Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 199 / Monday, October 17, 2005 / Notices 60275 

Nature of the Decision To Be Made 

The scope of the actions in the 

decision are limited to vegetative 

treatment measures within the analysis 

area that would result in a change in age 

class and structure of the current 

vegetative conditions, including timber 

harvest and use of prescribed burning, 

as well as road management 

determinations, including road 

construction and reconstruction. 

Scoping Process 

The proposal was developed with 

input from state congressional offices, 

county commissioners, and local 

community members, who formed an 

association as a forum for ensuring 

community viewpoints were 

communicated. Two public field trips 

and two public meetings were held at 

which approximately 100 people 

attended. A formal scoping letter was 

sent to interested parties in April 1998 

and a Decision Notice and Finding of 

No Significant Impact was released in 

June 2000. Three appeals were received 

and the vegetative portion of the 

decision was reversed to better address 

effects of the project to soil resources. 

The USDA Forest Service published a 

notice of intent to conduct an EIS for the 

Dry Fork Vegetative Restoration project 

in the Federal Register on November 17, 

2000 (Vol. 65, No. 233, page 69496). 

The Forest Service released a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

in April 2001. The Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of 

Decision were released in November 

2001. The project was administratively 

appealed and the Forest Supervisor 

decision was upheld through 

administrative review. On June 19, 

2003, The Ecology Center and Native 

Ecosystem Council filed a complaint in 

the district court for the District of 

Montana seeking declaratory and 

injunctive relief. In February 2004, the 

District Court ruled in favor of the 

Forest Service. Plaintiffs in that case 

appealed to the Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit. On August 10, 2005, the 

Court of Appeals reversed the District 

Court and remanded the case to the 

Forest Service. The Court of Appeals 

made the following determinations: 

1. The Forest Service failed to 

demonstrate that the project was 

consistent with the forest plan’s old 

growth forest standard, and thus failed 

to comply with the Forest Act. 

2. The Forest Service failed to 

demonstrate that the project was 

consistent with the forest plans’

goshawk monitoring requirements. The 

Supplemental EIS will address issues 

associated with the forest plan old 

growth standard as it relates to the 

proposed action. A forest plan 

monitoring report will address issues 

associated with forest plan goshawk 

monitoring requirements. 

Preliminary Issues 

Key issues that were identified 

include the possible negative 

environmental effects to soil and water 

quality and fisheries resources, effects of 

treatments for addressing forest health 

issues, effects of actions on wildlife 

species and their habitat, and effects to 

recreational activities and opportunities. 

Comments Requested 

The Draft Supplemental EIS is 

expected to be filed with the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and available for public review in 

January 2006. At that time the EPA will 

publish a Notice of Availability (NOA) 

of the Draft Supplemental EIS in the 

Federal Register. The comment period 

for the Draft Supplemental EIS will be 

45 days from the publication date of the 

NOA. A Supplemental Final EIS and 

new Record of Decision will then be 

prepared. 

Early Notice of the Importance of 

Public Participation in Subsequent 

Environmental Review 

The Forest Service believes it is 

important to give reviewers notice at 

this early stage 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. 

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). 

Dated: October 11, 2005. 

Lesley W. Thompson, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 05–20687 Filed 10–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Eldorado National Forest, Georgetown 

Ranger District, Georgetown, CA; 

Notice of Intent To Prepare a 

Supplement to the Rock Creek 

Recreational Trails Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a 

supplemental environmental impact 

statement. 

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will 

prepare a supplement to the 1999 Rock 

Creek Recreational Trails EIS. The 

supplement will be limited to the 

cumulative environmental effects on the 

Pacific Deer Herd. Specifically, the 

supplement will analyze the cumulative 

effects of the existing proposed action 

and all alternatives, in combination 

with past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, as bounded 

by the mapped range of the Pacific Deer 

Herd. 

DATES: Scoping is not required for 

supplements to environmental impact 

statements (40 CFR 1502.9(c)4(4)). The 

draft supplemental environmental 

impact statement is expected to be 

issued in January 2006 and the final 

supplemental environmental impact 

statement is expected June 2006. 

Comments on the draft supplemental 

environmental impact statement must 

be received by 45 days after publication. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Tim Dabney, District Ranger, 

Georgetown Ranger Station, 7600 

Wentworth Springs Road, Georgetown, 

CA 95634, Attn: Rock Creek 

Supplement. 

