Sierra National Forest; California; Kings River Project, 10741-10742 [E8-3772]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Notices Number of Responses per Respondent: 2.53. Total Number of Annual Responses: 1,404,718. Estimated Time per Response: 0.09. Estimated Total Annual Burden: 135,393. Dated: February 22, 2008. Roberto Salazar, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. [FR Doc. E8–3750 Filed 2–27–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–30–P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Idaho; Big Bend Ridge Vegetation Management Project and Timber Sale Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Targhee Forest Plan Amendment AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. Cancellation of notice of intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement that was published on May 30, 2007, on page 29948 of the Federal Register. ACTION: SUMMARY: After review of the proposal and public comments on the project the Caribou-Targhee National Forest has decided not to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Big Bend Ridge Vegetation Management Project and Timber Sale and the associated Targhee Forest Plan amendment at this time. The Forest will propose to amend the Targhee Revised Forest Plan under a separate proposal in the near future. Effective cancellation of this project upon the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. DATES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robbin Redman at the Caribou-Targhee National Forest at 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, ID 83401 or via telephone at (208) 557–5821. Dated: February 20, 2008. Larry Timchak, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 08–862 Filed 2–27–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–11–M rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Sierra National Forest; California; Kings River Project AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:23 Feb 27, 2008 Jkt 214001 Notice of intent to prepare a supplement to the Kings River Environmental Impact Statement. ACTION: SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare a supplement to the 2006 Kings River Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The supplement will be focused on new information and clarification, particularly related to Pacific fisher; a new multi-forest Land Management Plan Amendment regarding management indicator species; applicable suggestions in a new paper titled An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Southern Sierra MixedConifer Forests by North, M., P. Stine, K. O’Hara, W. Zielinski and S. Stephens; and collaboration that may result in a change in the timing, description, and location of activities within the project area. DATES: Scoping is not required for supplements to environmental impact statements (40 CFR 1502.9(c)4(4)). The draft supplement to the FEIS is expected to be issued in April 2008 and the final supplement to the FEIS is expected in July 2008. Comments on the draft supplement to the FEIS must be received by 45 days after publication. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Ray Porter, District Ranger, High Sierra Ranger District, PO Box 559, Prather, CA 93651, Attn: Kings River Project Supplement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross Peckinpah, Kings River Project Coordinator, at the High Sierra Ranger District. Telephone number is (559) 855–5355 x3350. Information regarding the Kings River Project can be found on the Sierra National Forest Web site located at: https://www.fs.fed.us/sierra/ projects/. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Kings River planning area encompasses approximately 131,500 acres of public lands in two watersheds of the Kings River drainage. The northern edge of the project is located about two miles southeast of Shaver Lake, CA. One hundred years of fire suppression in the Sierra Nevada has resulted in forests full of dead wood and thickly clustered trees. This situation, plus continued urbanization of lands adjacent to national forest lands, has put the forests and homes at risk of catastrophic fire. A FEIS was released in October of 2006 addressing the situation in the Kings River Project area that applied an uneven aged silvicultural system and prescribed fire upon eight PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 10741 units totaling 13,700 acres. On December 20, 2006 the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Kings River Project was signed. The decision was appealed and upheld by the Regional Forester. In May of 2007 a lawsuit was filed against the Forest Service that alleged the analysis conducted for the Kings River Project FEIS and ROD was inadequate. Since that time additional information has developed to help analyze effects of restoration projects on sensitive wildlife species like Pacific fisher. A new multi-forest Land Management Plan Amendment has also been issued regarding management indicator species. A new paper suggesting An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Southern Sierra MixedConifer Forests by North, M., P. Stine, K. O’Hara, W. Zielinski and S. Stephens is about to be peer reviewed and published. Collaborative efforts with those who opposed this project and/or new information could change the timing, description, and location of activities within the project area that would require supplementing the FEIS and publishing a new ROD. As a result of this, the December 20, 2006 ROD was withdrawn. Purpose and Need for Action This supplement is focused on new information and clarification, particularly related to Pacific fisher; a new multi-forest Land Management Plan Amendment regarding management indicator species; applicable suggestions in a new paper titled An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Southern Sierra MixedConifer Forests by North, M., P. Stine, K. O’Hara, W. Zielinski and S. Stephens; and ongoing collaboration so the purpose and need for action remain the same as was described in the 2007 Kings River Project FEIS. ‘‘The underlying need for the proposed action is to restore historical pre-1850 forest conditions across a large landscape’’ (Kings River Project FEIS pg. 1–4). Proposed Action The proposed action and all alternatives are expected to remain the same as was described in the 2007 Kings River Project FEIS. Three alternatives were analyzed in the FEIS to address the Purpose and Need: (1) The Proposed Action—including commercial tree harvest & thinning, underburning, reforestation, plantation maintenance, fuels treatments, watershed restoration projects, and herbicide treatments to plantations and noxious weeds, (2) No Action and (3) Reduction in Harvest Tree Size—limiting the vegetation treatments to trees 30″ diameter and E:\FR\FM\28FEN1.SGM 28FEN1 10742 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2008 / Notices smaller; treatment of understocked areas associated with existing openings by site prep, planting and release. The alternatives and proposed action will be informed by the new information and could result in their modification. Responsible Official Ed Cole, Forest Supervisor, Sierra National Forest, 1600 Tollhouse Ave., Clovis, CA 93612. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 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 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 supplement and will be available for public inspection. 18:23 Feb 27, 2008 Jkt 214001 Dated: February 22, 2008. Edward C. Cole, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E8–3772 Filed 2–27–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–01–P Commenting and Review A draft supplement to the Kings River Project Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register. The paragraphs that follow are standards that apply all EIS related actions including a supplement to a FEIS. VerDate Aug<31>2005 (Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting Springer at yspringer@bis.doc.gov no later than March 6, 2008. The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 21, 2008, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the disclosure of portion of the meeting dealing with matters the disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of an agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public. For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813. The Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (MPETAC) will meet on March 13, 2008, 9 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials processing equipment and related technology. Dated: February 25, 2008. Teresa Telesco, Acting Committee Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E8–3814 Filed 2–27–08; 8:45 am] Agenda Bureau of Industry and Security Public Session Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Open Meeting 1. Opening Remarks and Introductions. 2. Presentation of Papers and Comments by the Public. 3. Report of 2008 Proposals. 4. Report on proposed changes to the Export Administration Regulations. 5. Other Business. Closed Session 6. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The open session will be available to the public and a limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Yvette Springer at yspringer@bis.doc.gov. The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 BILLING CODE 3510–JT–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (MPETAC) will meet on March 13, 2008 at 9 a.m. in Room 3884 of the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials processing equipment and related technology. Agenda 1. Opening Remarks and Introductions. 2. Presentation of Papers and Comments by the Public. 3. Review of 2008 Proposals. 4. Report on proposed changes to the Export Administration Regulation. The meeting will be open to the public and a limited number of seats will be available. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the E:\FR\FM\28FEN1.SGM 28FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10741-10742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-3772]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Sierra National Forest; California; Kings River Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a supplement to the Kings River 
Environmental Impact Statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare a supplement to the 2006 Kings 
River Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The 
supplement will be focused on new information and clarification, 
particularly related to Pacific fisher; a new multi-forest Land 
Management Plan Amendment regarding management indicator species; 
applicable suggestions in a new paper titled An Ecosystem Management 
Strategy for Southern Sierra Mixed-Conifer Forests by North, M., P. 
Stine, K. O'Hara, W. Zielinski and S. Stephens; and collaboration that 
may result in a change in the timing, description, and location of 
activities within the project area.

