This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

41366 

Vol. 74, No. 157 

Monday, August 17, 2009 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Plumas National Forest; California; 

Flea Project (Renamed Concow 

Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project) 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Revised notice of intent to 

prepare a draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). 

Introduction: A notice of intent to 

prepare an EIS for the Flea Project, 

designed to fulfill the Herger-Feinstein 

Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery 

Act of 1988, was published in the 

Federal Register on Thursday, August 

30, 2007 (Vol. 72, No. 168, pp. 50096– 

50098). In June, 2008, a series of 

lightning strikes ignited numerous forest 

fires, which over several months 

merged, burning through the central and 

eastern portions of the Flea Project Area. 

This complex of fires, subsequently 

referred to as the Butte Lightning 

Complex, dramatically changed the 

landscape for the long-term. In 

September 2008, the Feather River 

Ranger District, of the Plumas National 

Forest, began the process to determine 

the scope (the depth and breadth) of the 

2008 wildfire disturbance on the 

environment. At that time, the draft Flea 

Project EIS was being prepared. In 

December 2008, after field 

reconnaissance was completed, the 

Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, 

determined to divide the Flea Project 

Area into two individual management 

units and projects. The westerly, 

unburned portion and the fire-damaged, 

central portion of the Flea Project Area, 

located alongside communities in the 

Wildland Urban Interface, to be 

documented in one EIS. A draft EIS will 

be prepared with a revised purpose and 

need; renamed the Concow Hazardous 

Fuels Reduction Project (the ‘‘Concow 

Project’’). The easterly portion of the 

Flea Project Area, affected by 

predominantly low severity wildfire, is 

to be deferred. 

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, 

Plumas National Forest will prepare a 

draft EIS on a proposal to establish, 

develop and maintain an irregularly 

shaped network up to 1⁄2 mile wide 

Defensible Fuels Profile Zones (DFPZs) 

on approximately 1,500 acres of 

National Forest System Land within the 

Wildland Urban Interface. The DFPZs 

would be located both within and west 

of the 2008 Butte Lightning Complex 

Fire perimeter, and are designed to 

improve the capacity of effective, 

traditional approaches to fire 

suppression and fire-fighting readiness, 

consistent with community and private 

land fuel break efforts. The Concow 

Project would establish Defensible Fuels 

Profile Zones to connect existing and 

proposed federal and private land fuel 

breaks, and parallel important 

residential evacuation routes and 

primary fire suppression access routes 

for greater community safety. 

Within the 8,170 acre Concow Project 

Area, the 2008 Butte Lightning Complex 

burned about 6,190 acres. Defensible 

Fuels Profile Zones located west of the 

2008 fire perimeter, in unburned areas, 

would be established and maintained by 

reducing hazardous fuels through a 

combination of silvicultural treatments; 

thinning-from-below and radial release, 

with overlapping mastication, chipping, 

lop and scatter, hand-cutting, handpiling and pile burning and prescribed 

underburning treatments. Defensible 

Fuels Profile Zones located within the 

2008 fire perimeter would be developed 

in burned areas. Initial and maintenance 

treatments in the burned areas include 

the removal of dead and dying trees 

contributing to ladder fuels, with 

overlapping mastication, chipping, lop 

and scatter, hand-cutting, hand-piling 

and pile burning and prescribed 

underburning of surface fuels 

treatments, followed by spot tree 

planting. 

