Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices 10529 

Dated: March 5, 2009. 

Robert C. Keeney, 

Acting Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–5122 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Research Service 

Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive 

License 

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service, intends 

to grant to Innovative Foods, Inc. of 

South San Francisco, California, an 

exclusive license to U.S. Patent 

Application Serial No. 10/917,797, 

‘‘Novel Infrared Dry Blanching (IDB), 

Infrared Blanching, and Infrared Drying 

Technologies for Food Processing’’, filed 

on August 13, 2004. 

DATES: Comments must be received 

April 10, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, 

ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 

5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4–1174, 

Beltsville, Maryland 20705–5131. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June 

Blalock of the Office of Technology 

Transfer at the Beltsville address given 

above; telephone: 301–504–5989. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Government’s patent rights in 

this invention are assigned to the United 

States of America, as represented by the 

Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the 

public interest to so license this 

invention as Innovative Foods, Inc. of 

South San Francisco, California has 

submitted a complete and sufficient 

application for a license. The 

prospective exclusive license will be 

royalty-bearing and will comply with 

the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 

209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective 

exclusive license may be granted unless, 

within thirty (30) days from the date of 

this published Notice, the Agricultural 

Research Service receives written 

evidence and argument which 

establishes that the grant of the license 

would not be consistent with the 

requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 

CFR 404.7. 

Richard J. Brenner, 

Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–5235 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–03–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Cooperative State Research, 

Education, and Extension Service 

Solicitation of Input From Stakeholders 

Regarding the Healthy Urban Food 

Enterprise Development Center 

Program 

AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, 

Education, and Extension Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Request for stakeholder input; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: The Cooperative State 

Research, Education, and Extension 

Service published a document in the 

Federal Register on March 3, 2009, 

concerning request for stakeholder input 

regarding the Healthy Urban Food 

Enterprise Development Center 

Program. The document contained an 

incorrect e-mail address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Tuckermanty, 202–205–0241. 

Correction 

In the Federal Register of March 3, 

2009, in FR Doc E9–4384, on page 9212, 

in the second and third columns, correct 

the ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT captions to read: 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by CSREES–2008–0005, by 

any of the following methods: Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

E-mail: 

etuckermanty@csrees.usda.gov. Include 

CSREES–2008–0005 in the subject line 

of the message. 

Fax: (202) 401–1782. 

Mail: Paper, disk or CD–ROM 

submissions should be submitted to: Liz 

Tuckermanty; Competitive Program (CP) 

Unit; Cooperative State Research, 

Education, and Extension Service; U.S. 

Department of Agriculture; Mail Stop 

2201; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; 

Washington, DC 20250–2201. 

Hand Delivery/Courier: Liz 

Tuckermanty; Competitive Programs 

(CP) Unit; Cooperative State Research, 

Education, and Extension Service; U.S. 

Department of Agriculture; Room 2340; 

Waterfront Centre; 800 9th Street, SW.; 

Washington, DC 20024. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the title ‘‘The Center’’ and 

CSREES–2008–0005. All comments 

received will be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Liz Tuckermanty, (202) 205–0241 

(phone), (202) 401–1782 (fax), or 

etuckermanty@csrees.usda.gov. 

Dated: March 5, 2009. 

Colien Hefferan, 

Administrator, Cooperative State Research, 

Education, and Extension Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–5118 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Big Grizzly Fuels Reduction and Forest 

Health Project, Eldorado National 

Forest, Placer County, CA 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, 

Eldorado National Forest will prepare 

an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) for a proposal to treat 

approximately 6,200 acres of National 

Forest System land for fuels reduction 

and forest health objectives. The project 

area is situated on the Georgetown 

Ranger District approximately 15 airmiles northeast of Georgetown, CA in 

the vicinity of Nevada Point Ridge, 

Devils Peak and Bear Springs. The 

intent of this project is to reduce 

potential fire hazard within the project 

area, to provide for increased resilience 

when a wildfire occurs within the 

project area, to provide for improved 

forest health, and to increase the rate of 

development of old forest 

characteristics. The Proposed Action 

consists of commercial and 

precommercial tree thinning with 

follow-up tractor piling or mastication; 

mastication of select, existing 

plantations with a follow-up treatment 

of herbicides to reduce brush 

competition and fuel buildup; the 

planting of conifers in expanded canopy 

gaps with a follow-up treatment of 

herbicide; and prescribed burning. 