DATES: Scoping is not required for supplements to environmental impact 
statements (40 CFR 1502.9(c)4(4)). The draft supplement to the FEIS is 
expected to be issued in April 2008 and the final supplement to the 
FEIS is expected in July 2008. Comments on the draft supplement to the 
FEIS must be received by 45 days after publication.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Ray Porter, District Ranger, High 
Sierra Ranger District, PO Box 559, Prather, CA 93651, Attn: Kings 
River Project Supplement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross Peckinpah, Kings River Project 
Coordinator, at the High Sierra Ranger District. Telephone number is 
(559) 855-5355 x3350. Information regarding the Kings River Project can 
be found on the Sierra National Forest Web site located at: https://
www.fs.fed.us/sierra/projects/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The Kings River planning area encompasses approximately 131,500 
acres of public lands in two watersheds of the Kings River drainage. 
The northern edge of the project is located about two miles southeast 
of Shaver Lake, CA.
    One hundred years of fire suppression in the Sierra Nevada has 
resulted in forests full of dead wood and thickly clustered trees. This 
situation, plus continued urbanization of lands adjacent to national 
forest lands, has put the forests and homes at risk of catastrophic 
fire. A FEIS was released in October of 2006 addressing the situation 
in the Kings River Project area that applied an uneven aged 
silvicultural system and prescribed fire upon eight units totaling 
13,700 acres. On December 20, 2006 the Record of Decision (ROD) for the 
Kings River Project was signed. The decision was appealed and upheld by 
the Regional Forester. In May of 2007 a lawsuit was filed against the 
Forest Service that alleged the analysis conducted for the Kings River 
Project FEIS and ROD was inadequate. Since that time additional 
information has developed to help analyze effects of restoration 
projects on sensitive wildlife species like Pacific fisher. A new 
multi-forest Land Management Plan Amendment has also been issued 
regarding management indicator species. A new paper suggesting An 
Ecosystem Management Strategy for Southern Sierra Mixed-Conifer Forests 
by North, M., P. Stine, K. O'Hara, W. Zielinski and S. Stephens is 
about to be peer reviewed and published. Collaborative efforts with 
those who opposed this project and/or new information could change the 
timing, description, and location of activities within the project area 
that would require supplementing the FEIS and publishing a new ROD. As 
a result of this, the December 20, 2006 ROD was withdrawn.

