60274 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 199 / Monday, October 17, 2005 / Notices 

Monticello District Ranger decisions: 

San Juan Record, Monticello, Utah 

Price District Ranger decisions: 

Sun Advocate, Price, Utah 

Sanpete District Ranger decisions: 

Sanpete Messenger, Manti, Utah 

Payette National Forest 

Payette Forest Supervisor decisions: 

Idaho Statesman, Boise, Idaho 

Council District Ranger decisions: 

Adams County Record, Council, Idaho 

Krassel District Ranger decisions: 

Star News, McCall, Idaho 

McCall District Ranger decisions: 

Star News, McCall, Idaho 

New Meadows District Ranger 

decisions: 

Star News, McCall, Idaho 

Weiser District Ranger decisions: 

Signal American, Weiser, Idaho 

Salmon-Challis National Forest 

Salmon-Challis Forest Supervisor 

decisions for the Salmon portion: 

The Recorder-Herald, Salmon, Idaho 

Salmon-Challis Forest Supervisor 

decisions for the Challis portion: 

The Challis Messenger, Challis, Idaho 

Challis District Ranger decisions: 

The Challis Messenger, Challis, Idaho 

Leadore District Ranger decisions: 

The Recorder-Herald, Salmon, Idaho 

Lost River District Ranger decisions: 

The Challis Messenger, Challis, Idaho 

Middle Fork District Ranger decisions: 

The Challis Messenger, Challis, Idaho 

North Fork District Ranger decisions: 

The Recorder-Herald, Salmon, Idaho 

Salmon/Cobalt District Ranger 

decisions: 

The Recorder-Herald, Salmon, Idaho 

Yankee Fork District Ranger decisions: 

The Challis Messenger, Challis, Idaho 

Sawtooth National Forest 

Sawtooth Forest Supervisor decisions: 

The Times News, Twin Falls, Idaho 

Fairfield District Ranger decisions: 

The Times News, Twin Falls, Idaho 

Ketchum District Ranger decisions: 

Idaho Mountain Express, Ketchum, 

Idaho 

Minidoka District Ranger decisions: 

The Times News, Twin Falls, Idaho 

Sawtooth National Recreation Area: 

The Challis Messenger, Challis, Idaho 

Uinta National Forest 

Uinta Forest Supervisor decisions: 

The Daily Herald, Provo, Utah 

Heber District Ranger decisions: 

The Daily Herald, Provo, Utah 

Pleasant Grove District Ranger 

decisions: 

The Daily Herald, Provo, Utah 

Spanish Fork District Ranger decisions: 

The Daily Herald, Provo, Utah 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Wasatch-Cache Forest Supervisor 

decisions: 

Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake City, 

Utah 

Evanston District Ranger decisions: 

Uinta County Herald, Evanston, 

Wyoming 

Kamas District Ranger decisions: 

Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake City, 

Utah 

Logan District Ranger decisions: 

Logan Herald Journal, Logan, Utah 

Mountain View District Ranger 

decisions: 

Uinta County Herald, Evanston, 

Wyoming 

Ogden District Ranger decisions: 

Ogden Standard Examiner, Ogden, 

Utah 

Salt Lake District Ranger decisions: 

Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake City, 

Utah 

Dated: October 11, 2005. 

Stephen J. Solem, 

Acting Deputy Regional Forester. 

[FR Doc. 05–20691 Filed 10–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Dry Fork Vegetative Restoration 

Project, Lewis and Clark National 

Forest, Cascade and Judith Basin 

Counties, MT 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service is 

preparing a Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement to 

further address issues associated with 

old growth associated with the Dry Fork 

Vegetative Restoration project on the 

Belt Creek Ranger District of the Lewis 

and Clark National Forest. This project 

proposes treatments including timber 

harvest and prescribed fire to move 

vegetative conditions such as age class 

and stand structure towards those that 

would most likely occur in the absence 

of fire suppression. 

DATES: The Supplemental Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

is expected January 2006 and the 

Supplemental Final EIS and Record of 

Decision are expected April 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Lesley W. Thompson, Forest Supervisor, 

Lewis and Clark National Forest, P.O. 

Box 869, Great Falls, Montana 59403. 

Copies of the SEIS will be available at 

the Supervisor’s Office, 1101 15th Street 

North, Great Falls, Montana 59403. 

Electronic copies will also be available 

on the Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/ 

r1/lewisclark in the Projects and Plans 

area. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Questions about the proposed action 

should be directed to Jennifer Woods, 

Environmental Coordinator, (406) 791–

7765; or Al Koss, Belt Creek District 

Ranger, phone (406) 236–5511. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Action 

A landscape assessment conducted by 

the Forest identified risks and 

opportunities for the Belt Creek 

assessment area in the Little Belt 

Mountains south and east of Great Falls. 

It showed that trends in some types of 

vegetation, the age distribution, stand 

structure and vegetative mosaic 

deviated notably from what might have 

occurred under natural conditions. The 

purpose and need for the Dry Fork 

Vegetative Restoration project is to 

move vegetation in a portion of the 

assessment area toward desired 

conditions using prescribed fire and 

timber harvest. An emphasis would be 

given to areas where there would be 

improved diversity in vegetative 

structure, species and age class. In 

addition, there is a need to reduce 

wildfire hazards to public and to fire 

fighters and better protect private lands 

within and adjacent to the forest. 

Proposed Action 

Approximately 3,416 acres would be 

treated using commercial timber harvest 

and prescribed fire treatment. Road 

reconstruction would take place on 4.9 

miles of existing road and 1.7 miles of 

new system road would be constructed. 

No timber harvest would be conducted 

within inventoried roadless areas. 

Approximately 20.6 miles of road 

closures would be implemented through 

gating, signing, reclamation and change 

of use. 

Alternatives 

Alternatives that were considered in 

detailed study include the No Action 

Alternative and five additional 

alternatives that considered a variety of 

types and amounts of vegetation 

treatments. In addition, seven other 

alternatives were considered, but did 

not merit further evaluation due to lack 

of feasibility, economics, or because 

they did not meet the purpose and need. 

Responsible Official 

The Responsible Official is Lesley W. 

Thompson, Forest Supervisor, Lewis 

and Clark National Forest, P.O. Box 869, 

Great Falls, MT 59403. 

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.