Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Notices 67989

includes 20 minutes time for applicants 

to request forms from FSA or locate 

forms in the Web site). 

Comments are invited regarding: (a) 

Whether the 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 burden, including 

the validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; and (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

the 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. 

All comments received in response to 

this notice, including names and 

addresses when provided, will be a 

matter of public record. Comments will 

be summarized and included in the 

submission for OMB approval.

Signed at Washington, DC, on November 2, 

2005. 

Teresa C. Lasseter, 

Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit 

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 05–22277 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

Tahoe National Forest; Sierraville 

Ranger District: California; Phoenix 

Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service, 

Tahoe National Forest, Sierraville 

Ranger District gives notice of the 

Agency’s intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

to disclose the environmental effects of 

applying silvicultural and fuel treatment 

prescriptions to treatment units totaling 

approximately 5,057 acres. This project 

is part of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy 

Library Group Forest Recovery Act Pilot 

Project. The proposed treatments would 

take place on the Sierraville Ranger 

District, and be implemented within the 

next 5 years.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be received by 

November 18, 2005. The Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

is expected to be completed in March of 

2006, and the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS) is expected to 

be completed in July of 2006.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Jeff Leach, USDA Forest Service, 

Sierraville Ranger District, P.O. Box 95 

(317 South Lincoln), Sierraville, CA 

96126, office hours 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday–Friday; telephone (530) 994–

3401; FAX (530) 994–3143; e-mail: 

comments-pacificsouthwest-tahoesierraville@fs.fed.us.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Leach or Timothy Evans at the above 

addresses and phone number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of 

the HFQLG Act Pilot Project, the 

Sierraville District completed the 

planning and NEPA environmental 

analysis for the Euro and Checkmate 

Projects. The District Ranger signed the 

Decision Notice for the Euro Project on 

May 2, 2005, and the Decision Notice of 

the Checkmate Project on June 7, 2005. 

Four Notices of Appeal were filed on 

the Euro Project Decision. Because of an 

appeal on the Euro Project Decision by 

the Lahontan Region of the California 

Regional Water Quality Control Board, 

and the denial of a Conditional Waiver 

of Discharge Requirements for 

Discharges Related to Timber Harvest 

Activities by the Central Valley Region, 

both the Euro and Checkmate Project 

Decisions were withdrawn on June 28, 

2005. Since that time, four public field 

trips took place to review some of the 

treatments of both the Euro and 

Checkmate projects. Participants in at 

least one of these field trips included 

representatives from both the Labontan 

and Central Valley Regions of the 

California Water Control Board, 

representatives of some of the 

organizations that filed appeals of the 

Euro Decision, and members of the 

interested public, including 

representatives of the Quincy Library 

Group. After considering the 

discussions that took place on these 

field trips, the Sierraville District Ranger 

decided to combine the Euro and 

Checkmate Projects into one proposed 

action (now titled the Phoenix Project) 

and to issue this Notice of Intent to 

prepare an EIS.

Purpose and Need for Action 

The Phoenix Project is being proposed 

to implement the Herger-Feinstein 

Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery 

Act of October 12, 1998 (HFQLG). The 

underlying need for the pilot project is 

to fulfill the Secretary of Agriculture’s 

statutory duty under the HFQLG Act, to 

the extent consistent with applicable 

Federal Law. That duty is to test and 

demonstrate the effectiveness of certain 

resource management activities 

designed to meet ecologic, economic, 

and fuel reduction objectives on the 

Lassen and Plumas National Forests and 

Sierraville District of the Tahoe National 

Forest. The Act requires the Secretary to 

conduct a pilot project for a period of 

up to 5 years (recently extended through 

2009). To accomplish the purpose of the 

Act, resource management activities are 

required, including construction of a 

strategic system of Defensible Fuel 

Profile Zones (DFPZs), group selection 

harvest and individual tree selection 

harvest, and riparian management 

(watershed restoration) projects. The 

Act directs the Forest Service to 

construct 40,000 to 60,000 acres of 

DFPZs each year. The objectives of the 

Phoenix Project are: 

1. To reduce negative effects from 

catastrophic wildfire on National Forest, 

private and state lands, and local 

communities. 

2. To create a safer, more effective fire 

suppression environment and provide 

connecting links to existing fuelbreaks. 

3. To create the pre-conditions 

necessary for reintroduction of low 

intensity fire to the ecosystem, thereby 

beginning the process of restoring fire to 

its natural role in the ecology of the 

project area. 

4. To improve timber stand health, 

vigor, and resistance to fire, insects, and 

disease. 

5. Implement riparian management to 

restore the health and vigor of aspen 

stands. 

6. To protect and improve habitat for 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive 

Species, and Management Indicator 

Species, both plant and animal. 

7. To generate economic activity, 

income and employment in support of 

rural community stability. 

Proposed Action 

1. Implement mechanical thinning 

from below on approximately 2,657 

acres. The thinning prescription would 

be designed to retain all live trees 

greater than or equal to 30 inches DBH. 

