Plumas National Forest; California; Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery and Restoration Project, 29735-29736 [E8-11222]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 100 / Thursday, May 22, 2008 / Notices
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Rural Utilities Service
Title: RUS Form 87, Request for Mail
List Data.
OMB Control Number: 0572–0051.
Summary of Collection: The Rural
Utilities Service (RUS) is a credit agency
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The agency makes loans (direct and
guaranteed) to finance electric and
telecommunications facilities in rural
areas in accordance with the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936, 7 U.S.C. 901
as amended, (ReAct). RUS Electric
Program provides support to the vast
rural American electric infrastructure.
RUS’ Telecommunications Program
makes loans to furnish and improve
telephone services and other
telecommunications purposes in rural
areas.
Need and Use of the Information:
RUS will collect information using RUS
Form 87, Request for Mail List Data. The
information is used for the RUS Electric
and Telephone programs to obtain the
name and addresses of the borrowers’
officers/board of directors and corporate
officials, who are authorized to sign
official documents. RUS uses the
information to assure that (1) accurate,
current, and verifiable information is
available; (2) correspondence with
borrowers is properly directed; and (3)
the appropriate officials have signed the
official documents submitted.
Description of Respondents: Not-forprofit institutions; Business or other forprofit.
Number of Respondents: 1,182.
Frequency of Responses: Reporting:
On occasion.
Total Burden Hours: 296.
Charlene Parker,
Departmental Information Collection
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–11481 Filed 5–21–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plumas National Forest; California;
Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery
and Restoration Project
Forest Service, USDA.
Revised notice of intent to
prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
AGENCY:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
ACTION:
Introduction: A notice of intent to
prepare an EIS for the Moonlight Fire
Recovery and Restoration Project was
published in the Federal Register on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:03 May 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
Monday, January 7, 2008 (Vol. 73, No.4,
pp. 1201–1202). After scoping the
Moonlight Fire and Wheeler Fire
Recovery and Restoration Projects
separately in December 2007, the Forest
Service, Plumas National Forest, has
merged the two projects together. In
December 2007, the Mt. Hough Ranger
District of the Plumas National Forest
began the process to determine the
scope (the depth and breadth) of the
environmental analysis. At that time, it
was anticipated that the Moonlight Fire
Recovery and Restoration Project
analysis would be documented in an
EIS and the Wheeler Fire Recovery and
Restoration Project analysis would be
documented in an Environmental
Assessment. From comments received it
was determined to document the
analysis for both projects in one EIS.
The new project name is Moonlight and
Wheeler Fires Recovery and Restoration
Project.
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service,
Plumas National Forest will prepare an
EIS on a proposal to harvest dead trees
on approximately 15,568 acres in the
Moonlight and Antelope Complex fires
areas. The Moonlight and Antelope
Complex fires burned about 88,000
acres between July and September 2007
on the Plumas National Forest.
DATES: The draft EIS is expected in June
2008 and the final EIS is expected in
September 2008.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
Rich Bednarski, Interdisciplinary Team
Leader, Mt. Hough Ranger District,
39696 Highway 70, Quincy, CA 95971.
Comments may be: (1) Mailed; (2) hand
delivered between the hours of 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. weekdays Pacific Time; (3)
faxed to (530) 283–1821; or (4)
electronically mailed to: commentspacificsouthwest-plumasmthough@fs.fed.us. Please indicate the
name ‘‘Moonlight and Wheeler Fires
Recovery and Restoration Project’’ on
the subject line of your email.
Comments submitted electronically
must be in Rich Text Format (.rtf), plain
text format (.txt), or Word format (.doc).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich
Bednarski, Interdisciplinary Team
Leader, Mt. Hough Ranger District,
39696 Highway 70, Quincy, CA 95971.
Telephone: (530) 283–7641 or electronic
address: rbednarski@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
proposed action is designed to meet the
standards and guidelines for land
management activities in the Plumas
National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan (1988), as amended
by the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library
Group (HFQLG) Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29735
(FSEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD)
(1999, 2003), and as amended by the
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment
FSEIS and ROD (2004).