DATES: The draft EJS is expected in 

August 2009. The final EIS is expected 

in October 2009. A decision is expected 

in November 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Carol Spinos, Interdisciplinary Team 

Leader, Feather River Ranger District, 

875 Mitchell Avenue, Oroville, CA 

95965. 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) 532–1210; or (4) 

electronically mailed to: commentspacificsouthwest-plumasfeathervr@fs.fed.us. Please indicate the 

name ‘‘Concow Hazardous Fuels 

Reduction 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: 

Carol Spinos, Interdisciplinary Team 

Leader, Feather River Ranger District, 

875 Mitchell Avenue, Oroville, CA 

95965. Telephone: (530) 534–6500 or 

electronic address: cspinos@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). The HFQLG was 

legislatively extended from 2009 to 

2012, per the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act (HR 2754), as 

amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment FSEIS and ROD 

(2004). In December 2007, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 

(H.R. 2764), stated that the 2003- 

adopted Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

(HFRA: Pub. L. 108–148) applies to 

HFQLG projects. The Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 (16 

U.S.C. at 1611–6591) emphasizes public 

collaboration processes for developing 

and implementing hazardous fuel 

reduction projects on certain types of 

‘‘at-risk’’ National Forest System Land, 

and also provides other authorities and 

direction to help restore healthy forests. 

The proposed project is located in Butte 

County, California, within the Feather 

River Ranger District of the Plumas 

National Forest. The project is located 

in all or portions of: Sections 2, 12, 24, 

T23N, R3E; 6, 18, 30, 32, 34, 36, T23N, 

R4E; 2, 12, 14, 22, T22N, R4E; Mount 

Diablo Meridian. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The purposes of the project are: (1) 

Reduce risk to rural communities from 

high intensity wildfires; (2) establish 

and maintain Defensive Fuel Profile 

Zones, linking federal & private land, to 

further collaborative fire prevention & 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Notices 41367 

suppression efforts to improve the 

capability to control and contain 

wildfire; (3) restore recently firedamaged forests to promote forest health 

and wildlife habitat diversity; and (4) 

contribute to the stability and economic 

health of local communities. The 

presence of overcrowded forests and 

fire-damaged vegetation would sustain 

high intensity fire behavior, in the event 

of ignition. High concentrations of 

forest, woody, standing and ground 

hazardous fuels, particularly adjacent to 

homes, challenge fire suppression 

tactics aimed at controlling and 

containing wildfire. Hazardous fuels 

need to be removed landlords 

rearranged to reduce threats to 

communities at a high risk to 

destructive wildfire. The 2008 wildfire 

disturbance has shifted species 

composition in burned areas, 

simplifying vegetative structure and 

reducing age-class diversity. Post-fire regrowth in oak-dominated ecosystems 

are becoming increasely overcrowded, 

choking migratory routes, for various 

wildlife species. Wildfire also destroyed 

plantations, which are now understocked. The project would reduce tree 

densities in overcrowded forests outside 

the 2008 Butte Lightning Complex Fire 

perimeter, to reduce hazardous ladder 

fuels within 1⁄2 mile of the core 

Wildland Urban Interface. Roadside 

hazard trees that pose a safety hazard to 

the public along access routes would 

also be removed. 

Proposed Action 

In the unburned areas, the proposed 

action would develop DFPZs by 

reducing canopy cover to approximately 

40 to 50 percent in the California 

Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) 

system Size Class 4 stands (trees 11–24 

inches diameter at breast height [dbh]) 

