64800 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2001 / Notices

predicated on the principle that a single

management method will not be

successful; but that implementing a

fully integrated approach in weed

management significantly improves the

chances of a successful program. A

variety of activities can be carried out

under an IPM program and provides for

a full range of management strategies,

including prevention and public

education.

Weeds can alter ecosystem processes,

including productivity, decomposition,

hydrology, nutrient cycling, and natural

disturbance patterns such as frequency

and intensity of wildfires. Changing

these processes can lead to

displacement of native plant species,

eventually impacting wildlife and

native plant habitat, recreational

opportunities, natural hydrologic

processes, and scenic beauty. The

economic effects from the subsequent

loss of productivity and resource values

can be considerable.

The Draft EIS will focus on restoring

native species and wildlife habitat while

reducing runoff and erosion by

containing and reducing weed

infestations and seed sources

throughout the forest, controlling the

spread of existing weeds, and

preventing the establishment of new

weed species. This project will

encompass portions of the S–CNF, with

complete analysis expected by January

2003.

EIS Scope

Potential alternatives for weed

management may include mechanical,

biological, vegetative (e.g. seedings),

controlled grazing, and ground-based

and aerial herbicide applications.

Methods of management will be

evaluated based on environmental

concerns, management restrictions, and

site characteristics to ensure weed

management activities are as successful

as possible. The project area and

analysis will encompass the entire

Salmon-Challis National Forest

excluding the Frank Church River of No

Return Wilderness, an area of

approximately 3,108,827 acres. Specific

treatment areas may be throughout the

project area and would include big game

summer and winter range, roads, trails,

trailheads, administrative sites, and

other emphasis areas such as disturbed

sites and high use areas. preliminary

issues identified for analysis in the EIS

include the potential effects and

relationship of the project to human

health risk, water quality, fisheries,

native plant communities, wildlife

habitat, soil productivity, recreation,

scenery, heritage resources, and

sensitive plants.

Public Involvement

The Forest Service intends to

schedule at least three public

information meetings before the close of

the comment period. For the Forest

Service to best use the scoping input,

comments should be received by

January 31, 2002.

Public participation will be an

integral component of the study process,

and will be especially important at

several points during the analysis. The

first is during the scoping process. The

Forest Service will be seeking

information, comments, and assistance

from Federal, State, County, and local

agencies, individuals, and organizations

that may be interested in or affected by

the proposed activities. The scoping

process will include: (1) Identification

of potential issues, (2) identification of

issues to be analyzed in depth, (3)

identification of alternatives and (4)

elimination of non-significant issues or

those that have been covered by

previous environmental reviews.

Written scoping comments will be

solicited through a scoping package that

will be sent to the project mailing list

and local newspapers.

At this early stage, the Forest Service

believes it is important to give reviewers

notice of several court rulings related to

public participation in the

environmental review process. First,

reviewers of Draft EIS’s 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

have been raised at the Draft EIS stage,

but that are not raised until completion

of the Final EIS, may be waived or

dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon

v. Hodel, 803 F.2nd 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 on the Draft EIS, so

that substantive comments and any

objections are made available to the

Forest Service at a time when they can

be meaningfully considered and

responded to in the Final EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns of the proposed action,

comments on the Draft EIS should be as

specific as possible. It is also helpful if

comments refer to specific pages or

chapters of the Draft EIS. Comments

may address the adequacy of the Draft

EIS, as well as the merits of the

alternatives formulated and discussed in

the Draft EIS. Reviewers may wish to

refer to the Council on Environmental

Quality Regulations for implementing

the procedural provisions of the

National Environmental Policy Act in

40 CFR 1503.3, in addressing these

points.

DATES: Dates, times and locations of

these meetings will be announced.

Written comments concerning the scope

of this project should be received by the

Salmon-Challis National Forest by

January 31, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Please send written

comments to: Salmon-Challis National

Forest, 50 Highway 93 South, Salmon,

ID 83467. Attn: Lyle Powers, RE:

Salmon-Challis NF Noxious Weed EIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyle

Powers, Planning Staff Officer,

telephone (208) 756–5557, E-mail:

lepowers@fs.fed.us, or Bill Diage,

Planning Team Ecologist, telephone

(208) 756–5562, E-mail:

wdiage@fs.fed.us, Salmon-Challis

National Forest, 50 Highway 93 South,

Salmon, ID 83467.

Permits/Authorizations: The proposed

action will not require any site-specific

amendments to the Salmon nor Challis

National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plans.

