71088 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 29, 2000 / Notices

and Guidelines, the management of a

number of species of plants and animals

for which little information was

available at the time the plan was

authored.

The purpose of this study is to

determine the effects of implementing

Forest Plan modeled silvicultural

prescriptions and associated harvest

techniques on existing mollusk

populations. It will also analyze longterm impacts, if any, and will study the

recovery rate of these species if impacts

are caused by treatments.

Many SM mollusks have been found

in the Salmon River Watershed on the

Klamath National Forest as a result of

recent project-level and strategic

surveys. These forested areas have

experienced varying levels of human

and natural disturbance (e.g., timber

harvest, wildfire, roads). The

administrative study will be used to

gather information on the impacts of

various harvest techniques, logging

systems, and associated treatments on

mollusks where very little information

exists. Completion of this administrative

study may assist with the development

of long-term land management options

on the Klamath National Forest.

Decision To Be Made

Whether the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Klamath

National Forest will implement this

project as proposed, including a projectspecific amendment to the Forest Plan.

Responsible Official

Margaret Boland, Forest Supervisor,

USDA Forest Service, 1312 Fairlane

Road, Yreka, California 96097 is the

Responsible Official for making the

recommendation whether to implement

this administrative study or not. She

will document her decision and

rationale in a Record of Decision.

Public Involvement, Rationale, and

Public Meetings

In October 2000, this administrative

study was included in the Klamath

National Forest’s Fall 2000 Schedule of

Proposed Actions (SOPA), which was

posted on the Klamath National Forest’s

internet website and mailed to the

SOPA mailing list. In November 2000, a

scoping letter of the proposed

administrative study was sent to

potentially affected individuals and

anyone who expressed interest in this

study. This notice will invite public

comment for a period of 90 days.

Comments received will be included in

the documentation for the EIS. The

public is encouraged to take part in the

process and is encouraged to visit with

Forest Service officials at any time

during the analysis and prior to the

decision. The Forest Service will be

seeking information, comments and

assistance from Federal, State, and local

agencies and other individuals or

organizations who may be interested in,

or affected by, the proposed

administrative study.

While public participation in this

analysis is welcome at any time,

comments received within 45 days of

the publication of this notice will be

especially useful in the preparation of

the Draft EIS. A public meeting

associated with the project will be held

to gain a better understanding of public

issues and concerns. This meeting will

be held in the late spring of 2001.

Information from the meetings will be

used in preparation of the draft and

final EIS. The scoping process will

include identifying: potential issues,

significant issues to be analyzed in

depth, alternatives to the proposed

action, and potential environmental

effects of the proposal and alternatives.

Electronic Access and Filing Addresses

Comments may be sent by electronic

mail (e-mail) to

r5lklamathlComment@fs.fed.us.

Please reference the Comet

Administrative Study on the subject

line. Also, include your name and

mailing address with your comments so

documents pertaining to this project

may be mailed to you.

Estimated Dates for Filing

The Draft EIS is expected to be filed

with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and to be available for

public review by November 2001. At

that time, 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 of EPA publishes the Notice of

Availability in the Federal Register. It is

very important that those interested in

the management of this area participate

at that time.

The Final EIS is scheduled to be

completed by February 2002. In the

Final EIS, the Forest Service is required

to respond to comments and responses

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 a

decision regarding the proposal.

The Reviewers’ Obligation To Comment

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 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 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.

Margaret J. Boland,

Forest Supervisor, Klamath National Forest.

[FR Doc. 00–30400 Filed 11–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Lassen National Forest, California;

Mineral Forest Recovery Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The Forest Service intends to

prepare an environmental impact

statement (EIS) to analyze and disclose

the environmental effects of

implementing resource management

activities that include fuelbreak

construction consisting of a strategic

system of defensible fuel profile zones

(DFPZs), group selection harvests, and

riparian restoration projects on the

Almanor Ranger District in the Lassen

National Forest. These activities are part

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 29, 2000 / Notices 71089

of a 5-year pilot project to test and

demonstrate the effectiveness of certain

resource management activities

designed to meet ecologic, economic,

and fuel reduction objectives on the

Lassen National Forest as well as on the

Plumas National Forest and on the

Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe

National Forest. This notice applies

only to the Lassen National Forest;

however, all three National Forests were

named in the Record of Decision (ROD,

August 1999) for the Herger-Feinstein

Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Forest

Recovery Act Final Environmental

Impact Statement (FEIS). The ROD

amended the management direction in

the Land and Resource Management

Plans for these three National Forests.