Silvicultural treatments for each stand 

were chosen for their ability to meet the 

stated purpose and need. The focus of 

each treatment is based on the desired 

quality of each treatment area after 

management rather than the quantity or 

quality of the products removed from 

each area. In fact, some treatments 

would not remove forest products. 

Approximately 15 miles of native 

surface road reconstruction and 1 mile 

of new road construction are proposed 

in order to facilitate the treatment 

activities. The land allocations within 

the treatment areas, as identified in the 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

Final Supplemental EIS (SNFPA FSEIS), 

are general forest, spotted owl home 

range core areas, old-forest, and riparian 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
10530 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices 

conservation areas adjacent to 

perennial, seasonal, and ephemeral 

streams. 

The purpose of the project is: (1) To 

change existing forest surface, ladder 

and crown fuel profiles in order to 

reduce potential wildfire intensity and 

behavior to mitigate the consequences of 

large, potentially damaging wildfires on 

selected forested areas; (2) to improve 

stand vigor and resistance to disease 

and insect mortality; (3) maintain and/ 

or establish a composition of tree 

species and size classes that are closer 

to the historic levels for the area, and 

correspondingly sustainable into the 

future; and (4) to treat hazard fuels in a 

cost-effective manner to maximize 

program effectiveness. 

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be received within 

30 days of the publication of this Notice 

of Intent in the Federal Register. The 

draft environmental impact statement is 

expected in May 2009 and the final 

environmental impact statement is 

expected in October 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Ramiro Villalvazo, Forest Supervisor, 

Eldorado National Forest, 7600 

Wentworth Springs Rd., Georgetown, 

CA 95634 Attention: Big Grizzly Fuels 

Reduction and Forest Health Project. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dana Walsh, Project Leader, Georgetown 

Ranger District, 7600 Wentworth 

Springs Rd, Georgetown, CA 95634, or 

by telephone at 530–333–4312. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Action 

(1) The primary purpose of the project 

is to change existing forest surface, 

ladder and crown fuel profiles in order 

to reduce potential wildfire intensity 

and behavior to mitigate the 

consequences of large, potentially 

damaging wildfires on selected forested 

areas. 

There is a need to change potential 

fire behavior during weather conditions 

that produce wildfire behavior with 

extreme fire intensity and severity 

across a large portion of the landscape. 

The fuels conditions within the project 

area make the area prone to the risk of 

a stand-replacing catastrophic wildfire. 

The risk of losing key ecosystem 

components in this area is high. 

Treatments are needed that would be 

effective in terms reducing potential 

wildfire damage to intrinsic, forest 

related resources. Within the vicinity of 

the Big Grizzly project, lightning, 

dispersed recreation use, off-highway 

vehicle use, and traffic on the Eleven 

Pines and Nevada Point Ridge Roads are 

potential sources of wildfire ignition. 

The effects of the Eldorado National 

Forest’s Cleveland Fire (23,000 acres), 

Icehouse Fire (18,000 acres), Wrights 

Fire (8,000 acres), Star Fire (17,000 

acres) Fred Fire (7,700 acres), Power 

Fire (16,800 acres), and numerous other 

large, wetland fires in California and 

across the western United States 

emphasize the desirability and the 

urgency of managing forest stands to 

reduce the likelihood of catastrophic 

wildfire. In the absence of fuel 

reductions it is likely that wildfire 

would determine the future landscape, 

threatening lives and property. 

Forests in this area were historically 

subject to frequent low intensity fires 

that resulted in open, fire-resistant 

stands of trees. Multiple decades of fire 

exclusion, grazing by domestic 

livestock, previous stand replacing 

wildfire, mining, and historic logging 

practices, including selective logging of 

large pines and lack of follow-up slash 

treatment, have contributed to altered 

fire regimes, heavy fuel loadings, and 

changed vegetation composition and 

structure. As a result, the number, size, 

and intensity of wildfires have been 

altered from their historical range. 