Responsible Official: George Matejko,

Forest Supervisor, Salmon-Challis

National Forest, is the responsible

official. In making the decision, the

responsible official will consider the

comments; responses; disclosure of

environmental consequences; and

applicable laws, regulations, and

policies. The responsible official will

state the rationale for the chosen

alternative in the Record of Decision.

Dated: December 7, 2001.

George Matejko,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 01–30885 Filed 12–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

B-Line Phase III (Sewer Export Pipeline

Replacement), Lake Tahoe Basin

Management Unit (LTBMU), El Dorado

County, California; Notice of Intent

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service will

prepare an environmental impact

statement (EIS) to address whether or

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2001 / Notices 64801

not to authorize the South Tahoe Public

Utility District to construct Phase III of

the B-Line Export Pipeline. This project

would complete the replacement of the

original effluent export pipeline that

runs from South Lake Tahoe, CA to the

Tahoe Basin boundary.

DATES: The public is asked to provide

any additional information they believe

the Forest Service may still not have at

this time and to submit any issues

(points of concern, debate, dispute or

disagreement) regarding potential effects

of the proposed action or alternatives by

January 15, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Michael Rhoades, Associate Planner,

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, P.O.

Box 1038, Zephyr Cove, NV 89448.

Telephone: 775/588–4547, Fax: 775/

588–4527, E-mail: mrhoades@trpa.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Rhoades at the above address.

Decision to be Made: The Forest

Supervisor will decide whether or not to

authorize construction of the proposed

pipeline and if so which route the new

pipeline will follow.

Purpose and Need: The South Tahoe

Public Utility District’s owns and

operates an effluent export system that

pumps treated effluent from the

District’s wastewater treatment plant in

South Lake Tahoe to the Harvey Place

Reservoir in Alpine County, CA. The

original force main was installed in

1969/70 and utilized steel pipe that was

installed using poorly monitored

construction techniques. Problems

developed soon after the installation

was completed, and have continued as

the line has aged. The existing pipeline

is no longer reliable. Leaks and breaks

in the existing line sometimes occur.

Proposed Action: Authorize the South

Tahoe Public Utility District (District) to

construct Phase III of the B-Line Export

Pipeline Replacement. The proposed

action and alternatives are described in

greater detail below.

Lead Agencies: The USDA Forest

Service will serve as lead agency under

the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA). The Tahoe Regional Planning

Agency (TRPA) will serve as lead

agency under the TRPA rules of

procedure (Ordinances Chapter 5). The

South Tahoe Public Utility District will

serve as the lead agency under the

California Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA). The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency will work closely

with the Forest Service under NEPA.

Implementation of the proposal would

require permits from TRPA, the

California Regional Water Quality

Control Board Lahontan Region and the

Forest Service.

Scoping: The planning for this project

is being coordinated by the three lead

agencies. The environmental documents

will be drafted to meet the requirements

of NEPA, CEQA and TRPA. Scoping

meetings are being held before the

TRPA Advisory Planning Commission

on December 12, 2001 and the

Governing Board on December 19, 2001.

The CEQA/TRPA Notice of Preparation

request comments by December 30,

2001. The Forest Service is requesting

Scoping comments by January 15, 2002.

Response Time: Please send your

comments no later than January 15,

2001 to Michael Rhoades, Associate

Planner,—Tahoe Regional Planning

Agency,—PO Box 1038,—Zephyr Cove,

NV 89448. Telephone: 775/588–4547,

Fax: 775/588–4527, E-mail:

mrhoades@trpa.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact

Michael Rhoades at the address or

telephone number provided above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Project Name and Description and

Background

The South Tahoe Public Utility

District’s (District) owns and operates an

effluent export system that pumps

treated effluent from the District’s

wastewater treatment plant in South

Lake Tahoe to the Harvey Place

Reservoir in Alpine County, CA. The

export system is divided into three

segments, the A-Line, B-Line, and CLine. The B-Line consists of the portion

of the pipeline between the Luther Pass

Pump Station and the top of Luther Pass

where the force main breaks to gravity.

The original force main was installed in

1969/70 and utilized steel pipe that was

installed using poorly monitored

construction techniques. Problems

developed soon after the installation

was completed, and have continued as

the line has aged. Construction is

currently being completed on the reach

that extends from the 1980 replacement

to the gravity break at Luther Pass

(approximately 9,982 lineal feet known

as B-Line Phase II). The current

proposal will extend from the Luther

Pass Pump Station to the middle of the

Forest Service campground (where the

Phase I replacement began) and will

result in the complete replacement of

the original B-Line pipeline. The

proposal is to authorize the District to

construct Phase III of the B-Line Export

Pipeline. The project includes the

construction of a new effluent export

pipeline between the Luther Pass Pump

Station and the project’s terminus

within the campground east of State

Route 89. This segment of the B-Line

pipeline is located approximately 3.5

miles south of Meyers, CA. The project

would consist of a pressurized 24-inchdiameter pipeline placed below ground

level. The pipeline trench would be a

minimum of 7 feet deep and

approximately four to six feet wide,

depending upon soil conditions. The

24-inch diameter pipeline replaces an

existing 20-inch diameter pipeline.