The proposed project is located in
Plumas County, California, within the
Mt. Hough Ranger District of the Plumas
National Forest. The project is located
in all or portions of: sections 13, 23–27,
34–35, T28N, R1OE; sections 13–14, 17–
19, 23–24, 29–34, T28N, R11E; sections
19–20, 29–32, T28N, R12E; sections 1–
2, 13–14, 23–25, T27N, R1OE; sections
2–11, 13–15, 17, 19–22, 25, 35–36,
T27N, R11E; sections 5, 8, 17–20, 29–32,
T27N, R12E; sections 1–5, 9–12, 14–16,
21–23, and 26–27, T26N, R12E; sections
23–29 and 31–36, T27N, R12E; and
sections 19, 20, and 30, T27N, R13E;
Mount Diablo Meridian.
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the project would be
to provide for short-term local economic
benefit by creating jobs from the sale of
dead merchantable trees, as well as
contribute to local and regional areas
with net revenues and receipts. The
project would promote long term
economic recovery through restoration
by re-establishing forested conditions.
The wood quality, volume, and value of
dead trees deteriorate rapidly. The value
of trees would cover the cost of their
removal and possibly other activities
associated with the project.
As a result of the Moonlight and
Antelope Complex fires, thousands of
acres burned with high vegetation burn
severity resulting in deforested
condition. As a result, shrub species
will dominate these areas for decades
and experience a delay in returning to
a forested condition. The early
establishment of conifers through
reforestation will expedite forest
regeneration.
Proposed Action
The proposed action would harvest
dead conifer trees on approximately
15,568 acres using the following
methods: ground based, skyline, and
helicopter. Trees greater than 14 inches
diameter at breast height (dbh) would be
whole tree harvested on the groundbased areas.
Trees less than 14 inches dbh would
be removed as biomass material on the
ground-based areas. Approximately
7,517 acres would have trees less than
14 inches dbh removed as biomass
material and approximately 122 acres
would be removed from site
preparation. Ground-based equipment
would be restricted to slopes less than
35 percent, except on decomposed
granitic soils where equipment would
be restricted to slopes less than 25
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
29736
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 100 / Thursday, May 22, 2008 / Notices
percent. On the skyline and helicopter
areas, trees greater than 16 inches dbh
would be harvested. Limbs and tops in
the skyline and helicopter areas would
be lopped and scattered to a depth less
than 18 inches in height. Skyline
yarding would require one end
suspension, with full suspension over
intermittent or perennial streams. Dead
conifers would be harvested from
Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas.
Equipment restriction zone widths
within Riparian Habitat Conservation
Areas would be established based on the
stream type and steepness of the slope
adjacent to the streams. Snags would be
retained in snag retention areas, which
are approximately ten acres in size, on
approximately ten percent of the project
area. Harvest activities would not occur
within the snag retention areas except
for operability (safety) reasons.
Approximately 33 miles of temporary
roads would be constructed.
Approximately 30 acres (fourteen
landings) of helicopter landings would
be constructed. Excess fuels on landings
would be piled, a fireline constructed
around the piles, and the piles burned.
Following completion of the project, the
temporary roads and landings would be
subsoiled, reforested, and closed.
Approximately 17,474 acres would be
reforested with conifer seedlings in
widely spaced clusters to emulate a
naturally established forest. The areas
would be reforested with a mixture of
native species.
The Moonlight and Antelope
Complex fires impacted twenty-five
California spotted owl Protected
Activity Centers (PACs). According to
the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan
Amendment FSEIS and ROD (2004),
page 37, after a stand-replacing event,
the habitat conditions are evaluated
within a 1.5 mile radius around the
activity center to identify opportunities
for re-mapping the PAC. If there is
insufficient suitable habitat for
designating a PAC within the 1.5 mile
radius, the PAC may be removed from
the network.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Possible Alternatives
In addition to the proposed action, a
no action alternative would be analyzed.
Additional alternatives may be
developed and analyzed throughout the
environmental analysis.
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
The USDA, Forest Service is the lead
agency for this proposal.
Responsible Official
Alice B. Carlton, Plumas National
Forest Supervisor, PO Box 11500,
Quincy, CA 95971.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:03 May 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The decision to be made is whether
to: (1) Implement the proposed action;
(2) meet the purpose and need for action
through some other combination of
activities; or, (3) take no action at this
time.
concerns on the proposed action,
comments on the draft EIS 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 EIS 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.
Scoping Process
Scoping is conducted to determine
the significant issues that will be
addressed during the environmental
analysis. Comments that were received
for the Moonlight Fire Recovery and
Restoration Project and the Wheeler Fire
Recovery and Restoration Project will be
considered in the combined analysis.