By itself prescribed fire would be 

difficult to apply in the majority of the 

project area due to the fuel 

accumulation, changes in stand 

structure, and operation limitations in 

its use. Mechanical treatments can be 

effective tools to modify stand structure 

and influence subsequent fire severity 

and extent. In many stands mechanical 

thinning followed by prescribed fire is 

necessary to achieve forest resilience 

much faster than with prescribed fire 

alone. 

Fire behavior is strongly influenced 

by stand structure as it relates to live 

and dead fuel loading and ladder fuels. 

Reducing crown density and both 

ladder fuels and surface fuels is 

essential to effectively change fire 

behavior. Reducing surface fuels and 

ladder fuels reduces the likelihood of 

crown scorch and crown ignition. The 

theoretical basis for changing fuel 

structure to reduce fire hazard is well 

established. 

The theoretical benefits of fuel 

manipulation are supported by real 

world reviews of wildfires and their 

interaction with fuel treatment areas. 

Fuel treatments similar to those 

proposed on this project have also been 

demonstrated to be effective in recent 

research conducted on post-fire 

vegetation on the Angora and Cone Fires 

completed by the U.S. Forest Service. 

Results from a recent study on the 

effectiveness of pre-fire fuel treatments 

for several wildfires that burned in 2003 

and 2004, including the Power Fire on 

the Eldorado National Forest further 

validate the use of a combination of 

canopy thinning and surface fuel 

treatments. Studies have demonstrated 

that the treatment of surface fuels alone 

is generally effective in altering fire 

severity; however, treatments that 

included canopy thinning followed by 

surface fuel treatment were found to be 

the most effective at reducing canopy 

scorch and tree mortality. Additionally, 

the effectiveness of treatments that 

reduced both canopy and surface fuels 

were found to increase with weather 

severity, i.e., the more extreme the fire 

conditions, the more valuable fuels 

treatments proved to be. 

Reviews have pointed out that 

thinning treatments that are followed by 

reduction of surface fuels can 

significantly limit fire spread under 

wildfire conditions. Current research 

demonstrates the potential of fuel 

treatments to reduce large fire growth. 

Fuel treatments are most effective when 

the spatial arrangement of the treatment 

units is considered and planned for. The 

Big Grizzly project has been developed 

on the basis of anticipated treatment 

effectiveness and spatial arrangement of 

proposed treatment areas. Treatments 

within Strategically Placed Landscape 

Treatment Areas (SPLATs) can increase 

the effectiveness of fire suppression 

efforts, and substantially decrease the 

risk to life and property. This project 

would directly reduce the threat of 

catastrophic wildfire to multiple 

resources within and adjacent to the 

project area. In addition to 

implementing a spatial design for the 

project that might be optimal for 

reducing fire spread, the Big Grizzly 

Project has also been developed based 

on the historical ecological processes 

and landscape patterns within the 

project area. 

Treatments are not intended to 

specifically facilitate fire suppression 

efforts. The focus of fuels treatments is 

to improve the ability of treated stands 

to withstand the adverse effects of 

future fires. However, safe and effective 

initial attack by hand crews and engine 

modules, the initial attack forces of the 

Georgetown Ranger District, is 

imperative due to current wildfire 

policy for the project area and air 

quality restrictions within the state 

which require continued fire 

suppression. 

Selected plantations currently exhibit 

a buildup of woody brush species such 

as green leaf manzanita, deerbrush, 

whitethorn, and bitter cherry. The 

existing conditions of the plantations 

include an average brush component 4– 

10 feet in height with brush cover levels 

of 30 to 100%. Currently, flame lengths 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices 10531 

from a wildland fire burning under the 

90th percentile weather conditions 

could easily make the transition from 

surface fire into the crowns of the trees, 

causing high mortality within 

plantations and continued fire spread 

into the surrounding forest stands. 

The National Fire Plan and the 

Cohesive Strategy, developed after the 

severe wildfire season in 2000, provides 

direction to the Forest Service to reduce 

the amount of fuel in fire-prone forests 

to protect people and sustain resources. 