The need for the ROD and FEIS was

generated from the Herger-Feinstein

Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Forest

Recovery Act (Act) of October 21, 1998.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope

of the analysis should be received in

writing on or before December 29, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Susan Jeheber-Matthews, Almanor

District Ranger, P.O. Box 767, Chester,

CA, 96020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Lou Mini, Interdisciplinary Team

Leader or Judy Welles, Interdisciplinary

Team Silviculturist, telephone: (530)

258–2141.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Proposed Action

To accomplish the purpose of the

Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group

(HFQLG) Forest Recovery Act, resource

management activities included in the

proposed Mineral Forest Recovery

project and DFPZ construction, group

selection harvests, and riparian

restoration projects. The proposed

project is located in Tehama County,

California, within the Almanor Ranger

District of the Lassen National Forest in

all or portions of Sections 1–3, T.28N.,

R.3E., Sections 1–4, 9–15, 22–26, 33–36,

T.29N., R.3E., Sections 3, 4, 6–10, 15–

21, 28, 29, 31–33, T.29N., R.4E.,

Sections 26, 27, 34–36, T.30N., R.3E.,

and Section 31, T.30N., R.4E., MDM.

The Mineral Forest Recovery Project

area is one of five sub networks

established to implement a DFPZ

network on the District. The purpose of

DFPZs in this area is to reduce the

number of acres that would be burned

by high-intensity stand-replacing fires.

DFPZs are needed in this area in order

to improve suppression efficiency by

creating an environment where

wildfires would burn at lower

intensities and where fire fighting

production rates would be increased.

DFPZs are strategically located strips of

land on which forest fuels, both living

and dead, have been modified in order

to reduce the potential for a sustained

crown fire and to allow fire suppression

personnel a safer location from which to

take action against a wildfire. Fuels

treatment strategies would focus on the

alteration or reduction of surface fuels,

ladder fuels, and canopy closure in

order to effectively alter fire behavior

and severity. Treatment methods will

include thinning timbered stands, hand

or machine piling of excessive forest

fuels, and prescribed fire. The Mineral

Forest Recovery Project proposes to

construct 3,700 acres of DFPZ’s in the

Mineral project area including an

estimated 2,700 acres that would be

thinned.

Group selection harvests would be

implemented to promote diversity in

stand age and structure. Root disease

centers of dwarf mistletoe infected areas

would be targeted for group selection, as

well as those stands that are even-aged

in structure. Some understocked areas

would also be regenerated using the

group selection prescription. Group

selection would be implemented on an

estimated 550 acres within the Mineral

Forest Recovery Project area. Fuels

treatment would occur on 460 acres

within group selections.

New construction of permanent and

temporary roads would be needed to

economically access stands requiring

treatment for DFPZ and group selection

harvest. Within the project area, 5.9

miles of permanent new road

construction and 5.6 miles of temporary

road construction would be

implemented for this purpose. New

construction of permanent roads would

be added to the Forest transportation

system. Temporary roads would be

obliterated upon completion of use.

Riparian restoration projects would

include erosion control treatment on

existing landings and skidtrails, and on

eroding streambanks that are

contributing sediment to the streams.

Treatment of existing roads would be

implemented as part of an overall

riparian restoration strategy to reduce

impacts caused by roads. Impacts

include erosion and increased runoff

from inadequately or poorly drained

roads, especially those located close to

streams and with poorly designed

drainage structures and stream

crossings. Road treatments would

include road relocation (1.6 miles of

new construction, all of which is

included in the new construction

mentioned above), reconstruction (9.8

miles of existing roads for DFPZ and

group selection access), and

decommissioning (12.2 miles).

Reconstruction activities would also

include improvement or relocation of

three existing in-channel water sources.

Decision To Be Made

The decision to be made is whether to

implement the proposed action as

described above, to meet the purpose

and need for action through some other

combination of activities, or to take no

action at this time.

Responsible Official and Lead Agency

The USDA Forest Service is the lead

agency for this proposal. District Ranger

Susan Jeheber-Matthews is the

responsible official.

Tentative or Preliminary Issues and

Possible Alternatives

An anticipated public issue with the

Mineral Forest Recovery Project is the

proposal to implement resource

management activities within suitable

California spotted owl habitat. In order

to fully test the Herger-Feinstein Quincy

Library Group Forest Recovery Act on

the Almanor Ranger District (e.g.,

implement contiguous DFPZs on the

landscape), it is necessary to analyze

and implement the resource

management activities outlined in the

Act within suitable habitat for the

California spotted owl. The Mineral

Forest Recovery Project proposed action

includes projects within suitable

habitat.

