Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 217 / Thursday, November 10, 2005 / Notices 68393 

Summary of Collection: The export of 

agricultural commodities, including 

animals and animal products, is a major 

business in the United States and 

contributes to a favorable balance of 

trade. The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) maintains 

information regarding the import health 

requirements of other countries for 

animals and animal products exported 

from the United States. The regulations 

governing the export of animals and 

products from the United States are 

contained in 9 CFR parts 91, subchapter 

D. ‘‘Exportation and Importation of 

Animals (including Poultry) and Animal 

Products,’’ and apply to farm-raised 

aquatic animals and products, as well as 

other livestock and products. These 

regulations are authorized by the 

Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 

8301–8317). The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), U.S. 

Department of Commerce, and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. 

Department of Interior, as well as 

APHIS, have legal authorities and 

responsibilities related to aquatic 

animal health in the United States. All 

three agencies have therefore entered 

into a Memorandum of Understanding 

delineating their respective 

responsibilities in the issuance of the 

health certificate for the export of live 

aquatic animals and animal products. A 

new health certificate has been 

developed that will bear the logo of all 

three agencies, and can be used by all 

three when issuing a health certificate 

for the export of live crustaceans, 

finfish, mollusks, and their related 

products from the U.S. 

Need and Use of the Information: The 

health certificate will require the names 

of the species being exported from the 

U.S., their age and weights, and whether 

they are cultured stock or wild stock; 

their place of origin, their country of 

destination and the date and method of 

transport. The certificate will be 

completed by an accredited inspector 

with assistance from the producer and 

must be signed by both the accredited 

inspector as well as the appropriate 

Federal official from APHIS, NOAA, or 

FWS who certifies the health status of 

the shipment being exported. The use of 

the certificate will lend consistency to a 

public service delivered by three 

separate agencies, and should make the 

aquatic export certification process less 

confusing for those who require this 

important service. Failing to use this 

form could result in less efficient 

service to the exporting public. 

Description of Respondents: Farms; 

Individuals or households; Federal 

Government. 

Number of Respondents: 100. 

Frequency of Responses: Reporting: 

On occasion. 

Total Burden Hours: 1,500. 

Ruth Brown, 

Departmental Information Collection 

Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05–22404 Filed 11–9–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Plumas National Forest; California; 

Diamond Vegetation Management 

Project 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

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) 

on a proposal implement hazardous fuel 

reduction and construction of 

Defensible Fuel Profile Zones, 

implement thinning, group selection 

harvest, road system improvements, and 

stream channel restoration. Also, 

treatments of noxious weeds are 

proposed using mechanical, fire, and 

chemical methods. These actions are 

proposed to occur in forested areas of 

public land northeast of Quincy, 

California. 

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be 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 

James M. Pen ̃ a, Plumas National Forest, 

P.O. Box 11500, Quincy, CA 95971. Fax: 

(530) 283–7746. Electronic comments 

should be sent to: commentspacificsouthwest-plumas@fs.fed.us. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emily Moghaddas, Interdisciplinary 

Team Leader, Mt. Hough Ranger 

District, telephone (530) 283–7652. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Tentative or Preliminary Issues and 

Possible Alternatives 

Alternatives being considered at this 

time include: (A) the Proposed Action 

and (B) No Action. 

The proposed action is designed to 

meet the standards and guidelines for 

land management activities in the 

Plumas National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (1988) 

(LRMP) as amended by the Record of 

Decision for the Herger-Feinstein 

Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery 

Act (1999) (HFQLG), and as amended by 

the Record of Decision for the Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2004). 

The proposed action is located in 

Plumas County, California, within the 

Mt. Hough Ranger District of the Plumas 

National Forest in all or portions of 

Sections 1 and 2 T26N R11E; Sections 

2–6, 8–11, 14–23, 26–29, 32, and 33 

T26N R12E. Sections 1, 2, 10–14, 24, 

and 25 T27N R10E; Sections 2–28, 30, 

35, 36 T27N R11E; Sections 1–12, 14–

17, 19–21, 26–35 T27N R12E; Section 6 

T27N R13E; Sections 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, 

26, 35, 36 T28N R10E; Sections 1–5, 7–

20, 23–26, 29–36 T28N R11E; Sections 

5–9, 14–36 T28N R12E; and Section 31 

T28N R13E MDM. Section 1, T23N, 

R9E; Section 6, T23N, R10E; Sections 4 

& 8, T23N, R11E; Sections 1–6, 8–12, 

13–16, 22–26, 31, and 32, T24N, R10E; 