Additionally, the Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment (SNFPA) sets priorities for 

management activities that would 

restore natural ecosystem processes 

while minimizing the threat fire poses 

to lives, structures, and resources 

through site specific prescriptions 

designed to modify fire intensity and 

spread in treated areas. 

(2) The second fundamental purpose 

of this project is to also improve stand 

vigor and resistance to disease and 

insect mortality. 

There is a need to improve the health 

of trees within the project area by 

removing unhealthy trees and reducing 

stand density. Over-dense stands are 

experiencing inter-tree competition for 

resources and are at risk for high levels 

of mortality in the near future. Some 

stands within the project area are 

already experiencing high levels of 

mortality due to disease and insect 

activity. Although some of the stands in 

the project have been thinned and 

salvage logged in the past, the 

predominantly white fir stands are 

expected to continue to decrease in 

health and vigor over time due to 

insects, annosus root rot, and other 

disease pathogens. These stands will 

continue moving farther from their 

desired future condition as high levels 

of mortality decrease canopy cover, 

stocking, and growth at a stand level. 

The project area is currently at risk 

due to insect and disease related 

mortality. Increased densities of trees, 

higher levels of disease and insect 

attack, and an accumulation of ground 

and ladder fuels within stands indicate 

unhealthy conditions. Denser stands, 

such as those that have developed in the 

project area, demand more water and 

other limited resources. As a result, 

over-dense stands are less resistant to 

insect and disease-related attack, 

especially during periods of extended 

drought, which then increases the 

potential for extreme fire behavior in the 

area. Large areas of the landscape are 

dominated by shade-tolerant, droughtand/or fire-intolerant species (white fir, 

incense-cedar, and Douglas-fir). The 

structure of the current forested 

landscape represents an unstable, 

unsustainable, and therefore 

undesirable departure from the historic 

landscape for this area. 

The SNFPA directs that prescriptions 

for treatment areas address identified 

needs to increase stand resistance to 

mortality from insect and disease by 

thinning densely stocked stands to 

reduce competition and improve tree 

vigor. Forest health specialists have 

reviewed treatment areas and have 

confirmed that insect and disease 

pathogen activities within stands have 

increased the risk of mortality due to 

high stand density and current species 

composition. 

(3) A purpose of this project is also to 

maintain and/or establish a composition 

of tree species and size classes that are 

closer to the historic conditions for the 

area and correspondingly sustainable 

into the future. 

There is a need to apply the necessary 

silvicultural and fuels reduction 

treatments to accelerate the 

development of key habitat and old 

forest characteristics, increase stand 

heterogeneity, restore pine, and to 

promote hardwoods. The project area is 

characteristic of much of the mixedconifer zone of the Sierra Nevada with 

few or no stands remaining that can be 

described as natural. To various degrees 

the forest has been changed from one 

dominated by large, old, widely spaced 

trees to one with dense, fairly even-aged 

stands with most of the larger trees 

between 80 and 100 years old. This is 

an unstable, unsustainable forest that is 

susceptible to drought-induced 

mortality, bark beetle infestation, and 

severe wildfire. 

Many of the stands within the Big 

Grizzly project area have been type 

converted from pine to white fir through 

natural mortality and the selective 

logging of pine. Rather than attempt to 

restore the stands to a specific point in 

history, there is a need to restore a forest 

structure that is more resilient to 

drought, insect and disease pathogens, 

and wildfire. As discussed above, as a 

result of the current species 

composition and risk from fire, insect 

and disease pathogens, these stands are 

not sustainable. Proposed treatments 

would promote shade intolerant pines 

and hardwoods while decreasing the 

amount of shade tolerant white fir and 

incense cedar, thereby moving stands 

closer to a more sustainable species 

composition. 

Reduced competition would enable 

trees to grow larger more quickly, 

thereby providing greater numbers of 

large trees and snags for the future. 

Treatment would also reduce the risk of 

fire related mortality to large trees that 

are currently within the units, 

maintaining the valuable structure they 

provide within the stand. 