The Record of Decision for the HergerFeinstein Quincy Library Group Forest

Recovery Act FEIS stated that California

spotted owl habitat would be avoided at

the site-specific project level until a new

California spotted owl habitat

management strategy is released. The

decision to implement resource

management activities within suitable

owl habitat in the Mineral Forest

Recovery Project area will be based

upon one or more of the following three

actions:

(1) A decision is made on the Sierra

Nevada Conservation Framework (that

would amend the Lassen NF Land and

Resource Management Plan) that defines

a new owl strategy and allows the

implementation of resource

management activities as outlined in the

Act, or;

(2) A new California spotted owl

viability assessment is completed

providing direction encompassing the

species’ range and the Lassen NF Land

and Resource Management Plan is

amended to include the new owl

strategy, or;

(3) A site-specific California spotted

owl strategy would be developed and

implemented for this project resulting in

71090 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 29, 2000 / Notices

a non-significant amendment to the

Lassen NF Forest Plan.

Alternatives currently being

considered for the Mineral Forest

Recovery Project include: (a) No action;

(b) the proposed action as outlined

above, and; (c) an alternative, based on

the proposed action, that does not enter

into suitable California spotted owl

habitat.

Public Involvement

Comments from the public and other

agencies will be used in preparation of

the draft EIS. The scoping process will

be used to identify questions and issues

regarding the proposed action. An issue

is defined as a point of dispute, debate,

or disagreement relating to a specific

proposed action based on its anticipated

effects. Significant issues brought to our

attention are used during an

environmental analysis to develop

alternatives to the proposed action.

Some issues raised in scoping may be

considered non-significant because they

are: (1) Beyond the scope of the

proposed action and its purpose and

need; (2) already decided by law,

regulation, or the Land and Resource

Management Plan; (3) irrelevant to the

decision to be made; or (4) conjectural

and not supported by scientific or

factual evidence.

While public participation in this

analysis is welcome at any time,

comments received within 30 days of

the publication of this notice will be

especially useful in the preparation of

the draft EIS.

Identification of Permits or Licenses

Required

No permits or licenses have been

identified to implement the proposed

action.

Estimated Dates for Filing

The draft EIS is expected to be filed

with the Environmental Protection

Agency and available for public review

in March 2001. The comment period on

the draft EIS will be 45 days from the

date of the Environmental Protection

Agency publishes the notice of

availability of the draft EIS in the

Federal Register.

The Reviewers Obligation To Comment

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 statements must

structure their participation in the

environmental review of the proposal so

that 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 substantive

comments and objections are made

available to the Forest Service at a time

when it can meaningful 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 Regulation of implementing the

procedural provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR

1503.3 in addressing these points.

Dated: November 16, 2000.

Edward C. Cole,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 00–30017 Filed 11–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

National Agricultural Statistics Service

Notice of Intent to Seek Approval to

Conduct an Information Collection

AGENCY: National Agricultural Statistics

Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.

L. 104–13) and Office of Management

and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part

1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995),

this notice announces the intent of the

National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS) to request approval for a new

information collection, the 2002 Census

of Agriculture Screening.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be

received by February 3, 2001 to be

assured of consideration.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS:

Contact Rich Allen, Associate

Administrator, National Agricultural

Statistics Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Room 4117 South Building,

1400 Independence Avenue SW,

Washington, DC 20250–2001, (202) 720–

4333.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: 2002 Census of Agriculture

Screening.

Type of Request: Intent to Seek

Approval to Conduct an Information

Collection.

Abstract: The Census of Agriculture

conducted every 5 years is the primary

source of statistics concerning the

nation’s agricultural industry and

provides the only basis for consistent,

comparable data at the county, state,

and national levels. To ensure that only

active farms are included in the 2002

Census of Agriculture, operations on the

census mail list that have an unknown

farm status will be mailed a ‘‘screener’’

postcard prior to the full census.

Response to the postcard will determine

the operation’s eligibility for the full

census questionnaire. Identifying and

removing non-farms from the census

mail list will significantly reduce

respondent burden and cost for the

census. The screener postcard will be

used in all states. Initial mail out is

planned for late May 2002 with a

follow-up mailing to non-respondents 6

weeks later. Response to this inquiry

will be required by law under 7 U.S.C.

2204g. A voluntary, small-scale test will

be conducted in May of 2001 to evaluate

wording and the effect on the mail list.

These data will be collected under the

authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a).

Individually identifiable data are

governed by Section 1770 of the Food

Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276,

which requires USDA to afford strict

confidentiality to non-aggregated data

provided by respondents.

Estimate of Burden: This information

collection consists of a letter and selfmailing postcard with six questions.

Public reporting burden will be 2

minutes per refusal (non-response), 3

minutes per screen-out (questions 1–4,

6=No), and 4 minutes per positive

response (question 5).

Respondents: Farm and ranch

operators.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

751,500 (mail-out).

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 40,080 hours.

Copies of this information collection

and related instructions can be obtained