2. Implement group selection harvest 

with groups less than or equal to 2.0 

acres in size, on approximately 390 

acres. 

3. Implement aspen restoration on 

approximately 217 acres. Conifers 

would be removed to a 40-inch diameter 

limit in areas where conifers are 

crowding out aspen trees. 

4. Implement hand thinning and 

piling on approximately 991 acres. The 

hand thinning would thin from below to 

an upper diameter limit of less than or 

equal to 10 inches DBH.

5. Implement thinning by mechanical 

mastication of brush and saplings on 

approximately 802 acres of young 

67990 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Notices 

(approximately 20 years old or less) 

conifer plantations and natural stands. 

6. Retain at least three large logs/acre 

when available, 12 inches diameter or 

larger at midpoint. 

7. Retain at least three of the largest 

available snags per acre in eastside pine 

and mixed conifer type, six of the 

largest available snags in the red fir 

forest type. 

8. Apply Sporax (trade name for 

sodium tetraborate decahydrate) to cut 

stumps ≥ 14 inches stump diameter to 

reduce the spread of the root rot 

Heterobasidion annosum. 

9. Refine DFPZ boundaries identified 

in the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library 

Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG) 

FEIS (1999). 

10. Implement and maintenance to 

provide for public and contractor safety, 

road surface protection, and erosion 

control. 

11. Implement road repair, and road 

decommissioning to improve watershed 

conditions. 

12. Use approximately 6.9 miles of 

temporary roads to provide short-term 

access to the treatment area, and 

decommission these roads after the 

project is completed. 

13. Reconstruct approximately 2.1 

miles of existing National Forest System 

roads to improve access for large 

equipment and trucks to treatment 

areas, while also improving watershed 

conditions. 

14. Construct 2 new permanent roads 

totaling approximately 1.7 miles in 

length to provide access to treatment 

areas and improve the long-term 

effectiveness of DFPZs. 

15. Apply standards and guidelines 

from the Tahoe National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan (LMP) 

(1990), as amended by the HFQLG FEIS 

Record of Decision (ROD (1990), the 

HFQLG FSEIS ROD (2003), and the 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

(SNFPA) FSEIS ROD (2004). Also apply 

standard management requirements 

such as contract clauses designed to 

protect forest resources, Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) for water 

quality protection, and other mitigation 

measures specific to this project. All of 

the proposed treatments would follow 

the standards and Guidelines applicable 

to the HFQLG Pilot Project Area 

described in Appendix A, (Section E, 

pages 66–69) of the SNFPA ROD. 

Possible Alternatives 

Alternatives being considered at this 

time include: 1) proposed action; 2) no 

action. Additional alternatives to the 

proposed action would be based on 

significant issues identified during the 

scoping process. 

Responsible Official 

The District Ranger, Sierraville Ranger 

District, Tahoe National Forest, is the 

responsible official making the decision, 

and can be reached at P.O. Box 95, 

Sierraville, CA 96126. As the 

responsible official, the District Ranger 

will document the decision and reasons 

for the decision in the Record of 

Decision (ROD), which will be 

published along with the FEIS. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The decision to be made is whether to 

implement the proposed action as 

described above, to very the location or 

design of the project to meet the 

purpose and need while addressing 

issues raised in public scoping, or to 

take no action at this time.

Scoping Process 

Public participation is viewed as an 

integral part of the environmental 

analysis. The Forest Service will be 

seeking points of dispute, disagreement 

or debate from Federal, State, and local 

governmental agencies as well as from 

individuals or organizations that may be 

potentially interested or affected by the 

proposed action. A scoping letter will be 

mailed to persons who have expressed 

interest in the proposed action based on 

notifications in the Tahoe National 

Forest Quarterly Schedule of Proposed 

Actions and by notification through a 

published legal notice in the Mountain 

Messenger (the newspaper of record for 

this project), Downieville, California, 

and the Sierra Booster, Loyalton, 

California. In addition, persons who 

provided comment on the Euro and 

Checkmate Projects will be mailed 

scoping letters. 

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 points of dispute, debate or 

disagreement the commenter has with 

the proposal. Once scoping letters are 

received, the District shall identify all 

potential issues, eliminate nonsignificant issues or those covered by 

another environmental analysis, identify 

significant issues to analyze in depth, 

develop additional alternatives to 

address those significant issues, and 

identify potential environmental effects 

of the proposed action as well as all 

fully analyzed alternatives. 

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 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. 

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Notices 67991

Dated: October 31, 2005. 

Sam J. Wilbanks, 

District Ranger.

[FR Doc. 05–22350 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

Notice of Sanders County Resource 

Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(Pub. L. 92–463) and under the Secure 

Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–

393) the Lolo and Kootenai National 

Forests’ Sanders County Resource 

Advisory Committee will meet on 

November 17 at 7 p.m. in Thompson 

Falls, Montana for a business meeting. 

The meeting is open to the public.