60276 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 199 / Monday, October 17, 2005 / Notices 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charis Parker, District Wildlife Biologist 

and Interdisciplinary Team Leader, 

Georgetown Ranger Station at (530) 

333–4312, FAX (530) 333–5522, or by 

e-mail to cparker@fs.fed.us. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Rock Creek area encompasses 

approximately 23,600 acres of public 

lands centered about five miles to the 

southeast of the town of Georgetown, 

CA. Historic uses of mining, logging, 

and cattle grazing created roads and 

trails throughout the area to access both 

public and private lands. Recreational 

use of these routes, including horseback 

riding, hiking, fishing, off-highway 

vehicle (OHV) travel, and mountain 

biking, has occurred in the area since at 

least the late 1950s. In 1987, the Forest 

Service issued Decision Notice and 

Finding of No Significant Impact on the 

Rock Creek Off-Road Vehicle Use 

Environmental Assessment (EA), to 

better manage recreational use. The 

decision was challenged in court and 

the Forest Service was ordered in 1989 

to prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) [Friends Aware of 

Wildlife Needs (FAWN) vs. United 

States Department of Agriculture, et al., 

Civ. S–88–214 LKK (E.D. California)]. 

The Rock Creek Recreational Trails 

Draft EIS was first published in 1996 

with a Revised Draft EIS being 

published in 1997 based on comments 

received. The Rock Creek Recreational 

Trails Final EIS and Record of Decision 

was issued in 1999 implementing 

Alternative 6—Resource Protection and 

Recreation Opportunities. 

In February 2002, a lawsuit was filed 

against the Forest Service that, among 

other OHV-related issues on the 

Eldorado National Forest, alleged the 

cumulative effects analysis conducted 

for the 1999 Rock Creek Recreational 

Trails Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision was inadequate. 

On February 15, 2005, Judge Lawrence 

K. Karlton, United States District Court 

(Eastern District of California), issued a 

finding [Center for Sierra Nevada 

Conservation, et al., v. John Berry, 

Eldorado National Forest Supervisor, et 

al., CIV–S–02–0325 LKK/JFM (E.D. 

California)] that the cumulative effects 

analysis was indeed inadequate, 

particularly in regard to the Pacific Deer 

Herd. More specifically, Judge Karlton 

found that the cumulative impacts 

analysis area was incorrectly limited to 

the Rock Creek project area and that 

‘‘other activities,’’ including grazing, 

within the deer herd’s entire range, were 

not analyzed in sufficient detail to 

adequately determine the cumulative 

impacts of the proposed action on the 

deer herd. On August 16, 2005, Judge 

Karlton issued his order that a 

supplement to the Rock Creek 

Recreational Trails Environmental 

Impact Statement be prepared as 

specified in its February 15, 2005 

finding. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

Because this supplement is limited to 

a cumulative effects analysis for the 

Pacific Deer Herd, the purpose and need 

for action remain the same as was 

described in the 1997 Rock Creek 

Recreational Trails Revised Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(RDEIS). ‘‘The need for the Proposed 

Action arises from continuing conflicts 

over how the trails in the Rock Creek 

Area should be managed and the 

impacts of trail use on the natural 

resources * * * The purpose or goal in 

designing the trail system, designated 

uses, and resource protection measures 

is to provide a quality recreation 

experience for all trail users, while 

minimizing conflicts between the trail 

users and adjacent landowners, 

providing protection of natural 

resources, and promoting safety.’’ (Rock 

Creek Recreational Trails RDEIS, page 

1–3) 

Proposed Action 

The proposed action and all 

alternatives will also remain the same as 

was described in the 1997 Rock Creek 

Recreational Trails Revised Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. Six 

alternatives were analyzed in the 

original RDEIS to address the Purpose 

and Need including: (1) No Action—

continue with current trail system and 

management plan; (2) No OHV Use; (3) 

Increased Multiple Use Recreation—all 

trail uses allowed on predominantly 

shared-use trails with reduced closure 

periods; (4) Separated Multiple Use 

Recreation—all trail uses allowed but 

uses segregated to some extent to reduce 

conflicts between different use types; (5) 

Reduced Multiple Use Recreation—all 

trail uses allowed, but trail mileages 

reduced and closures increased; and (6) 

Resource Protection and Recreation 

Opportunities (preferred alternative)—

all trail uses allowed in a manner that 

attempts to find an optimal balance of 

resource protection and opportunity for 

a quality recreation experience. 

Responsible Official 

John Berry, Forest Supervisor, 

Eldorado National Forest, 100 Forni 

Road, Placerville, CA, 95667. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The responsible official will decide, 

based on the cumulative effects analysis 

for the Pacific Deer Herd in the 

supplement, whether to confirm the 

decision in the 1999 ROD or choose 

another alternative. This will be 

documented in a new Record of 

Decision. 

Comment Requested 

A legal notice will be published in the 

newspaper of record and a Notice of 

Availability will be published in the 

Federal Register to inform the public 

that supplemental information is 

available for review and comment. The 

draft supplemental environmental 

impact statement will be distributed to 

all parties that received the 1999 final 

environmental impact statement. 