Following replacement, the existing

pipeline would be abandoned in place.

The pipeline would be constructed

using excavators and rubber-tired

loaders, with the steel pipe welded

onsite. The welding and coating activity

would take place adjacent to and above

the trench. Following welding and

pipeline coating activities, the pipe

segments (up to 1,000 feet in length)

would be placed into the trench. Due to

the need to conduct welding along side

the pipeline trench, all ground

vegetation will need to be removed

within the immediate trench corridor to

avoid the risk of wild fire. The proposed

widths for the construction corridor are

provided below.

Within the campground road, an

option exists to use a rock-trencher for

trenching activities. The benefit of using

a rock-trencher is that it requires a

narrower construction corridor than

traditional construction methods

(vehicles can work front to back rather

than side by side). However, the rock

trencher is much heavier than an

excavator or other rubber-tired

equipment and requires a more stable

base from which to operate.

A 50-foot-wide temporary

construction easement has been

requested by the District for the pipeline

construction within forested areas.

Within the 50-foot easement, a 25-footwide construction corridor will be

established to allow construction of the

trench. Within the 25-foot-wide

construction corridor, trees, surface

vegetation and top soil would either be

removed or significantly disturbed by

construction equipment. The trench

does not need to be centered within this

corridor, rather the corridor can be

shifted to allow for significant trees and

rock outcrops to be preserved. However,

25-feet is the minimum clearance area

needed for construction of the pipeline.

Adjacent to the 25-foot corridor, and

within the 50-foot temporary easement,

tree removal would only occur if

approved beforehand by the Forest

Service and TRPA. Within this portion

of the easement, disturbance would

occur from construction equipment

access and material storage. Following

construction, the 50-foot construction

easement and any adjacent soil

disturbance caused by construction

activities will be revegetated pursuant to

64802 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2001 / Notices

Forest Service and TRPA approved

plans.

Pipeline Replacement Alternatives A

and B (described below) would cross

Highway 89 in one location. At the

crossing locations, project construction

activities would be timed to avoid the

simultaneous closure of both travel

lanes on Highway 89. Delays due to lane

closure shall not exceed 30 minutes.

Open trenches in Highway 89 would be

backfilled or covered with non-skid

plates during times when construction

activities are stopped.

Pipeline Replacement Alternative C

would follow Highway 89 from its

intersection with Grass Lake Road to the

intersection with the campground road.

Within this corridor, 24-hour lane

closures would be required seven days

a week, including the use of ‘‘K’’ rail to

separate construction activities from the

open travel lane. Blasting would be

required for trenching within the rightof-way. During blasting activities, traffic

would be held in both directions.

To prevent erosion and discharge into

down-slope drains or low lying

drainages, pipeline trench erosion

control practices shall be used. Erosion

control practices would require filter

fabric fencing down slope of

construction activities. No erosion or

runoff shall be allowed to reach any

adjacent creeks. Under alternatives B

and C, the pipeline will cross Grass

Lake Creek. In these locations, more

detailed erosion control and restoration

plans will be required to ensure

adequate diversion of the creek flows

during pipeline construction. The

pipeline will cross Grass Lake Creek in

two of the three action alternatives

(Alternatives B and C). One of the creek

crossings would occur in an

undisturbed area to the north of the

South Upper Truckee Road (Alternative

B). At this creek crossing location, the

project would require the construction

of a temporary roadway to facilitate

equipment access. The creek will be

temporarily diverted using pumps or

placed in a culvert under the temporary

roadway during construction. After

construction is completed, the roadway

material will be removed and the creek

will be restored to pre-project

conditions. Two other creek crossings

would occur within Highway 89 for

Alternative C and within the

campground road for Alternatives B and

C. In both locations, the creek flows

through a culvert. The Highway 89

crossing would occur within the

roadway prism and above the existing

box culvert. The campground road

crossing would also occur within the

roadway prism, but could either be

constructed underneath or above the

existing corrugated metal pipe (cmp).

