64022 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2004 / Notices 

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 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. 

Comments submitted anonymously will 

be accepted and considered; however, 

those who submit anonymous 

comments will not have standing to 

appeal the subsequent decision under 

36 CFR part 215. Additionally, pursuant 

to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may 

request the agency to withhold a 

submission from the public record by 

showing how the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) permits such 

confidentiality. 

Persons requesting such 

confidentiality should be aware that, 

under the FOIA, confidentiality may be 

granted in only very limited 

circumstances, such as to protect trade 

secrets. The Forest Service will inform 

the requester of the agency’s decision 

regarding the request for confidentiality, 

and if the request is denied, the agency 

will return the submission and notify 

the requester that the comments may be 

resubmitted with or without name and 

address within a specified number of 

days.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 

21.)

Dated: October 28, 2004. 

Joseph P. Stringer, 

Deputy Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 04–24510 Filed 11–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

Noxious Weed Project; Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest, Box Elder, Cache, 

Davis, Duchesne, Morgan, Rich, Salt 

lake, Summit, Tooele, Wasatch, Weber 

Counties, Utah and Uinta County, WY

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: The Forest Supervisor of the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest (WCNF) 

gives notice of the agency’s intent to 

prepare an environmental impact 

statement on a proposal to eradicate 

(elimination), control (reducing the 

population over time), and contain 

(preventing the population from 

spreading) known infestations and 

future potential invasions of noxious 

weed populations on the Forest.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be received in 

writing by November 23, 2004. A draft 

environmental impact statement is 

expected to be published in April 2006, 

with public comment on the draft 

material requested for a period of 45 

days, and completion of a final 

environmental impact statement is 

expected in October, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to. 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 8236 

Federal Building, 125 S. State St., Salt 

Lake City, Utach 84138, ATTN: Noxious 

Weeds.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Duncan, Team Leader, (801) 236–

3415.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The purpose of this proposal is to 

move forward in achieving the desired 

conditions, goals, and objectives of the 

2003 Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Revised Forest Plan. Specifically the 

purpose of this proposal is to eliminate 

new invaders (weed species not 

previously reported in an area) before 

they become established, prevent or 

limit the spread of established weeds 

into areas containing little or no 

infestation while meeting multiple use 

objectives, and contain and reduce 

known and potential weed seed sources 

throughout the WCNF. 

The need for this proposal is evident 

by reviewing maps of known 

infestations of noxious weeds within the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The 

number of infestations and species is 

growing yearly. Results of uncontrolled 

weed spread are well documented. 

Without treatment, weeds increase 

about 14% a year under national 

conditions. The spread of weeds can 

primarily be attributed to human 

activities associated with vehicles and 

roads, trails, contaminated livestock 

feed, contaminated seed, and ineffective 

revegetation practices on disturbed 

lands. Wind, water, birds, wildlife, and 

livestock also contribute to week spread. 

According to the recent scientific 

assessment of the Interior Columbia 

River Basin, invading weeds can alter 

ecosystem processes, including 

productivity, decomposition, hydrology, 

nutrient cycling, and natural 

disturbance patterns such as frequency 

and intensity of wild fires. Changing 

these processes can lead to 

displacement of native plant species, 

eventually impacting wildlife and plant 

habitat, recreational opportunities, 

natural hydrologic processes, and scenic 

beauty.

Proposed Action 

A number of steps would be followed 

under this Proposed Action to 

determine and implement the most 

appropriate treatment method for each 

weed infestation site. They include the 

following: detection of the weed, 

prioritization of the site for weed 

treatment, determination if sensitive 

environmental receptors are present, 

determination of the appropriate 

treatment method for the weed, and 

monitoring the treatment/restoration 

site to determine if follow-up or 

alternative treatment is warranted. 