Early Notice of Importance of Public 

Participation in Subsequent 

Environmental Review: A draft 

supplemental environmental impact 

statement will be prepared for comment. 

The comment period on the draft 

supplemental 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 supplemental 

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 

supplemental environmental impact 

statement stage but that are not raised 

until after completion of the final 

supplemental 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 supplemental environmental 

impact statement. 

To assist the Forest Service in 

identifying and considering issues and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 199 / Monday, October 17, 2005 / Notices 60277 

concerns on the proposed action, 

comments on the draft supplemental 

environmental impact statement should 

be as specific as possible. It is also 

helpful if comments refer to specific 

pages or chapters of the draft 

supplemental statement. Comments may 

also address the adequacy of the draft 

supplemental 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: October 3, 2005. 

John D. Berry, 

Forest Supervisor, Eldorado National Forest. 

[FR Doc. 05–20699 Filed 10–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Rural Utilities Service 

Information Collection Activity; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended), the 

Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites 

comments on this information 

collection for which RUS intends to 

request approval from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

DATES: Comments on this notice must be 

received by December 16, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard C. Annan, Director, Program 

Development and Regulatory Analysis, 

Rural Utilities Service, 1400 

Independence Ave., SW., STOP 1522, 

Room 5168 South Building, 

Washington, DC 20250–1522. 

Telephone: (202) 720–0784. Fax: (202) 

720–4120. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office 

of Management and Budget’s (OMB) 

regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13) requires 

that interested members of the public 

and affected agencies have an 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection and recordkeeping activities 

(see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice 

identifies an information collection that 

RUS is submitting to OMB for approval. 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the Agency, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of 

the Agency’s estimate of the burden of 

the proposed collection of information 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

through the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. Comments may be sent to: 

Richard C. Annan, Director, Program 

Development and Regulatory Analysis, 

Rural Utilities Service, 1400 

Independence Ave., SW., STOP 1522, 

Room 5168 South Building, 

Washington, DC 20250–1522. 

Telephone: (202) 720–0784. Fax: (202) 

720–4120. 

Title: 7 CFR part 1728, Electric 

Standards and Specifications for 

Materials and Construction. 

OMB Control Number: 0572–0131. 

Type of Request: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Abstract: The Rural Utilities Service 

makes loans and loan guarantees in 

accordance with the Rural 

Electrification Act of 1936, 7 U.S.C. 901 

et seq., (RE Act). Section 4 of the RE Act 

requires that RUS make or guarantee a 

loan only if there is reasonable 

assurance that the loan, together with all 

outstanding loans and obligations of the 

borrower, will be repaid in full within 

the time agreed. In order to facilitate the 

programmatic interests of the RE Act, 

and, in order to assure that loans made 

or guaranteed by RUS are adequately 

secure, RUS, as a secured lender, has 

established certain standards and 

specifications for materials, equipment, 

and the construction of electric systems. 

The use of standards and specifications 

for materials, equipment and 

construction units helps assure RUS 

that: (1) Appropriate standards and 

specifications are maintained; (2) RUS 

loan security is not adversely affected; 

and (3) loan and loan guarantee funds 

are used effectively and for the intended 

purposes. 7 CFR 1728 establishes 

Agency policy that materials and 

equipment purchased by RUS electric 

borrowers or accepted as contractorfurnished material must conform to RUS 

standards and specifications where they 

have been established and, if included 

in RUS IP 202–1, ‘‘List of Materials 

Acceptable for Use on Systems of RUS 

Electrification Borrowers’’ (List of 

Materials), must be selected from that 

list or must have received technical 

acceptance from RUS. 

Estimate of Burden: This collection of 

information is estimated to average 2.32 

hours per response. 

Respondents: Businesses or other for 

profits. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

38. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 2.30. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 1,760 hours. 

Copies of this information collection 

can be obtained from MaryPat Daskal, 

Program Development and Regulatory 

Analysis, at (202) 720–7853. Fax: (202) 

720–4120. 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for OMB approval. All comments will 

also become a matter of public record. 

Dated: October 7, 2005. 

Curtis M. Anderson, 

Acting Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20650 Filed 10–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Rural Utilities Service 

Information Collection Activity; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended), the 

Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites 

comments on this information 

collection for which RUS intends to 

request approval from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

DATES: Comments on this notice must be 

received by December 16, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard C. Annan, Director, Program 

Development and Regulatory Analysis, 

Rural Utilities Service, 1400 

Independence Ave., SW., STOP 1522, 

Room 5168 South Building, 

Washington, DC 20250–1522. 

Telephone: (202) 720–0784. Fax: (202) 

720–4120. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office 

of Management and Budget’s (OMB)