Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 49907

Issues Identified From Previous 

Scoping 

The potential for impacts/effects as a 

result of the establishment and spread of 

invasive plants and the potential for 

impacts/effects as a result of treatment 

actions designed to manage invasive 

plants are both important considerations 

that need to be addressed in the 

analysis. The following issues were 

identified during the initial scoping 

process: 

• Human Health—Invasive plant 

treatments may result in health risks to 

forestry workers and the public, 

including contamination of drinking 

water and forest products. Mitigation 

and protection measures should be 

evaluated to ensure they protect human 

health. Public notification measures 

should be evaluated to ensure that 

human exposure to herbicide is limited. 

• Treatment Effectiveness—Invasive 

plant treatments can vary in 

effectiveness. The presence and spread 

of invasive plants within National 

Forest System lands may be affect the 

presence and spread of invasive plants 

on neighboring ownerships. Treatments 

should be evaluated based on how 

likely they are to reach desired 

conditions in the foreseeable future. 

• Social and Economic—Invasive 

plant treatments vary in cost and affect 

the acreage that can be effectively 

treated each year given a set budget. 

Manual treatment methods may cost 

more per acre and provide more 

employment. 

• Non-Target Plants and Animals—

Impacts to non-target plant and animal 

species varies by invasive plant 

treatments. Mitigation and protection 

measures should be evaluated to ensure 

they protect plant and animal species 

(including culturally important plants) 

from adverse effects. 

• Soils, Water Quality and Aquatic 

Biota—Soil and ground disturbing 

impacts, effects to aquatic organisms, 

and water quality impacts vary by 

invasive plant treatments. Mitigation 

and protection measures should be 

evaluated to ensure they protect soil, 

water quality and aquatic biota from 

adverse effects. 

Alternatives Considered

The No Action alternative will serve 

as a baseline for comparison of 

alternatives. Under the No Action 

alternative, the Gifford-Pinchot National 

Forest/Columbia River Gorge National 

Scenic Area would continue to treat 

invasive plant species as authorized 

under existing National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) documents. The 

Gifford-Pinchot National Forest would 

continue to have a standard that 

severely restricts herbicide use in 

riparian areas. 

Alternative Evaluation Criteria 

The alternatives will be evaluated 

based on how effectively they treat 

known and respond to new infestations, 

their monetary cost, and their potential 

risks to human health and the 

environment. 

Estimated Dates for Draft and Final EIS 

The Draft EIS is expected to be filed 

with the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and to be available for 

public comment by March 2006. The 

comment period on the draft EIS will be 

45 days from the date the EPA 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 the 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 objectives that could be 

raised at the draft EIS stage but that are 

not raised until after the 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 Heritage, Inc. v. 

Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334 (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 

the 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 provision 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (40 CFR 1503.3). 

Comments received in response to 

this solicitation, including names and 

addresses of those who comment, will 

be considered part of the public record 

on this proposed action and will be 

available for public inspection. 

Comments submitted anonymously will 

be accepted and considered; however, 

those who submit anonymous 

comments may not have standing to 

appeal the subsequent decision under 

36 CFR part 215. Additionally, pursuant 

to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may 

request the agency to withhold a 

submission from the public record by 

showing how the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) permits such 

confidentiality. Persons requesting such 

confidentiality should be aware that, 

under the FOIA, confidentiality may be 

granted in only very limited 

circumstances, such as to protect trade 

secrets. The Forest Service will inform 

the requester of the agency’s decision 

regarding the request for confidentiality, 

and where the request is denied, the 

agency will return the submission and 

notify the requester that the comments 

may be resubmitted with or without 

name and address within a specified 

number of days. 

Comments on the draft EIS will be 

analyzed, considered, and responded to 

by the Forest Service in preparing the 

final EIS. The Final EIS is scheduled to 

be completed in 2006. The Responsible 

Officials are Claire Lavendel, Gifford 

Pinchot National Forest Supervisor and 

Daniel T. Harkenrider, Columbia River 

Gorge National Scenic Area Manager. 

These officials will consider comments, 

responses, environmental consequences 

discussed in the final EIS, and 

applicable laws, regulations, and 

policies in making a decision regarding 

this proposed action. The responsible 

officials will document the decision and 

rationale for the decision in the Record 

of Decision. It will be subject to Forest 

Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR 

Part 215).

Dated: August 16, 2005. 

Claire Lavendel, 

Forest Supervisor, Gifford Pinchot National 

Forest. 

Dated: August 12, 2005. 

Daniel T. Harkenrider, 

Area Manager, Columbia River Gorge 

National Scenic Area.

[FR Doc. 05–16901 Filed 8–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

Plumas National Forest; Beckwourth 

Ranger District, California; Freeman 

Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

49908 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service, 

Plumas National Forest will prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

to reduce hazardous fuels, improve 

forest health, improve bald eagle 

habitat, cost effectively support the local 

communities, improve aspen stands, 

provide access needed to meet other 

project objectives and reduce 

transportation system impacts on the 

west side of Lake Davis near Portola, 

CA.