and Size Class 5 stands (greater than 24 

inches dbh), where canopy cover 

presently exceeds that amount. Conifers 

ranging from 9.0 to 29.9 inches dbh 

would be removed as necessary and 

processed as sawlogs. Harvested 

hardwoods less than 6 inches dbh, and 

conifers 3.0 to 8.9 inches dbh are 

considered biomass and would be piled 

and burned or removed from units and 

processed at appropriate facilities. All 

trees 30 inches dbh or larger would be 

retained, unless removal is required for 

operability (e.g., new skid trails, 

landings, or temporary roads). Residual 

spacing of conifers would be a mosaic 

of even and clumpy spacing depending 

on the characteristics of each stand prior 

to implementation. CWHR Size Class 3 

stands (averaging 6–11 inches dbh) and 

plantations would not have any canopy 

cover restrictions and would be thinned 

to residual spacing of approximately 18 

to 22 feet (25 percent), depending on 

average residual tree size and forest 

health conditions, to allow retention of 

the healthiest, largest, and tallest 

conifers and black oaks. Radial thinning 

or release will occur around large 

diameter black oak and the healthiest 

growing sugar pine, or ponderosa pine 

>24 inches in diameter on a per acre 

basis. Radial thinning would correlate to 

tree DBH. All mechanized thinning and 

biomass removal in DFPZ units would 

be conducted with feller buncher 

equipment. Shrubs would be 

masticated, as would trees less than 9 

inches dbh unless needed for proper 

canopy cover and spacing. Hand cutting 

and pile burning would be used to 

reduce fuels in Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and other 

areas where mechanical equipment is 

not allowed. Equipment restriction zone 

widths within RHCAs would range from 

25–150 feet, depending on 

environmental conditions. 

In burned areas, snags would be 

retained in snag retention areas. In 

treatment areas, snag retention will 

average 2–4 snags per acre. Outside of 

fuels reduction areas, comprising over 

60% of the Concow Project Area, all 

snags will be retained. Dead trees with 

commercial value greater than 20 inches 

in diameter in excess of wildlife needs 

will be removed utilizing helicopter 

and/or ground based logging systems. In 

units with limited accessibility, trees up 

to 19.9 inches will be masticated. Dead 

non-merchantable trees 12 to 19.9 

inches will be removed and disposed of 

by chipping, incineration or removal as 

fire wood. Fire-injured trees may be 

removed in order to meet post-fire fuels 

and operational objectives. Shrubs 

would be masticated, as would trees up 

to 12 inches in diameter. Black oak 

stump sprouts will be left untreated at 

an approximate spacing of 18–25 feet, 

with mastication in between. 

Approximately 30 acres would be 

required for landing activities. No new 

road construction would be required. 

About 200 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. In both burned and unburned 

areas, manual cutting of: (1) Shrubs; (2) 

trees 1 to 9 inches dbh; and/or (3) 

thinning aggregations of 1 to 9 inches 

dbh conifers or plantation trees would 

occur. Follow-up DFPZ maintenance 

may occur in year 4 or 5 and 9 or 10 

post initial treatments. 

Possible Alternatives 

In addition to the proposed action, 

two other alternatives would be 

analyzed, a no action alternative 

(alternative A), and an action alternative 

consistent with the 2001 SNFPA ROD 

(alternative C). 

Lead and Cooperating Agencies 

The USDA, Forest Service is the lead 

agency for this proposal. The USDI, 

Bureau of Land Management is a 

cooperating agency for the purpose of 

this EIS. 

Responsible Official 

Karen L. Hayden, Plumas National 

Forest, Feather River District Ranger, 

875 Mitchell Avenue, Oroville CA 

95965. 

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 

during Scoping for the Flea Project will 

be considered in the combined analysis. 

Scoping comments will be most helpful 

if received by September 1, 2009. A 

presentation of the Concow Project is 

scheduled for August 1, 2008 at the 

Community Wildfire Workshop to be 

held at the Yankee Hill Grange located 

at 4122 Big Bend Road, Yankee Hill, 

California 95965. 

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, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

41368 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Notices 

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, 

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 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. 

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: July 8, 2009. 

Karen L. Hayden, 

Feather River District Ranger. 

[FR Doc. E9–19371 Filed 8–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2009–0066] 

Wood Packaging Material Used in 

Domestic Commerce; Pest Mitigation 

Relating to Firewood Movement; 

Public Meetings 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: This is a notice to inform the 

public of four upcoming meetings to 

discuss mitigation measures that could 

be applied to wood packaging material 

(e.g., crates, dunnage, wooden spools, 

pallets, packing blocks) used in 

domestic commerce to decrease the risk 

of the artificial spread of plant pests 

such as the emerald ash borer and the 

Asian longhorned beetle. These and 

other plant pests that could be 

transported interstate by wood 

packaging material pose a serious threat 

to U.S. agriculture and to natural, 

cultivated, and urban forests. We will 

also be holding a meeting in order to 

solicit public comments and ideas 

concerning potential strategies for 

mitigating the risk of artificial spread of 

plant pests via the movement of 

firewood. 