Additional comments on the Moonlight
and Wheeler Fires Recovery and
Restoration Project will also be
considered. Scoping comments will be
most helpful if received by May 23,
2008.
Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22;
Forest Service Handbook 1909,15, Section
21.
Permits or Licenses Required
An Air Pollution Permit and a Smoke
Management Plan are required by local
agencies.
Dated: May 13, 2008.
Mark Beaulieu,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E8–11222 Filed 5–21–08; 8:45 am]
Early Notice of Importance of Public
Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review
A draft EIS will be prepared for
comment. The comment period on the
draft EIS 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 EISs 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 EIS stage, but that are
not raised until after completion of the
final EIS, may be waived or dismissed
by the courts. City of Rangoon 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 EIS.
To assist the Forest Service in
identifying and considering issues and
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–821–801)
Solid Urea from the Russian
Federation: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty New–Shipper
Review and Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 26, 2007, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of a new–shipper review of the
antidumping duty order on solid urea
from the Russian Federation. The solid
urea subject to this review was
produced and exported by MCC
EuroChem (EuroChem). The period of
review (POR) is July 1, 2006, through
December 31, 2006. Based on our
analysis of comments received, we have
not made any changes to our calculation
of EuroChem’s antidumping–duty
margin. Therefore, our final results are
identical to our published preliminary
results. The final results are listed below
in the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of
the New–Shipper Review’’.
Furthermore, we are rescinding the
concurrent administrative review of the
antidumping duty order because it
covers the same entry that we reviewed
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 100 (Thursday, May 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29735-29736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11222]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plumas National Forest; California; Moonlight and Wheeler Fires
Recovery and Restoration Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Revised notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction: A notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the
Moonlight Fire Recovery and Restoration Project was published in the
Federal Register on Monday, January 7, 2008 (Vol. 73, No.4, pp. 1201-
1202). After scoping the Moonlight Fire and Wheeler Fire Recovery and
Restoration Projects separately in December 2007, the Forest Service,
Plumas National Forest, has merged the two projects together. In
December 2007, the Mt. Hough Ranger District of the Plumas National
Forest began the process to determine the scope (the depth and breadth)
of the environmental analysis. At that time, it was anticipated that
the Moonlight Fire Recovery and Restoration Project analysis would be
documented in an EIS and the Wheeler Fire Recovery and Restoration
Project analysis would be documented in an Environmental Assessment.
From comments received it was determined to document the analysis for
both projects in one EIS. The new project name is Moonlight and Wheeler
Fires Recovery and Restoration Project.
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, Plumas National Forest will prepare
an EIS on a proposal to harvest dead trees on approximately 15,568
acres in the Moonlight and Antelope Complex fires areas. The Moonlight
and Antelope Complex fires burned about 88,000 acres between July and
September 2007 on the Plumas National Forest.
DATES: The draft EIS is expected in June 2008 and the final EIS is
expected in September 2008.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Rich Bednarski, Interdisciplinary
Team Leader, Mt. Hough Ranger District, 39696 Highway 70, Quincy, CA
95971. Comments may be: (1) Mailed; (2) hand delivered between the
hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. weekdays Pacific Time; (3) faxed to (530)
283-1821; or (4) electronically mailed to: comments-pacificsouthwest-
plumas-mthough@fs.fed.us. Please indicate the name ``Moonlight and
Wheeler Fires Recovery and Restoration Project'' on the subject line of
your email. Comments submitted electronically must be in Rich Text
Format (.rtf), plain text format (.txt), or Word format (.doc).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich Bednarski, Interdisciplinary Team
Leader, Mt. Hough Ranger District, 39696 Highway 70, Quincy, CA 95971.
Telephone: (530) 283-7641 or electronic address: rbednarski@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action is designed to meet the
standards and guidelines for land management activities in the Plumas
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1988), as amended by
the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD)
(1999, 2003), and as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment
FSEIS and ROD (2004).
The proposed project is located in Plumas County, California,
within the Mt. Hough Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest. The
project is located in all or portions of: sections 13, 23-27, 34-35,
T28N, R1OE; sections 13-14, 17-19, 23-24, 29-34, T28N, R11E; sections
19-20, 29-32, T28N, R12E; sections 1-2, 13-14, 23-25, T27N, R1OE;
sections 2-11, 13-15, 17, 19-22, 25, 35-36, T27N, R11E; sections 5, 8,
17-20, 29-32, T27N, R12E; sections 1-5, 9-12, 14-16, 21-23, and 26-27,
T26N, R12E; sections 23-29 and 31-36, T27N, R12E; and sections 19, 20,
and 30, T27N, R13E; Mount Diablo Meridian.