DATES: Although comments will be 

accepted throughout any phase of this 

project, it would be most helpful if 

comments on the scope of the analysis 

were received within 30 days of the date 

of publication of this notice of intent in 

the Federal Register. The draft EIS is 

expected in April 2006 and the final EIS 

is expected in August 2006.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Robert Mac Whorter, Plumas National 

Forest, PO Box 11500, Quincy, CA 

95971; fax: (530) 283–7746. Comments 

may be: (1) Mailed to the Responsible 

Official; (2) hand-delivered between the 

hours of 8 a.m.–4:30 p.m. weekdays 

Pacific time; (3) faxed to (530) 283–

7746; or (4) electronically mailed to: 

comments-pacificsouthwestplumas@fs.fed.us. Comments submitted 

electronically must be in Rich Text 

Format (.rtf).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sabrina Stadler, Interdisciplinary Team 

Leader, Plumas National Forest, 

Beckwourth Ranger District, P.O. Box 7, 

Blairsden, CA 96103, (530) 836–2575.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Project Location 

The project area is located north of 

Portola and west of Lake Davis, in the 

Beckwourth Ranger District of the 

Plumas National Forest. It is within all 

or parts of T23N, R12E; T23N, R13E; 

T24N, R12E; T24N, R13E. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The effects of several vegetation 

management projects will be analyzed 

in this EIS. The need for and purpose of 

the project has six elements: to reduce 

hazardous fuels in the wildland/urban 

interface (WUI) and to create a strategic 

network of linear fuel treatments across 

the landscape referred to as defensible 

fuel profile zones (DFPZs); to improve 

forest health; to improve bald eagle 

habitat; to implement the project in a 

cost effective manner and contribute to 

local community economic stability; to 

improve aspen stands; to provide the 

access needed to meet other project 

objectives and reduce transportation 

system impacts. 

In its effort to reduce excessive fuel, 

the Forest Service intends to work with 

the Plumas County Fire Safe Council to 

reduce hazardous fuels around local 

communities, as well as to develop a 

strategic network of linear fuel 

treatments across the landscape. This 

will reduce the potential for large-scale, 

high-intensity fire where wildfire 

behavior would be modified to allow for 

safer, more effective fire suppression.

Many stands in the project are 

infected with small pockets of insects 

and disease. The insects include both 

bark beetles (Dendroctonus brevicomus, 

D. valens) and pine engravers (Ips spp.). 

The diseases include mistletoe 

(Arceuthobium spp.), white pine blister 

rust (Cronartium ribicola) and annosus 

root rot (Heterobasidion annosum). 

Stands in the Lake Davis Bald Eagle 

Habitat Management Area (BEHMA) in 

the Freeman project area are 

overstocked, largely unable to recruit 

nesting structure, and at risk of loss 

from wildlife and disease/insect 

infestation. 

In addition to reducing the risk of 

catastrophic wildfire and improving 

forest health, this project would provide 

products that contribute to community 

stability in the most cost-effective 

manner possible, considering other 

resource objectives, by creating 

employment and income that contribute 

to local economic activity. 

Aspen stands in the project area are 

low in productivity and health, and 

most are not successfully regenerating. 

Field evaluation indicates that, 

regardless of the relative contribution of 

these various factors, at present, 

competition by conifers is a major factor 

in aspen decline. Aspen stand 

improvement work will maintain or 

improve diverse and productive native 

plant communities in the riparian zone, 

as well as to support populations of 

well-distributed native plant, vertebrate 

and invertebrate populations that 

contribute to the viability of riparian 

plant communities. 

The proposed road relocation and 

decommissioning work is needed to 

achieve desired riparian conditions and 

to reduce the total area of compacted 

soil. 

Proposed Action 

The project area consists of 14,967 

acres of the PNF managed by the 

Beckwourth Ranger District. The 

proposed action will treat 5,792 acres, 

approximately 39 percent of the project 

area by: reducing hazardous fuels; 

improving forest health, improving bald 

eagle habitat, cost effectively supporting 

the local communities; improving aspen 

stands; and providing the access needed 

to meet other project objectives and 

reducing transportation system impacts. 

Fuel reduction treatments will occur 

over 3,066 acres of the DFPZ and WUI. 

Treatments are specifically designed to 

cause advancing wildfire to drop to the 

ground and burn with reduced intensity 

and will involve several methods (i.e., 

grapple pile, handthin, mastication, 

mechanical thinning, underburn only). 

Forest health improvement will 

involve the use of group selection to 

remove insect and disease infected 

pockets within the stands. Group 

selection will be on 175 acres, ranging 

from 0.5–2 acres in size. The health of 

plantations and young conifer stands 

will also be addressed, through area 

thinning, mastication and grapple 

piling. 

Over half of the eagle habitat within 

the project area would receive some 

kind of treatment, consisting of 

mechanical thinning, hand thinning, 

underburn only, group selection and 

mechanical aspen treatments, covering 

1,964 acres. Treatments would focus on 

removing diseased pockets of trees and 

increasing the quantity of nesting 

habitat by thinning stands to accelerate 

growth. 