DATES: November 17, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Thompson Falls Courthouse, 1111 

Main Street, Thompson Falls, MT 

59873.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randy Hojem, Designated Federal 

Official (DFO), District Ranger, Plains 

Ranger District, Lolo National Forest at 

(406) 826–3821.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda 

topics include reviewing progress on 

current RAC projects, and receiving 

public comment. If the meeting location 

is changed, notice will be posted in the 

local newspapers, including the Clark 

Fork Valley Press, and Sanders County 

Ledger.

Dated: November 1, 2005. 

Randy Hojem, 

DFO, Plains Ranger District, Lolo National 

Forest.

[FR Doc. 05–22353 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Alaska Federal Subsistence 

Regional Advisory Council Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA; Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

DATES: December 1, 2005. 

Time And Location: 9 a.m., Alaska 

Standard Time, by teleconference. For 

how to participate, please see 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

SUMMARY: This notice informs the public 

that the Southeast Alaska Federal 

Subsistence Regional Advisory Council 

will hold a public meeting on December 

1, 2005. The public is invited to 

participate and to provide oral 

testimony.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Southeast Regional Advisory Council 

will meet by teleconference on 

December 1, 2005, for the purpose of 

reviewing and providing 

recommendations on proposals 

submitted to the Alaska Board of 

Fisheries, conferring on subsistence 

wildlife proposals, and discussing other 

matters affecting subsistence users in 

Southeast Alaska. This meeting is open 

to the public to provide testimony. To 

participate, call toll free, 1–800–369–

1643. The Teleconference Leader is Mr. 

Bob Schroeder and the Passcode is 

21119.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o 

Office of Subsistence Management, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 3601 C Street, 

Suite 1030, Anchorage, Alaska 99503; 

telephone (907) 786–3888. For questions 

related to subsistence management 

issues on National Forest Service lands, 

contact Steve Kessler, Subsistence 

Program Leader, 3601 C Street, Suite 

1030, Anchorage, Alaska 99503; 

telephone (907) 786–3592.

Dated: October 21, 2005. 

Thomas H. Boyd, 

Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board.

Dated: October 20, 2005. 

Steve Kessler, 

Subsistence Program Leader, USDA-Forest 

Service.

[FR Doc. 05–22313 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 4310–55–P 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Utilities Service 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.; 

Notice of Intent To Hold Public 

Scoping Meetings and Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Hold Public 

Scoping Meetings and Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service 

(RUS) intends to hold public scoping 

meetings and prepare an environmental 

impact statement (EIS) in connection 

with possible impacts related to a 

project being proposed by Basin Electric 

Power Cooperative, Inc. (Basin Electric), 

of Bismarck, North Dakota. The 

proposal consists of the construction 

and operation of a coal-fired electric 

generation facility referred to as the Dry 

Fork Station, consisting of a single 

maximum net 385 Megawatt (MW) unit, 

at a site in Gillette, Wyoming, and the 

construction of 130 miles of 230 kilovolt 

(kV) transmission line in Campbell and 

Sheridan counties, referred to as the 

Hughes Transmission Project.

DATES: RUS will conduct the two public 

scoping meetings in an open-house 

format on December 6, 2005, from 4 

p.m. to 7 p.m., at the Holiday Inn, 1809 

Sugarland Drive, Sheridan, Wyoming, 

and on December 7, 2005, from 4 p.m. 

to 7 p.m., at the Clarion Western Plaza, 

2009 S. Douglas Highway, Gillette, 

Wyoming.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Fristik, Senior Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Water and 

Environmental Programs, Rural 

Development, Utilities Programs, 1400 

Independence Ave. SW., Mail Stop 

1571, Washington DC 20250–1571, 

telephone: (202) 720–5093 or e-mail: 

richard.fristik@wdc.usda.gov, or Jim K. 

Miller, Basin Electric Power 

Cooperative, Inc., 1717 East Interstate 

Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58503–0564, 

telephone: (701) 223–0441 or e-mail: 

jkmiller@bepc.com.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Basin 

Electric proposes to construct and 

operate a (maximum net rating) 385 MW 

(422 MW maximum gross) base load 

coal-fired power plant and transmission 

line interconnection near Gillette, 

Wyoming. Basin Electric proposes to 

construct a facility in this area due to 

the proximity of the fuel source in the 

Powder River Basin (PRB) and delivery 

of the power to its membership. Basin 

Electric is requesting RUS to provide 

financing for the proposed project. 

The transmission line would consist 

of approximately 130 miles of 230kV 

transmission line that will connect the 

Hughes Substation east of Gillette, 

Wyoming, to the Carr Draw Substation 

west of Gillette and a proposed 

substation northeast of Sheridan, 

Wyoming. The proposed schedule 

developed by Basin Electric would 

place the transmission line in operation 

by the end of 2008, while the generating 

facility would be commercially 

operational by 2011. 

Alternatives to be considered by RUS 

include no action, purchased power, 

load management, renewable energy 

sources, distributed generation, and