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the project would be to provide for short-term local
economic benefit by creating jobs from the sale of dead merchantable
trees, as well as contribute to local and regional areas with net
revenues and receipts. The project would promote long term economic
recovery through restoration by re-establishing forested conditions.
The wood quality, volume, and value of dead trees deteriorate rapidly.
The value of trees would cover the cost of their removal and possibly
other activities associated with the project.
As a result of the Moonlight and Antelope Complex fires, thousands
of acres burned with high vegetation burn severity resulting in
deforested condition. As a result, shrub species will dominate these
areas for decades and experience a delay in returning to a forested
condition. The early establishment of conifers through reforestation
will expedite forest regeneration.
Proposed Action
The proposed action would harvest dead conifer trees on
approximately 15,568 acres using the following methods: ground based,
skyline, and helicopter. Trees greater than 14 inches diameter at
breast height (dbh) would be whole tree harvested on the ground-based
areas.
Trees less than 14 inches dbh would be removed as biomass material
on the ground-based areas. Approximately 7,517 acres would have trees
less than 14 inches dbh removed as biomass material and approximately
122 acres would be removed from site preparation. Ground-based
equipment would be restricted to slopes less than 35 percent, except on
decomposed granitic soils where equipment would be restricted to slopes
less than 25
[[Page 29736]]
percent. On the skyline and helicopter areas, trees greater than 16
inches dbh would be harvested. Limbs and tops in the skyline and
helicopter areas would be lopped and scattered to a depth less than 18
inches in height. Skyline yarding would require one end suspension,
with full suspension over intermittent or perennial streams. Dead
conifers would be harvested from Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas.
Equipment restriction zone widths within Riparian Habitat Conservation
Areas would be established based on the stream type and steepness of
the slope adjacent to the streams. Snags would be retained in snag
retention areas, which are approximately ten acres in size, on
approximately ten percent of the project area. Harvest activities would
not occur within the snag retention areas except for operability
(safety) reasons. Approximately 33 miles of temporary roads would be
constructed.
Approximately 30 acres (fourteen landings) of helicopter landings
would be constructed. Excess fuels on landings would be piled, a
fireline constructed around the piles, and the piles burned. Following
completion of the project, the temporary roads and landings would be
subsoiled, reforested, and closed. Approximately 17,474 acres would be
reforested with conifer seedlings in widely spaced clusters to emulate
a naturally established forest. The areas would be reforested with a
mixture of native species.
The Moonlight and Antelope Complex fires impacted twenty-five
California spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs). According to
the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment FSEIS and ROD (2004), page 37,
after a stand-replacing event, the habitat conditions are evaluated
within a 1.5 mile radius around the activity center to identify
opportunities for re-mapping the PAC. If there is insufficient suitable
habitat for designating a PAC within the 1.5 mile radius, the PAC may
be removed from the network.
Possible Alternatives
In addition to the proposed action, a no action alternative would
be analyzed. Additional alternatives may be developed and analyzed
throughout the environmental analysis.
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
The USDA, Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal.
Responsible Official
Alice B. Carlton, Plumas National Forest Supervisor, PO Box 11500,
Quincy, CA 95971.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The decision to be made is whether to: (1) Implement the proposed
action; (2) meet the purpose and need for action through some other
combination of activities; or, (3) take no action at this time.
Scoping Process
Scoping is conducted to determine the significant issues that will
be addressed during the environmental analysis. Comments that were
received for the Moonlight Fire Recovery and Restoration Project and
the Wheeler Fire Recovery and Restoration Project will be considered in
the combined analysis. Additional comments on the Moonlight and Wheeler
Fires Recovery and Restoration Project will also be considered. Scoping
comments will be most helpful if received by May 23, 2008.
Permits or Licenses Required
An Air Pollution Permit and a Smoke Management Plan are required by
local agencies.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review
A draft EIS will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the
draft EIS 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 EISs 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 EIS stage, but that are not raised
until after completion of the final EIS, may be waived or dismissed by
the courts. City of Rangoon 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 EIS.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS 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 EIS 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: May 13, 2008.
Mark Beaulieu,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E8-11222 Filed 5-21-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M