Sections 5–8, 15, 17, 21–28, and 33–35, 

T24N, R11E; Sections 1, 10–12, 13, 14, 

21–28, 33–34, and 26, T25N, R9E; 

Sections 6–8 and 14–35, T25N, R10E; 

and Sections 19, 29, 30, 31, and 32, 

T25N, R11E, MDM. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The purpose and need for this 

proposal is to shift the existing 

conditions toward the desired 

conditions. In the context of an 

integrated management approach there 

are several primary needs for this 

proposal. They include: 

(1) Modifying fire behavior to protect 

communities, fire fighters, and 

biological resources; (2) Modifying 

forest structure and species composition 

to promote the development of an 

uneven-aged, multistoried, fire resilient 

forest; (3) Restoring aquatic and riparian 

habitat and improve watershed 

conditions; (4) Contributing to the 

economic stability of rural communities; 

(5) Controlling spread and introduction 

of noxious weeds; and (6) Providing 

access to integrated resource treatments 

and improving the road system. 

Proposed Action 

The project area for the proposed 

action is about 100,000 acres. The 

proposal is composed of eight actions: 

(1) Reduce hazardous fuels; (2) 

implement group selection timber 

harvest; (3) implement thinning timber 

harvest and biomass removal; (4) 

improve transportation system; (5) 

improve riparian and watershed 

conditions, (6) thin conifers trees to 

release aspen stands; (7) thin conifers 

and reduce fuels in Baker cypress 

68394 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 217 / Thursday, November 10, 2005 / Notices 

habitat, and (8) remove and abate 

noxious weeds. Fuel treatments would 

consist of construction of about 5,700 

acres of defensible fuel profile zones 

and prescribed burning on about 900 

acres, totalling about 6, 600 acres. Group 

selection timber harvest as part of the 

HFQLG pilot project would be 

conducted on about 1,200 acres. 

Thinning and biomass removal are 

proposed on about 4,255 acres. Also, 

thinning is proposed in plantations 

(about 800 acres) riparian habitat 

conservation areas (about 1,256 acres), 

aspen stands (about 820 acres), Baker 

cypress stands (about 140 acres). Six 

areas of stream channel restoration is 

proposed. And about two miles of new 

system roads would be constructed; ten 

miles of temporary roads would be 

constructed and decommissioned after 

use; twelve miles of existing roads 

would be permanently 

decommissioned; 107 miles of 

reconstruction fo existing roads, and 

seven culverts would be replaced or 

installed for fish passage. About 400 

locations of Canada thistle (Cirsium 

avense) would be treated with either 

clopyralid or glyphopsate on about 120 

acres. the remaining 2 acres of noxious 

weed locations would be treated with 

mechanical, hand, or burning methods. 

Lead Agency 

The USDA Forest Service is the lead 

agency for this proposal. 

Responsible Official 

Plumas National Forest Supervisor 

James M. Pen ̃ a is the responsible 

official. Plumas National Forest, P.O. 

Box 11500, Quincy, CA 95971. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

Forest Supervisor James M. Pen ̃ a will 

decide whether to implement the 

Diamond Project as proposed and 

described above, implement the project 

based on an alternative to this proposal 

that is formulated to resolve identified 

conflicts, or not implement this project 

at this time. 

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 develop 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 will be 

mailed to adjacent landowners, as well 

as those people and organizations that 

have indicated a specific interest in the 

Diamond project, interested individuals 

who attended the open house held prior 

to the development of a landscape 

assessment for the watersheds 

encompassing the project, to Native 

American Tribes, Federal, State, and 

local agencies. The public will be 

notified of any meetings regarding this 

proposal by mailings and press releases 

sent to the local newspaper and media. 

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 environmental 

impact statement under NEPA, which 

will guide 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 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 proposal 

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) 

Dated: November 3, 2005. 

James M. Pen ̃ a, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 05–22435 Filed 11–9–05; 8:45am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Revision of Land Management Plans, 

Colville, Okanogan and Wenatchee 

National Forests, Located in Central 

WA 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of adjustment to Federal 

Register Notice of Vol. 69, No. 46, p. 

10974, March 9, 2004, and transition to 

the 2005 Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219 

(Federal Register Vol. 70, No.3/January 

5, 2005, p. 1023). 

Authority: 36 CFR 219.14(e). 

SUMMARY: The Responsible Officials 

(Forest Supervisors) for the Colville 

National Forest and the Okanogan and 

Wenatchee National Forests will 

exercise their option to adjust the land 

management plan revision process from 

compliance with the 1982 planning 

regulations, to conformance with new 

planning regulations adopted in January