The following priorities will be 

followed for treating sites. Priority I—

Potential or New Invaders: Noxious 

weeds that are known from only a few, 

small sites (less than about 10) on the 

Forest would be highest priority for 

treatment. These are species for whom 

eradication is most likely, and whose 

elimination is likely to be most costeffective in the long term. Priority II—

Satellite Infestations: Small, satellite 

infestations, particularly on the edges of 

the local range of a noxious weed 

species, would be next highest priority 

for treatment. Treating these satellite 

infestations is likely to be most effective 

in halting the spread of noxious weeds 

into weed-free areas. Priority III—

Established Infestations: Relatively large 

established populations are managed by 

a containment strategy. Treatment 

efforts may focus on working in from 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2004 / Notices 64023

the edges, or treating specific areas 

identified as a particular seed/plant 

spreading source (ex: trailhead). 

Treatment practices available for use 

in eradicating, controlling, and/or 

containing noxious, invasive, and nonnative weeds include mechanical, 

biological, controlled grazing, chemical 

(aerial and ground-based), and 

combinations of these treatments. 

Selection of the most appropriate 

treatment practice depends on 

numerous factors, including the risk of 

weed expansion, weed species biology, 

time of year, environmental setting, soil 

type, and management objective. 

Responsible Official 

The Responsible Official is Thomas L. 

Tidwell, Forest Supervisor, WasatchCache National Forest, 8236 Federal 

Building, 125 South State Street, Salt 

Lake City, UT 84138. 

Nature of Decision to Be Made 

The decision to be made is whether or 

not to treat noxious weeds, and if so, 

determining the priority for treating 

populations and the appropriate 

treatment option for different weed 

species. 

Scoping Process 

The Forest Service invites comments 

and suggestions on the scope of the 

analysis to be included in the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 

In addition, the Forest Service gives 

notice that it is beginning a full 

environmental analysis and decisionmaking process for this proposal so that 

interested or affected people may know 

how they can participate in the 

environmental analysis and contribute 

to the final decision. This notice of 

intent initiates the scoping process 

which guides the development of the 

environmental impact statement. The 

Forest Service welcomes any public 

comments on the proposal.

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 

environment impact statement will be 

45 days from the date the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

notice of availability appears in the 

Federal Register. It is very important 

that those interested in this proposed 

action participate at that time. To be the 

most helpful, comments on the draft 

environmental impact statement should 

be as specific as possible and may 

address the adequacy of the statement or 

the merits of the alternatives discussed. 

The Forest Service believes it is 

important to give reviewers notice at 

this early stage 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, 533 (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, Inv. 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 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: October 27, 2004. 

Faye L. Krueger, 

Deputy Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 04–24507 Filed 11–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Notice of Resource Advisory 

Committee, Sundance, Wyoming, USDA 

Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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 Black Hills National Forests’

Crook County Resource Advisory 

Committee will meet Monday, 

November 15, 2004 in Sundance, 

Wyoming for a business meeting. The 

meeting is open to the public.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

business meeting on November 15, 

begins at 6:30 p.m., at the USFS 

Bearlodge Ranger District office, 121 

South 21st Street, Sundance, Wyoming. 

Agenda topics will include a review of 

previously presented project proposals, 

a presentation of any new project 

proposals and updates on previously 

funded projects. A public forum will 

begin at 8:30 p.m. (MT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Kozel, Bearlodge District Ranger 

and Designated Federal Officer at (307) 

283–1361.

Dated: October 26, 2004. 

Steve Kozel, 

District Ranger, Bearlodge Ranger District.

[FR Doc. 04–24509 Filed 11–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

DOC has submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

clearance the following proposal for 

collection of information under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). 

Agency: U.S. Census Bureau. 

Title: Youth Volunteering & Civic 

Engagement Survey. 

Form Number(s): YVCES–1L. 

Agency Approval Number: None. 

Type of Request: New collection. 

Burden: 2,090 hours. 

Number of Respondents: 3,300. 

Avg Hours Per Response: 38 minutes. 

Needs and Uses: Volunteerism is a 

vital aspect of American society that 

helps to sustain the values that frame 

American life and strengthen 

democracy. During his 2002 State of the