Aspen stands would be treated to 

remove conifers to enhance aspen 

health and growth. Aspen would be 

released from conifer competition in 40 

units totaling approximately 645 acres, 

ranging in size between 1–85 acres. 

Conifers to be removed are within the 

existing aspen stand (i.e., those trees 

actively suppressing aspen community 

productivity and function) or trees 

bordering a stand, which directly affect 

the health of the stand. All conifers up 

to 29.9′′ dbh would also be removed 

within a variable-width treatment zone 

extending up to 150′ beyond the outer 

boundary of the aspen stands.

The Forest proposes to improve 

transportation system needed to access 

the vegetation/fuels treatment units and 

to mitigate existing adverse effects on 

heritage resources, soils, and water 

quality. These improvements to the 

transportation system will include: 

building approximately 17 short 

segments of temporary roads 

(decommissioned upon completion), 

totaling 2-miles, needed to implement 

planned activities; decommissioning 

approximately 12.5-miles of existing 

system roads and 1.9-miles of nonsystem roads; closing 0.7-miles of 

system roads; relocating 0.2-mile of 

system road and 0.7-mile of system road 

would be reduced to single-track, in 

order to provide for recreational 

opportunities near Lake Davis. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 49909

Hazard trees would be removed from 

along Maintenance Level 3, 4 and 5 

roads (generally, surfaced roads) and 

high-use Maintenance Level 2 roads 

(generally native-surface roads). 

Identification of hazard trees would 

follow guidelines in the Plumas 

National Forest Roadside/Facility 

Hazard Tree Abatement Action Plan 

(2003). 

Lead Agency: The USDA Forest 

Service is the lead agency for this 

proposal. 

Responsible Official: Plumas National 

Acting Forest Supervisor, Robert G. 

MacWhorter is the responsible official; 

Plumas National Forest, P.O. Box 11500, 

Quincy, CA 95971. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The responsible official will decide 

whether to implement this project as 

proposed, implement the project based 

on an alternative to this proposal that is 

formulated to resolve identified issues 

or not implement this project at this 

time. The responsible official will be the 

Plumas National Forest Forest 

Supervisor. 

Scoping Process 

Public questions and comments 

regarding this proposal are an integral 

part of this environmental analysis 

process. Comments will be used to 

identify issues and disqualification 

alternatives to the proposed action. To 

assist the Forest Service in identifying 

and considering issues and concerns on 

the proposed action, comments should 

be as specific as possible. 

A copy of the proposed action and/or 

a summary of the proposed action will 

be mailed to adjacent landowners, as 

well as to those people and 

organizations that have indicated a 

specific interest in the Freeman project, 

to Native American entities, and 

Federal, State and local agencies. The 

public will be notified of any meetings 

regarding this proposed by mailings and 

press releases sent to the local 

newspaper and media. There are no 

meetings planned at this time. 

Permits or Licenses Required: An Air 

Pollution Permit and a Smoke 

Management Plan are required by local 

agencies. 

Comment 

This notice of intent initiates the 

scoping process which guides the 

development of the EIS. Our desire is to 

receive substantive comments on the 

merits of the proposed action, as well as 

comments that address errors, 

misinformation, or information that has 

been omitted. Substantive comments are 

defined as comments within the scope 

of the proposal, that have a direct 

relationship to the proposal, and that 

include supporting reasons for the 

responsible official’s consideration.

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. 

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

environmental objections that could be 

raised as 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 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 proposed action, 

comments on the draft environmental 

impact statement should be as specific 

as possible. It is also helpful if 

comments refer to specific pages or 

chapters of the draft statement. 

Comments may also address the 

adequacy of the draft environmental 

impact statement or the merits of the 

alternatives formulated and discussed in 

the statement. Reviewers may wish to 

refer to the Council on Environmental 

Quality Regulations for implementing 

the procedural provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act at 40 

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. 

Comments received, including the 

names and addresses of those who 

comment, will be considered part of the 

public record on this proposal and will 

be available for public inspection.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 

21)

Dated: August 19, 2005. 

Kathleen L. Gay, 

Acting Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 05–16898 Filed 8–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Economic Development Administration 

Notice of Petitions by Producing Firms 

for Determination of Eligibility To 

Apply for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance

AGENCY: Economic Development 

Administration (EDA), Commerce.

ACTION: To give all interested parties an 

opportunity to comment. 

Petitions have been accepted for filing 

on the dates indicated from the firms 

listed below.

LIST OF PETITION ACTION BY TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR PERIOD JULY 16, 2005–AUGUST 19, 2005 

Firm name Address 

Date

petition

accepted 

Product 

Source Code Corporation ....... 290 Vanderbilt Avenue Norwood, MA 02062.10–Aug–05 .... Computers and servers. 

ITA Corporation ....................... 2401 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20850.

25–Jul–05 ...... Accounting and human resource software.