., R.11E.; T.11N., R.13E;
T.11N.; R.14E; T.11N., R.15E; T.12N., R.11E.; T12N., R.13E.; T.12N.,
R14E.; T.12N., R.15E.; T13N., R.11E.; T.13N., R.12E.; T.13N., R.13E.;
T.13N., R.14E.; T.13N., R.15E.; T.14N., R.12E.; T.14N., R.13E.; and,
T.14N., R.14E. The project proposal would involve the following timber
stand improvement activities: (1) Mechanical mastication treatment of
approximately 3,039 acres using low ground pressure equipment to flail
or ``masticate'' undesirable vegetation and conifers. Follow-up
chemical treatment with ground-based application of herbicides (2,738
acres of foliar treatment using a 3% glyphosate solution and 301 acres
of foliar treatment using a 1.5% triclopyr solution) within one year
following the completion of mechanical mastication activities. (2) Hand
cut treatment of approximately 136 acres using hand tools. Follow-up
chemical treatment with ground-based application of herbicides (136
acres of foliar treatment using a 3% glyphosate solution) within one
year following the completion of hand cutting activities. (3) Chemical
treatment of approximately 1,462 acres (1,193 acres of foliar treatment
using a 3% glyphosate solution and 269 acres of foliar treatment using
a 1.5% triclopyr solution). Follow-up chemical treatment (1,193 acres
of foliar treatment using a 3% glyphosate solution and 269 acres of
foliar treatment using a 1.5% triclopyr solution), if necessary, three
to five years after the initial treatment.
The proposed project activities would begin in 2007 and with the
goal of being completed by 2015, dependent upon funding.
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
The lead agency will be the U.S.D.A. Forest Service.
Responsible Official
Tim Dabney, Georgetown District Ranger is the responsible Official.
As the responsible official he 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 conduct fuel reduction and timber stand improvement
treatments in plantations.
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 individuals 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: (1) Identifying
the potential issues; (2) Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth;
(3) Eliminating nonsignificant issues or those previously covered by a
relevant previous environmental analysis; (4) Exploring additional
alternatives; and, (5) Identifying potential environmental effects of
the proposed action and alternatives.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides
the development of the environmental impact statement.
[[Page 59429]]
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 comment period so that comments and
objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it
can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final
environmental impact statement.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft
environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is
also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the
draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft
environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives
formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer
to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing
the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at
40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who
comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal
and will be available for public inspection.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, Section 21)
Dated: September 29, 2006.
Timothy A. Dabney,
Georgetown District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 06-8557 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M