Construction of the pipeline underneath

the cmp would require removal and

replacement of the culvert. Construction

of the pipeline above the cmp would

avoid effects to the cmp but would

require raising the road grade.

It is anticipated that some

groundwater will be intercepted during

trenching activities. In order to prevent

the discharge of trench waters, water

collected from dewatering operations

shall be disposed as follows: (1) Water

from the pipeline trench will be

pumped into a settling tank or water

trucks with sufficient volume to handle

projected water quantities, (2) water will

be decanted from the settling tanks or

trucks for use as construction water

during backfilling operations, (3) settled

water will be taken to the Luther Pass

summit and placed in the gravity export

pipeline (C-Line) that flows to the

Harvey Place reservoir, or (4) settled

water will be placed in the sanitary

sewer in Grass Lake Road.

The South Upper Truckee Road is

proposed for temporary material

stockpiling and equipment staging. To

use the roadway for material stockpiling

and staging, the District will request its

closure. This roadway is under the

control of the El Dorado County

Department of Transportation. The

proposed closure would be located

between Highway 89 and the roadway’s

crossing of the Upper Truckee River

(west of Highway 89). Stockpile areas

will be surrounded by filter fabric

fencing, and covered with plastic

sheeting prior to storm events. Historic

trail resources adjacent to the roadway

will be protected by temporary

construction fencing.

To protect trees within the 50-foot

construction easement (outside of the

25-foot construction corridor),

vegetation protection fencing will be

installed around every live tree or group

of trees greater than 6 inches dbh. In

addition, no tree roots greater than 1.5

inches in diameter shall be cut without

the prior authorization of the Forest

Service and TRPA. In situations where

tree roots greater than 1.5 inches must

be cut, the contractor shall treat the

roots in accordance with standard

practices. All areas disturbed by

construction activity shall be

revegetated. The revegetation shall be

with a matching seed mix to restore the

loss of vegetation that will result from

pipeline construction. A goal of

vegetation/site restoration following

construction shall be to ensure that the

pipeline corridor does not become a

new trail for recreational bicyclists.

Groundwater channeling would be

minimized by using an aggregate (Class

2) fill for the pipeline bedding zone (this

zone is the area 6 inches under the

pipeline to one foot above the pipeline).

Any excavated soils that are wet require

air drying to proper moisture content or

mixing with drier soils prior to being

used as compacted backfill. In addition,

the installation of trench cutoff walls or

‘‘coffer dams’’ is proposed in areas

where high groundwater and the slope

of the terrain would dictate that

groundwater channeling is a probability.

During pipeline trenching, field

inspections of the trenches would be

performed to make final determinations

regarding the need for cutoff walls to

control potential high groundwater

flows. During construction, the pipeline

will be pressure tested at 2,000 foot

intervals. The pressure testing will be

performed using potable water. At the

conclusion of construction, the entire

segment of new pipeline will be tested

before it is placed into operation.

The construction of the pipeline must

comply with TRPA’s standard

conditions of approval and the

Handbook of Best Management Practices

(BMPs) Standards. The use of BMPs will

be documented in a Stormwater

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)

prepared for approval by CA. Regional

Water Quality Ccontrol Board, Lahontan

Region. The purpose of the SWPPP is to

provide a site-specific plan for

preventing storm water pollution caused

by construction activities, including

land disturbance. The SWPPP will be

designed to comply with the federal

requirements to achieve compliance

with the effluent limits and receiving

water objectives set forth in the

California General NPDES Permit for

Discharges of Storm Water Associated

with Construction Activities through

implementation of BMPs. The SWPPP

will be implemented concurrent with

the commencement of construction

activities.

Alternatives: Four alternatives have

been identified for further study in the

STPUD B-Line Phase III Export Pipeline

Replacement Project EIR/EIS.

Alternative A—Parallel Existing

Pipeline Alignment would parallel the

existing pipeline alignment through

National Forest lands from the Luther

Pass Pump Station to the project’s

terminus in the Forest Service

campground. However, the pipeline

would not use the existing pipeline’s

trench because it would still be in

operation during construction. The

pipeline would parallel the existing

pipeline with at least 50 feet of

separation from the existing pipeline to

avoid damage during construction

activities, such as blasting. This

alternative would be approximately

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2001 / Notices 64803

4,400 feet in length. Alternative B—

Proposed Action would begin at the

Luther Pass Pump Station and end

within the Forest Service campground

at a connection with the B-Line Phase

I replacement project. The total length

of the proposed action is approximately

5,900 feet. The proposed action would

begin at the pump station, generally

follow the hillside contours to the

south, cross Grass Lake Creek, cross

South Upper Truckee Road twice,

continue on to Highway 89, cross

Highway 89, follow the campground

access road, and end at the terminus of

the B-Line Phase I replacement project

that was constructed in 1996.