DATES: The meetings concerning wood 

packaging material will be held on 

August 27, 2009, in Washington, DC; on 

September 2, 2009, in Portland, OR; on 

September 15, 2009, in Houston, TX; 

and on September 29, 2009, in Grand 

Rapids, MI. The meetings in each 

location will be held from 9 a.m. to 

noon. Registration will be from 8 a.m. to 

9 a.m. for each meeting. 

The meeting concerning the creation 

of a Federal firewood strategy will be 

held on August 27, 2009, from 1 p.m. to 

4 p.m. in Washington, DC. Registration 

will be from 12 noon to 1 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The public meetings 

regarding wood packaging material and 

the creation of a Federal firewood 

strategy will be held in Washington, DC. 

in the Jefferson Auditorium at the USDA 

South Building, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. The 

remaining meetings regarding wood 

packaging material will be held at the 

following locations: 

• Portland, OR. The Embassy Suites 

Hotel, 319 SW Pine Street, Portland, OR. 

• Houston, TX. The Crowne Plaza 

Houston I–10 West, 14703 Park Row, 

Houston, TX. 

• Grand Rapids, MI. The Amway 

Grand Plaza Hotel, 187 Monroe Avenue, 

NW., Grand Rapids, MI. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Paul Chaloux, National Emerald Ash 

Borer Program Manager, PPQ, APHIS, 

4700 River Road Unit 137, Riverdale, 

MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–0917. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Domestic Wood Packaging Material 

Public Meetings 

As part of its ongoing efforts to 

safeguard plant health, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) is 

considering options for strengthening 

our response to the risks of the artificial 

spread of plant pests such as the pine 

shoot beetle Tomicus piniperda 

(Scolytidae) and the Asian longhorned 

beetle Anaplophora glabripennis 

(Cerambycidae) that are associated with 

the interstate movement of wood 

packaging material (WPM). 

In order to provide individuals and 

organizations an opportunity to discuss 

options for strengthening our response 

to the risks associated with the 

interstate movement of WPM, the 

potential impacts of increased use of 

alternative packaging materials, the 

environmental issues relating to these 

options, and any other topics of 

concern, we plan to hold several public 

meetings. Our goal is to gather feedback 

and input from a wide range of 

stakeholders to assist us in making an 

informed decision regarding our 

objectives and direction in relation to 

the interstate movement of WPM. 

Topics for discussion at each meeting 

will include, but not necessarily be 

limited to, the following: 

• Pest risks. What is the magnitude of 

the pest risks associated with WPM 

moving interstate? What treatments or 

other measures would be effective in 

reducing pest risks associated with 

WPM moving interstate and to what 

degree would these risks be reduced by 

these approaches? 

• Compliance. Would responsibility 

lie with the manufacturer, end user, 

shipper, or elsewhere for ensuring that 

WPM meets any standards that might be 

developed? How could APHIS best 

monitor compliance with any such 

standards? If treatment of some kind 

were required for all WPM moving 

interstate, would a phase-in period be 

required, and if so, how long should this 

period last? 

• Alternative materials. To what 

extent could alternative packing 

materials (processed wood packaging 

materials, plastic packing materials, or 

other alternatives) be substituted for 

WPM in interstate commerce? What 

would the environmental, economic, 

and other impacts be of any such 

substitution? 

• Environmental impacts. What 

would the environmental impacts be if 

treatment or other measures were 

required for WPM moving interstate? 

• Cost. What would the economic 

impacts be if treatment or other 

measures were required for WPM 

moving interstate? 

Federal Firewood Strategy Public 

Meeting 

In addition, we are seeking 

suggestions from the public regarding 

the creation of a Federal firewood 

strategy in order to better mitigate the 

pest risks associated with the movement 

of firewood within the United States. 

Specifically, we are seeking any 

potential strategies that may be used to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES