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

54350 

Vol. 70, No. 177 

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Office of the Secretary 

Notice of the Specialty Crop 

Committee’s Listening Session 

AGENCY: Research, Education, and 

Economics, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of listening session on 

specialty crops. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 

U.S.C. App 2, the United States 

Department of Agriculture announces a 

listening session of the Specialty Crop 

Committee under the auspices of the 

National Agricultural Research, 

Extension, Education, and Economics 

Advisory Board. 

DATES: The Specialty Crop Committee 

will hold a listening session from 9:30 

a.m. to 4:45 p.m. on October 20, 2005, 

and from 8:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. on 

October 21, 2005. 

The public may file written comments 

before or up to two weeks after the 

listening session with the contact 

person. 

ADDRESSES: The listening session of the 

Specialty Crop Committee will take 

place at the Best Western Capitol 

Skyline Hotel, 10 I Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20024–4299. You may 

submit comments by any of the 

following methods to the contact person 

identified in this notice: Mail/Handdelivery: National Agricultural 

Research, Extension, Education, and 

Economics Advisory Board Office; U.S. 

Department of Agriculture; Room 344– 

A, Jamie L. Whitten Building; 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–2255; Fax: (202) 

720–6199; E-mail: 

dhanfman@csrees.usda.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah Hanfman, Executive Director, 

National Agricultural Research, 

Extension, Education, and Economics 

Advisory Board, (202) 720–3684. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Specialty Crop Committee was 

established in accordance with the 

Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 

2004 under Title III, Section 303 of 

Public Law 108–465. This Committee is 

a permanent subcommittee of the 

National Agricultural Research 

Extension, Education, and Economics 

Advisory Board (the Board). The 

Committee’s charge is to study the scope 

and effectiveness of research, extension, 

and economics programs affecting the 

specialty crop industry. The 

congressional legislation defines 

‘‘specialty crops’’ as fruits, vegetables, 

tree nuts, dried fruits and nursery crops 

(including floriculture). In order to carry 

out its responsibilities effectively, the 

Committee is holding a listening session 

from October 20–21, 2005 in 

conjunction with the Advisory Board’s 

biannual meeting scheduled from 

October 18–20, 2005 at the Best Western 

Capitol Skyline Hotel, 10 I Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. The listening session 

will elicit input from industry, national, 

and state representatives from 

organizations and institutions, local 

producers, and other individuals and 

groups interested in the specialty crop 

issues with which the Specialty Crop 

Committee is charged. The listening 

session will be organized into five 

specific panel sessions that correspond 

to one or more topics delineated in the 

Committee’s charge by Congress. 

Panelists will provide a brief 10-minute 

statement that will address their 

respective panel topic(s) as well as 

suggest ways by which agricultural 

research, extension, and/or economics 

can enhance the specialty crop industry. 

Each panel session will be followed 

with questions by Committee members 

and brief public comments from the 

floor. Opportunities for general 

discussion from the floor will be held 

on Friday, October 21, 2005 from 10:30– 

11:30 a.m. Also, written comments by 

attendees and other individuals will be 

welcomed as additional public input 

before and up to two weeks following 

the listening session. All statements will 

become part of the official public record 

of the Board. 

A copy of the draft agenda can be 

requested from the contact person cited 

above. 

Done at Washington, DC this 8th day of 

September 2005. 

Joseph J. Jen, 

Under Secretary, Research, Education, and 

Economics. 

[FR Doc. 05–18218 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Plumas National Forest, Beckwourth 

Ranger District; Plumas County, 

California Lake Davis Northern Pike 

Eradication Project 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service, 

Plumas National Forest, gives notice of 

the Agency’s intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

in cooperation with the California 

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 

issuing a joint Environmental Impact 

Report (EIR). The EIS will consider 

Federal and State actions associated 

with CDFG’s proposal to eradicate 

northern pike, Esox lucius, from Lake 

Davis and its tributaries. Northern pike 

are restricted in California and it is 

unlawful to import, transport, or possess 

live animals. This proposed project is 

designed to help protect the fishery 

resources of the state by eradicating pike 

from Lake Davis and its upstream 

tributaries. CDFG has proposed to treat 

the reservoir and its tributaries with 

rotenone, at a concentration sufficient to 

eradicate northern pike and to restock 

the reservoir with trout. The associated 

actions are: (1) the Forest Service 

issuing CDFG a special use permit for 

access through, and use of National 

Forest lands adjacent to Lake Davis and 

its tributaries for implementing the 

proposed project. (2) a Forest order to 

close the entire area to the public during 

implementation of the proposed project 

and to close access to the lake bed as the 

lake level is lowered. 

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be postmarked no 

later than October 31, 2005. The draft 

EIS is expected March 2006 and the 

final EIS is expected November 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Julie Cunningham, P.O. Box 1858, 

Portola CA 96122. Email comments may 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Notices 54351 

be submitted to: 

northernpike@dfg.ca.gov. Comments 

may also be submitted at the Web site: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/northernpike. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

California Department of Fish and 

Game, Portola Field Office, P.O. Box 

1858, Portola, CA 96122, (530) 832–

4068. U.S. Forest Service, Plumas 

National Forest Supervisors Office, 

Angela Dillingham, 159 Lawrence 

Street, P.O. Box 11500, Quincy CA 

95971, (530) 283–2050. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Lake 

Davis is located in Plumas County, 

California, at an elevation of 5,775 feet 

above sea level. Included in the project 

area are Lake Davis, all the tributaries in 

the watershed to Lake Davis and Big 

Grizzly Creek below Lake Davis. These 

all occur in the upper reaches of the 

Middle Fork Feather River watershed in 

the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Lake 

Davis is a State Water Project reservoir 

that was first impounded in 1966–68 by 

the construction of Grizzly Valley Dam 

on Big Grizzly Creek. Three main 

tributaries, Big Grizzly, Freeman and 

Cow Creeks, feed the reservoir. The total 

drainage area is about 44 square miles. 

Lake Davis has a surface area of 4,025 

acres when full, a capacity of 84,371 

acre-feet and an average depth of 21 

feet. The deepest point of the reservoir 

is 108 feet, just upstream of Big Grizzly 

Dam. The reservoir is operated by the 

California Department of Water 

Resources (CDWR), and lies within the 

U.S. Forest Service, Plumas National 

Forest. 

Lake Davis water is used for 

recreation, irrigation, and for the benefit 

of fish and wildlife. It supports a trout 

fishery managed by CDFG. Lake Davis 

has been developed as a source of 

domestic water for the City of Portola 

and the Grizzly Lake Resort 

Improvement District. The Plumas 

County water treatment plant, which 

treats Lake Davis water, was taken 

offline, as it did not meet regulatory 

standards, and remains offline pending 

improvements to the water treatment 

plant. Currently neither entity uses Lake 

Davis as a water supply. Nearby 

residences depend on ground water 

from private wells. 

Pike were first discovered in Lake 

Davis in 1994. In 1997, a chemical 

treatment was conducted to remove pike 

from Lake Davis and its tributary 

streams. Pike were rediscovered in Lake 

Davis in May 1999, about eighteen 

months following what appeared to be 

a successful rotenone treatment of the 

reservoir. In 2000 CDFG and the Lake 

Davis Steering Committee developed a 

management plan to suppress the pike 

population, contain it within Lake Davis 

and to remove as many pike as possible 

from the reservoir (to date 

approximately 50,000). In September 

2003 CDFG evaluated the previous 31⁄2

years of pike removal, which can be 

viewed on the Web at http:// 

www.dfg.ca.gov/northenpike/ 

summary_report.pdf. Data indicated 

pike numbers continued to increase in 

spite of the concerted control efforts. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

Pike are a nonnative invasive fish 

species illegally introduced to 

California. Pike can seriously impact 

aquatic ecosystems by heavy predation 

on other fish species, where habitat 

conditions are favorable. Introduced 

pike have the potential to become the 

dominant fish species, often to the near 

total exclusion of native fish species. 

Portions of the Feather River, 

Sacramento River, and the SacramentoSan Joaquin Delta, as well as many 

aquatic environments in other California 

watersheds, match the preferred habitat 

of the pike in terms of temperature, 

aquatic vegetation, current speed and 

other features. The geographical extent 

of pike in California is thought to be 

limited to Lake Davis and its upstream 

tributary streams. Lake Davis flows into 

the Middle Fork Feather River, which 

flows into Lake Oroville and then into 

the Sacramento River and the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Within 

the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 

system, a number of fish species have 

life history stages and habitat 

preferences, that make them vulnerable 

to pike predation. These include the 

state and federally listed out migrating 

juveniles of winter and spring run 

Chinook salmon, steelhead and delta 

smelt. Other species of concern are 

splittail, Sacramento perch and a variety 

of fish species including stocked trout. 

Based upon current knowledge of the 

physical and biological processes that 

influence the spread and impact of pike 

on aquatic ecosystems, the pike 

population in Lake Davis appears 

poised to have a serious and widespread 

environmental impact on California’s 

aquatic ecosystems. If the pike 

population is not eradicated, biological 

and physical processes or physical 

movement by humans will eventually 

result in the spread of the pike 

population to downstream locations. 

The risk of such a spread has steadily 

increased since 1999 as the pike 

population in Lake Davis has increased 

in numbers. Due to the pike 

containment in just the Lake Davis area, 

a window of opportunity exists to 

eliminate the species from the state. 

Proposed Action 

The EIS proposed action is to issue 

the required Forest Service Special Use 

Permit needed to carry out CDFG’s 

proposed project. This would include a 

Forest Closure in the immediate area 

surrounding Lake Davis for public safety 

and to protect archaeological sites. The 

CDFG proposed project involves the 

draw down of Lake Davis to a volume 

of about 10,000–20,000 acre-feet. A 

liquid rotenone formulation would then 

be applied to eliminate pike. The 

remaining water held in Lake Davis and 

any ponded water, and waters flowing 

into Lake Davis, potentially from the 

headwaters of the three main tributaries, 

Big Grizzly, Freeman and Cow Creeks, 

to the reservoir, or wetland areas, ponds 

etc., adjacent to the flowing waters that 

are tributary to Lake Davis within its 

watershed would be treated with liquid 

rotenone at concentrations sufficient to 

eradicate the pike. It is anticipated at 

this time that the concentration of 

rotenone used would be 2 ppm. 

Possible Alternatives 

To date, the following alternatives 

have been preliminarily identified: (1) 

Proposed Action (preferred alternative); 

(2) No action alternative that would 

continue the current management plan; 

(3) Draw down the reservoir to 

minimum pool (approximate surface 

area of 25 acres, remaining volume 

about 90 acre feet) and use liquid 

rotenone; (4) Draw reservoir down to 

48,000 acre-feet and eradicate with 

liquid rotenone; (5) Completely dewater 

reservoir and tributaries. 

Lead and Cooperating Agencies 

The Forest Service is the lead agency 

in the preparation of the EIS. CDFG is 

the lead agency for the preparation of 

the EIR. Both agencies are cooperating 

to prepare a joint EIR/EIS. 

Responsible Official 

Angela L. Dillingham, District Ranger, 

Beckwourth Ranger District, P.O. Box 7, 

Blairsden, CA 96103. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

Whether to issue a special use permit 

to CDFG for access through, and use of, 

National Forest lands to Lake Davis for 

implementing the proposed northern 

pike eradication project. Whether to 

implement a Forest Closure during 

implementation of the proposed project. 

Scoping Process 

Public scoping meetings are 

scheduled as follows: 

September 26, 2005, there will be two 

sessions, 1–3 pm and 6:30–9 pm, at the 

Easterm Plumas Health Care Education 

54352 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Notices 

Center, 500 1st Avenue, Portola, 

California; 

September 28, 2005, there will be two 

sessions, 1–3 pm and 6:30–9 pm, at the 

Radisson Hotel, 500 Leisure Lane, 

Sacramento, California. 

Permits or Licenses Required 

Approval from the following Agencies 

is required: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; U.S. Forest Service; Central 

Valley Regional Water Quality Control 

Board; California Department of Water 

Resources; California Department of 

Health Services; Northern Sierra Air 

Quality Management District; California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation; 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Comment Requested 

This notice of intent initiates the 

scoping process which guides the 

development of the EIS. Comments 

submitted during the scoping process 

should be in writing or e-mail, and 

should be specific to the proposed 

action. The comments should describe 

as clearly and completely as possible 

any point of dispute, debate or 

disagreement the commentater has with 

the proposed action. Once scoping 

letters are received, all potential issues 

will be identified to analyze in depth, 

and a reasonable range of alternatives 

will be developed to address those 

significant issues. Potential 

environmental effects of the proposed 

action as well as alternatives will be 

analyzed in the EIS. 

Early Notice of Importance of Public 

Participation in Subsequent 

Environmental Review: A draft 

environmental impact statement (as part 

of a joint EIR/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 

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 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 for the draft EIS 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). 

Dated: September 7, 2005. 

Angela L. Dillingham, 

District Ranger. 

[FR Doc. 05–18204 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Ketchikan Resource Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Ketchikan Resource 

Advisory Committee will meet in 

Ketchikan, Alaska, October 13, 2005 and 

December 15, 2005. The purpose of 

these meetings is to discuss potential 

projects under the Secure Rural Schools 

and Community Self-Determination Act 

of 2000. 

DATES: The meetings will be held 

October 12, 2005 and December 15, 

2005 at 6 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at 

the Southeast Alaska Discovery Center 

Learning Center (back entrance), 50 

Main Street, Ketchikan, Alaska. Send 

written comments to Ketchikan 

Resource Advisory Committee, c/o 

District Ranger, USDA Forest Service, 

3031 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 

99901, or electronically to 

ikolund@fs.fed.us. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lynn Kolund, District Ranger, 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, 

Tongass National Forest, (907) 228–

4100. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

meetings are open to the public 

Committee discussion is limited to 

Forest Service staff and Committee 

members. However, public input 

opportunity will be provided and 

individuals will have the opportunity to 

address the Committee at that time. 

Dated: September 6, 2005. 

Forrest Cole, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 05–18207 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

DOC has submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

clearance the following proposal for 

collection of information under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). 

Agency: U.S. Census Bureau. 

Title: 2006 Person Interview and 

Person Interview Reinterview 

Operations. 

Form Number(s): None (automated 

instrument). 

Agency Approval Number: None. 

Type of Request: New collection. 

Burden: 2,017 hours. 

Number of Respondents: 6,050. 

Average Hours Per Response: 20 

minutes. 

Needs and Uses: The U.S. Census 

Bureau requests authorization from the 

Office of Management and Budget to 

conduct a Census Coverage 

Measurement (CCM) Operation in 

preparation for the 2010 Census. The 

CCM operation is to occur during the 

2006 Census Test to evaluate new 

approaches that would produce 

improved measures of coverage error 

components for persons enumerated 

while making reductions in the number 

of people duplicated.