Purpose and Need for Action

    This supplement is focused on new information and clarification, 
particularly related to Pacific fisher; a new multi-forest Land 
Management Plan Amendment regarding management indicator species; 
applicable suggestions in a new paper titled An Ecosystem Management 
Strategy for Southern Sierra Mixed-Conifer Forests by North, M., P. 
Stine, K. O'Hara, W. Zielinski and S. Stephens; and ongoing 
collaboration so the purpose and need for action remain the same as was 
described in the 2007 Kings River Project FEIS. ``The underlying need 
for the proposed action is to restore historical pre-1850 forest 
conditions across a large landscape'' (Kings River Project FEIS pg. 1-
4).

Proposed Action

    The proposed action and all alternatives are expected to remain the 
same as was described in the 2007 Kings River Project FEIS. Three 
alternatives were analyzed in the FEIS to address the Purpose and Need: 
(1) The Proposed Action--including commercial tree harvest & thinning, 
underburning, reforestation, plantation maintenance, fuels treatments, 
watershed restoration projects, and herbicide treatments to plantations 
and noxious weeds, (2) No Action and (3) Reduction in Harvest Tree 
Size--limiting the vegetation treatments to trees 30'' diameter and

[[Page 10742]]

smaller; treatment of understocked areas associated with existing 
openings by site prep, planting and release. The alternatives and 
proposed action will be informed by the new information and could 
result in their modification.

Responsible Official

    Ed Cole, Forest Supervisor, Sierra National Forest, 1600 Tollhouse 
Ave., Clovis, CA 93612.

Commenting and Review

    A draft supplement to the Kings River Project Environmental Impact 
Statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period will be 45 
days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the 
notice of availability in the Federal Register. The paragraphs that 
follow are standards that apply all EIS related actions including a 
supplement to a FEIS.

    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 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 
supplement and will be available for public inspection.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 
1909.15, Section 21)

    Dated: February 22, 2008.
Edward C. Cole,
Forest Supervisor.
 [FR Doc. E8-3772 Filed 2-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.