76686 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2004 / Notices 

FY 2005 OVERALL BEET/CANE ALLOTMENTS AND ALLOCATIONS—Continued

Initial FY 2005 

allocations 

Reassignment 

of Puerto 

Rican allotment 

Beginning FY 

2005 allotments/allocations 

Growers Co-op. of FL ................................................................................................... 326,082 615 326,697 

Okeelanta Corp. ............................................................................................................ 383,847 723 384,570 

Osceola Farms Co. ....................................................................................................... 210,300 396 210,697 

U.S. Sugar Corp. ........................................................................................................... 740,295 1,395 741,690 

TOTAL .................................................................................................................... 1,812,722 3,416 1,816,139 

Louisiana:.

Alma Plantation ............................................................................................................. 76,478 144 76,622 

Cajun Sugar Co-op. ...................................................................................................... 106,225 200 106,426 

Cora-Texas Mfg. Co. ..................................................................................................... 130,258 245 130,504 

Harry Laws & Co. .......................................................................................................... 57,006 107 57,113 

Iberia Sugar Co-op. ....................................................................................................... 67,712 128 67,839 

Jeanerette Sugar Co. .................................................................................................... 64,078 121 64,199 

Lafourche Sugars Corp. ................................................................................................ 76,381 144 76,525 

Louisiana Sugarcane Co-op. ......................................................................................... 87,247 164 87,411 

Lula Westfield, LLC ....................................................................................................... 165,601 312 165,913 

M.A. Patout & Sons ....................................................................................................... 368,356 694 369,051 

St. Mary Sugar Co-op. .................................................................................................. 92,814 175 92,989 

So. Louisiana Sugars Co-op. ........................................................................................ 110,189 208 110,396 

TOTAL .................................................................................................................... 1,402,345 2,643 1,404,987 

Texas:.

Rio Grande Valley ......................................................................................................... 157,583 297 157,880 

Hawaii:.

Gay & Robinson, Inc. .................................................................................................... 73,145 0 73,145 

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company .................................................................... 245,499 0 245,499 

TOTAL .................................................................................................................... 318,644 0 318,644 

Puerto Rico:.

Agraso ........................................................................................................................... 4,076 ¥4,076 0 

Roig ............................................................................................................................... 2,280 ¥2,280 0 

TOTAL .................................................................................................................... 6,356 ¥6,356 0 

Signed in Washington, DC on December 3, 

2004. 

James R. Little, 

Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit 

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 04–27966 Filed 12–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

Power Fire Restoration; Eldorado 

National Forest, Amador County, CA

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: In October of 2004, the Power 

Fire burned approximately 16,993 acres 

on the Eldorado National Forest and on 

private timberlands. The project area for 

this analysis is the approximately 

13,611 acre portion of the Power Fire on 

National Forest lands within the 

Amador Ranger District administrative 

boundary. The USDA, Forest Service, 

Eldorado National Forest will prepare 

an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) on a proposal to treat 

approximately 7,914 acres of fire killed 

and damaged trees in the Power Fire 

burned area. The land allocations 

within the fire area identified in the 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Supplemental 

EIS are old forest emphasis, threat zone, 

defense zone, protected activity centers 

(PACs) for spotted owls and goshawks, 

spotted owl home range core areas 

(HRCAs), and riparian conservation 

areas (RCAs) adjacent to perennial, 

seasonal and ephemeral streams. A 

portion of the Mokelumne Wilderness 

and the Salt Springs State Game Refuge 

is also within the fire area. The 

Mokelumne River, Bear River, Beaver 

Creek, Cole Creek and Green Creek, 

having outstandingly remarkable 

cultural resource values, are eligible for 

possible inclusion in the National Wild 

and Scenic River system. 

The purpose of the project is to 

reduce long term fuel loading for the 

purpose of reducing future fire severity 

and resistance to control, improve roads 

and establish effective ground cover in 

severely burned areas for the purpose of 

reducing erosion and sedimentation to 

streams in the short term and 

contributing to long term soil 

productivity, recover the volume and 

value of timber killed or severely 

injured by the fire for the purpose of 

generating funds to offset the cost of 

future restoration activities and 

supplying wood fiber to local sawmills, 

and reduce safety hazards to the public 

and forest workers.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

and implementation of this proposal 

should be received by January 7, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Patricia Ferrell, Project Leader, Eldorado 

National Forest, 100 Forni Road, 

Placerville, CA 95667.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions and comments about this EIS 

should be directed to Patricia Ferrell, at 

the above address, or call her at 530–

642–5146.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The fire 

burned with varying intensity. Many 

areas of the fire burned at high and 

moderate intensity, killing 75%–100% 

of the trees and burning the duff and 

litter that protects the soil. In these 

areas, the fire resulted in high rates of 

soil erosion, sedimentation to streams, 

destruction of wildlife habitat for 

sensitive species, and loss of old forest. 