There is a need to control spacing and 

species composition in the plantations 

to accelerate the development of old 

forest characteristics. While the 

plantations do not currently have the 

structure that would allow them to 

function as old forest habitat, since they 

consist primarily of young ponderosa 

pine, they provide important reservoirs 

of pine within the landscape. Thinning 

in plantations and natural stands would 

facilitate tree growth allowing stands to 

more rapidly develop large trees, and 

increase the probability that these 

stands would survive into the future. 

These stands could then be managed to 

ensure the development of additional 

components of structure for old forest 

dependent species. 

(4) A purpose of the project is to treat 

hazard fuels in a cost-effective manner 

to maximize program effectiveness. 

There is a need for this project to be 

cost effective so that the maximum 

benefit can be achieved through the 

work performed. The SNFPA provides 

direction to design area treatments that 

are economically efficient where 

consistent with desired conditions, 

using wood by-products from overdense stands to offset the cost of fuels 

treatments. The removal of commercial 

sized trees would partially offset the 

substantial costs associated with the 

expensive investment components of 

this project, including the treatment of 

surface fuels, cutting and removal of the 

non-commercial ladder fuels, 

mastication and herbicide treatments. 

Proposed Action 

To move stands toward the Desired 

Future Condition for the various land 

allocations as described in the Record of 

Decision for the Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

dated 1/21/2004, the Proposed Action 

includes a combination of fuels 

reduction and forest health 

improvement actions. Silvicultural 

treatments for each stand were chosen 

for their ability to meet the stated 

purpose and need. The focus of each 

treatment is based on the desired quality 

of each treatment area after management 

rather than the quantity or quality of the 

products removed from each area. In 

fact, some treatment would not remove 

forest products. 

• Approximately 3,200 acres are 

proposed to be treated using understory 

thinning involving the cutting and 

removal of both commercial and noncommercial size trees. Follow-up 

mastication or tractor piling and pile 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
10532 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices 

burning would occur shortly after the 

thinning is completed. Follow up 

prescribed burning would occur 

approximately 2–7 years after the pile 

burning is completed. 

• Approximately 900 additional acres 

are proposed for stand improvement 

cutting for forest health through the 

removal of suppressed and dying trees. 

In order to facilitate the restoration of 

pine species to stands, the creation of 

gaps of up to 3 acres in size is proposed 

within these 900 acres of stand 

treatments. Gap establishment would be 

accomplished through the harvesting of 

white fir trees and conifer trees of other 

species that are within; and 

immediately adjacent to selected, 

existing canopy gaps that are currently 

greater than 1/2 acre in size and that are 

expanding due to root rot. Healthy pine 

trees would be specifically retained 

within the selected gaps. The selected 

gaps would have the slash tractor piled 

and then the gaps would be planted 

with ponderosa pine, sugar pine and 

Douglas-fir at a 12x12 foot spacing. At 

the time of planting, the planted 

seedlings would be released from 

competing vegetation by hand scalping. 

A follow-up ground based application of 

herbicide would occur within the gaps 

within 1–5 years to control competing 

vegetation. Gaps would be established 

on 10–30% of the acres in any given 

stand. Planting of pine within these 

gaps would move the stands toward 

their desired future, thereby moving the 

stand structure and composition to a 

more resilient condition. 

• Units 3 18–1, 320–43, 320–67, and 

320–7 1, approximately 900 acres, 

would require a non-significant forest 

plan amendment because the proposed 

activities would reduce the canopy 

cover below 40 percent. The 

amendment is necessary to meet forest 

health objectives of minimizing the 

impact of Heterobasidion annosum, the 

most important disease found in the 

project area. 

• The proposal also includes 

precommercial thinning and 

mastication of approximately 120 acres 

of <50-year old plantations, mastication 

with follow-up ground based 

application of herbicide on 

approximately 1,100 acres of 15–30 year 

old plantations, and mastication with 

follow-up ground based application of 

herbicide on approximately 75 acres of 

47 year old plantation currently located 

within the project area. These 

treatments would reduce future fuel 

loading, alter the vegetative structure to 

reduce the risk of loss to wildland fire, 

improve forest health by reducing 

susceptibility to insect and disease 

pathogens, and create conditions that 

accelerate the development of old forest 

characteristics. 