Alternative C—Parallel Existing

Roadways would follow existing

roadway rights-of-way. This alternative

would use Grass Lake Road to the

intersection of Highway 89. At the

intersection of Grass Lake Road and

Highway 89, the alternative would

follow Highway 89 south to the

campground access road. At this

intersection, Alternative C would follow

the same route as Alternative B to the

project’s terminus. This alternative

would be approximately 16,000 feet in

length. Approximately 8,700 feet of the

pipeline alignment would be located

within Highway 89. Of this total,

approximately 60 percent (5,200 feet)

would have to be located inside the fog

line of the highway (within the roadway

pavement). Due to the pipeline’s length,

additional storage capacity may be

needed at the Luther Pass Pump Station

to allow for the draining of the pipeline

during maintenance operations. This

additional storage capacity would

require construction of a third storage

tank, or enlargement of an existing tank.

As a sub-alternative to Alternative C, the

Luther Pass Pump Station may be

relocated to a location near the

intersection of Grass Lake Road and

Highway 89. Alternative D—No Project/

No Action would maintain the existing

pipeline that was constructed in 1969.

While no immediate action would

occur, the continued use of the existing

pipeline will increase the chances of a

pipeline break. Pipeline breaks require

immediate repair by the District.

Commenting: The draft environmental

impact statement is expected to be

available for public review and

comment in May 2002. The comment

period on the draft statement will be at

least 45 days from the date of

availability published in the Federal

Register by the Environmental

Protection Agency. The final

environmental impact statement and its

Record of Decision is expected in

October 2002.

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 EIS’s must structure

their participation in the environmental

review of the proposal so that it is

meaningful and alerts an agency to the

reviewer’s position and contentions.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.

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

environmental objections that could be

raised at the draft EIS stage but that are

not raised until after completion of the

final EIS may be waived or dismissed by

the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803

F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Circut, 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 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 should be as specific

as possible. It is helpful if comments

refer to specific pages or chapters of the

draft statement. Comments may also

address the adequacy of the draft EIS or

the merits of the alternatives formulated

and discussed in the statement.

Reviewers may wish to refer to the

Council on Environmental Quality

Regulations for implementing the

procedural provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR

1503.3 in addressing these points. The

decision will be appealable under

applicable Forest Service regulations.

Dated: December 7, 2001.

Maribeth Gustafson,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 01–30860 Filed 12–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Glenn/Colusa County Resource

Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Glenn/Colusa County

Resource Advisory Committee (RAC)

will hold its first meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on

January 10, 2002, and will begin at 9

a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the Willows City Council Chambers at

201 N. Lassen Ave., Willows, CA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bobbin Gaddini, Committee

Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino

National Forest, Grindstone Ranger

District, PO Box 164, Elk Creek, CA

95939. (530) 968–5329; E-mail

ggaddini@fs.fed.us.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda

items to be covered include: (1)

Introductions of all committee members,

alternate members and Forest Service

personnel. (2) Selection of a chairperson

by the committee members. (3) Receive

materials explaining the process for

considering and recommending Title II

projects; and (4) Public Comment. The

meeting is open to the public. Public

input opportunity will be provided and

individuals will have the opportunity to

address the Committee at that time.

Dated: December 10, 2001.

James F. Giachino,

Designated Federal Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–30884 Filed 12–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Grays Harbor Resource Advisory

Committee (RAC); Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Grays Harbor Resource

Advisory Committee will hold its first

meeting on January 8, 2002. The

meeting will be held at the Grays Harbor

County Courthouse, Montesano,

Washington. The meeting will begin at

9:30 AM and end at approximately 3:45

PM. Agenda topics are: (1)

Introductions; (2) Federal Advisory

Committee Act (FACA) overview; (3)

Resource Advisory Committee (RAC)

Roles and Responsibilities; (4) RAC

Rules and Bylaws; (5) RAC Guidebook

review; (6) RAC Communication; (7)

Future meetings and agendas; (8) Project

Process for submission; (9) County

Update on Title II Projects; (10) Election

of RAC Chairperson; and (11) Public

comments.

All Grays Harbor Resource Advisory

Committee Meetings are open to the

public. Interested citizens are

encouraged to attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions regarding this meeting

to Ken Eldredge, RAC Liaison, USDA,

Olympic National Forest Headquarters,

1835 Black Lake Blvd., Olympia, WA