The fire killed ten of thousands of trees 

that if left untreated will contribute to 

extremely high fuel loading over time. 

As these dead trees fall and fuel 

accumulates, future fires will be even 

more severe. Treating the dead and 

dying tree component of the landscape 

is the first step in reducing long term 

fuel loading and restoring the historic 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2004 / Notices 76687

fire regime, thereby reducing the 

impacts of fires on the future forest and 

contributing to the restoration of old 

forest habitats. Without treatment to 

begin to restore the fire area, significant 

additional impacts to soil, water quality, 

cultural resources, and wildlife habitat 

are likely over the short and long term. 

This Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) addresses treating the dead and 

dying tree component of the landscape 

and improving roads to reduce sediment 

delivery to streams. The process of 

removing dead trees would reduce soil 

erosion by immediately increasing 

effective ground cover (limbs, twigs, and 

small holes) and maintain soil 

productivity for tree growth. The 

proposed action would remove dead 

trees using ground based, skyline, and 

helicopter logging methods. Trees 

posing a safety hazard to the public and 

forest workers would be removed along 

maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 roads. 

Roads would be reconstructed and 

improved to facilitate tree removal and 

improve watershed condition. Slash and 

small dead trees would be treated to 

provide ground cover and reduce short 

term fuel loading. Protection would be 

applied to sensitive plants, wildlife 

species, and cultural resources. 

The proposed action is consistent 

with the 1989 Eldorado National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan as 

amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment Record of Decision 

(2004). 

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 remove fire 

killed and damaged trees in the project 

area and undertake road improvements 

and fuel treatments. 

Other alternatives will be developed 

based on significant issues identified 

during the scoping process for the 

environmental impact statement. All 

alternatives will need to respond to the 

specific condition of providing benefits 

equal to or better than the current 

condition. Alternatives being 

considered at this time include: (1) no 

Action and (2) the Proposed Action.

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: 

(a) Identifying potential issues; 

(b) Identifying issues to be analyzed 

in depth. 

(c) Eliminating nonsignificant issues 

or those previously covered by a 

relevant previous environmental 

analysis; 

(d) Exploring additional alternatives; 

(e) Identifying potential 

environmental effects of the proposed 

action and alternatives. 

The draft EIS is expected to be filed 

with the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and to be available for 

public review by March 2005. EPA will 

publish a notice of availability of the 

draft EIS in the Federal Register. The 

comment period on the draft EIS will be 

45 days from the date the EPA notice 

appears in the Federal Register. At that 

time, copies of the draft EIS will be 

distributed to interested and affected 

agencies, organizations, and members of 

the public for their review and 

comment. It is very important that those 

interested in the management of the 

Eldorado National Forest participate at 

that time. 

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 a draft EIS 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 Angoon v. Hodel, 

803f. 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 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 EIS. 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). 

The final EIS is scheduled to be 

completed in June 2005. In the final EIS, 

The Forest Service is required to 

respond to substantive comments 

received during the comment period 

that pertain to the environmental 

consequences discussed in the draft EIS 

and applicable laws, regulations, and 

policies considered in making the 

decision regarding this proposal. 

John D. Berry, Forest Supervisor, 

Eldorado National Forest 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).

Dated: December 15, 2004. 

John D. Berry, 

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 04–27952 Filed 12–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Public Meeting of the Black Hills 

National Forest Advisory Board Date 

Charge

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting date change.

SUMMARY: The Black Hills National 

Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) has 

changed its January meeting date to 

Monday, January 10, 2005 to ensure a 

quorum is present. The agenda includes 

member consideration of the Black Hills 

National Forest 1997 Land and Resource 

Management Plan (LRMP) Phase II 

Amendment Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement so as to make 

recommendations to the forest 

supervisor. The meeting is open, and 

the public may attend any part of the 

meeting.

ADDRESSES: SDSU West River Ag 

Center, 1905 Plaza Boulevard, Rapid 

City, SD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frank Carroll, Black Hills National 

Forest, 25041 North Highway 16, Custer, 

SD 57730, (605) 673–9200.