• Prescribed burning as the only 

treatment is proposed on approximately 

800 acres of the project area to reduce 

the amount of ground fuels between 

thinning units thereby making the 

proposed thinning treatments more 

effective. 

• Approximately 1 mile of road 

construction and approximately 15 

miles of road reconstruction is 

estimated to be necessary to facilitate 

accessibility to perform proposed fuel 

and forest health treatments. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

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 improve 

forest health, and to reduce fuels. 

Other alternatives would be 

developed if significant issues are 

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. 

Scoping Process 

Public participation will be especially 

important at several points during the 

analysis. The Forest Service will be 

seeking information, comments, and 

assistance from Federal, State, and local 

agencies and other individuals or 

organizations that 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. 

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. 

Comment Requested 

This notice of intent initiates the 

scoping process which guides the 

development of the environmental 

impact statement. 

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 environmental 

impact statement 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 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. 

NIRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, 

environmental objections that could be 

raised at the draft environmental impact 

statement stage, but that axe 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 meaningfully 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.) 

Ramiro Villalvazo, 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). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices 10533 

Dated: January 27, 2009. 

Ramiro Villalvazo, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. E9–5019 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service 

Notice of Solicitation of Applications 

(NOSA) for Inviting Applications for 

Energy Audits and Renewable Energy 

Development Assistance Under the 

Rural Energy for America Program 

AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative 

Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

request for grant applications from units 

of State, tribal or local government, 

land-grant colleges, universities, or 

other institutions of higher education 

(including 1994 Land Grant (Tribal 

Colleges) and 1890 Land Grant Colleges 

and Historically Black Universities), 

rural electric cooperatives, and public 

power entities to provide energy audits 

and renewable energy development 

assistance for agricultural producers and 

rural small businesses. The Agency 

intends to publish a proposed rule for 

future submissions that will amend the 

Rural Energy for America portion of the 

Rural Development Grants regulation, 

published October 15, 2008 [73 FR 

61198], at 7 CFR part 5002, for energy 

audits and renewable energy 

development assistance projects in 

calendar year 2009. 

DATES: Applications for grants must be 

submitted on paper or electronically no 

later than 4:30 p.m., local time on June 

9, 2009. Neither complete nor 

incomplete applications received after 

this date and time will be considered, 

regardless of the postmark on the 

application. 

The comment period for information 

collection under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 continues 

through May 11, 2009. Comments on the 

paper work burden must be received by 

this date to be assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Application materials may 

be obtained by contacting one of Rural 

Development’s Rural Energy 

Coordinators or by downloading 

through http://www.grants.gov. 

Submit electronic applications at 

http://www.grants.gov, following the 

instructions found on this Web site. To 

use Grants.gov, all applicants must have 

a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal 

Numbering System (DUNS) number, 

which can be obtained at no cost via a 

toll-free request line at 1–866–705–5711 

or online at http://fedgov.dnb.com/ 

webform. Submit completed paper 

applications to the Rural Development 

State Office in the State in which the 

applicant’s principal office is located. 

Rural Development Rural Energy 

Coordinators 

Note: Telephone numbers listed are not 

toll-free. 

Alabama 

Quinton Harris, USDA Rural Development, 

Sterling Centre, Suite 601, 4121 

Carmichael Road, Montgomery, AL 36106– 

3683, (334) 279–3623, 

Quinton.Harris@al.usda.gov. 

Alaska 

Dean Stewart, USDA Rural Development, 800 

West Evergreen, Suite 201, Palmer, AK 

99645–6539, (907) 761–7722, 

dean.stewart@ak.usda.gov. 

American Samoa (See Hawaii) 

Arizona 

Alan Watt, USDA Rural Development, 230 

North First Avenue, Suite 206, Phoenix, 

AZ 85003–1706, (602) 280–8769, 

Alan.Watt@az.usda.gov. 

Arkansas 

Tim Smith, USDA Rural Development, 700 

West Capitol Avenue, Room 3416, Little 

Rock, AR 72201–3225, (501) 301–3280, 

Tim.Smith@ar.usda.gov. 

California 

Philip Brown, USDA Rural Development, 430 

G Street, #4169, Davis, CA 95616, (530) 

792–5811, Philip.brown@ca.usda.gov. 

Colorado 

April Dahlager, USDA Rural Development, 

655 Parfet Street, Room E–100, Lakewood, 

CO 80215, (720) 544–2909, 

april.dahlager@co.usda.gov. 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands—CNMI (See Hawaii) 

Connecticut (See Massachusetts) 

Delaware/Maryland 

Bruce Weaver, USDA Rural Development, 

1221 College Park Drive, Suite 200, Dover, 

DE 19904, (302) 857–3626, 

Bruce.Weaver@de.usda.gov. 

Federated States of Micronesia (See Hawaii) 

Florida/Virgin Islands 

Joe Mueller, USDA Rural Development, 4440 

NW. 25th Place, Gainesville, FL 32606, 

(352) 338–3482, joe.mueller@fl.usda.gov. 

Georgia 

J. Craig Scroggs, USDA Rural Development, 

111 E. Spring St., Suite B, Monroe, GA 

30655, Phone 770–267–1413 ext. 113, 

craig.scroggs@ga.usda.gov. 

Guam (See Hawaii) 

Hawaii/Guam/Republic of Palau/Federated 

States of Micronesia/Republic of the Marshall 

Islands/America Samoa/Commonwealth of 

the Northern Marianas Islands-CNMI 

Tim O’Connell, USDA Rural Development, 

Federal Building, Room 311, 154 

Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720, (808) 

933–8313, Tim.Oconnell@hi.usda.gov. 

Idaho 

Brian Buch, USDA Rural Development, 9173 

W. Barnes Drive, Suite A1, Boise, ID 83709, 

(208) 378–5623, Brian.Buch@id.usda.gov. 

Illinois 

Molly Hammond, USDA Rural Development, 

2118 West Park Court, Suite A, Champaign, 

IL 61821, (217) 403–6210, 

Molly.Hammond@il.usda.gov. 

Indiana 

Jerry Hay, USDA Rural Development, 2411 N. 

1250 W., Deputy, IN 47230, (812) 873– 

1100, Jerry.Hay@in.usda.gov. 

Iowa 

Teresa Bomhoff, USDA Rural Development, 

873 Federal Building, 210 Walnut Street, 

Des Moines, IA 50309, (515) 284–4447, 

teresa.bomhoff@ia.usda.gov. 

Kansas 

David Kramer, USDA Rural Development, 

1303 SW First American Place, Suite 100, 

Topeka, KS 66604–4040, (785) 271–2744, 

david.kramer@ks.usda.gov. 

Kentucky 

Scott Maas, USDA Rural Development, 771 

Corporate Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, KY 

40503, (859) 224–7435, 

scott.maas@ky.usda.gov. 

Louisiana 

Kevin Boone, USDA Rural Development, 905 

Jefferson Street, Suite 320, Lafayette, LA 

70501, (337) 262–6601, Ext. 133, 

Kevin.Boone@la.usda.gov. 

Maine 

John F. Sheehan, USDA Rural Development, 

967 Illinois Avenue, Suite 4, P.O. Box 405, 

Bangor, ME 04402–0405, (207) 990–9168, 

john.sheehan@me.usda.gov. 

Maryland (See Delaware) 

Massachusetts/Rhode Island/Connecticut 

Charles W. Dubuc, USDA Rural 

Development, 451 West Street, Suite 2, 

Amherst, MA 01002, (401) 826–0842 X 

306, Charles.Dubuc@ma.usda.gov. 

Michigan 

Traci J. Smith, USDA Rural Development, 

3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 200, East 

Lansing, MI 48823, (517) 324–5157, 

Traci.Smith@mi.usda.gov. 

Minnesota 

Lisa L. Noty, USDA Rural Development, 1400 

West Main Street, Albert Lea, MN 56007, 

(507) 373–7960 Ext. 120, 

lisa.noty@mn.usda.gov. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES