This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

72605 

Vol. 70, No. 233 

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Helena National Forest, Broadwater 

County, MT, Cabin Gulch Vegetation 

Treatment Project 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

SUMMARY: The Helena National Forest is 

going to prepare an environmental 

impact statement for vegetation 

management actions in the Cabin Gulch 

and North Fork of Deep Creek drainages. 

The purpose and need for action is to 

restore and maintain the health of these 

fire dependent ecosystems, including 

increasing the resistance and resilience 

of these areas to catastrophic 

disturbance from fire events and/or 

disease and insect outbreaks. In 

addition to the vegetation actions, some 

roadwork is proposed to reduce 

sedimentation sources to the West Fork 

of Cabin Gulch; one road is proposed for 

closure; and one new road is being 

proposed for construction. 

DATES: Comments concerning the 

proposed action must be received by 

January 9, 2006. The draft EIS is 

expected to be available to the public in 

March of 2006 and the final EIS is 

expected to be available to the public in 

June of 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments or 

for further information, mail 

correspondence to or call Sharon 

Scott—Team Leader, Helena Ranger 

District, 2001 Poplar Street, Helena, MT 

59601 (Phone 406.449.5490), or Dave 

Carroll, NEPA Coordinator, 2880 

Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 59601 

(Phone 406.449.5201). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Action 

Most of Montana has been under 

drought conditions for the past 7 years. 

Insect and disease problems are 

impacting this area. The Helena 

National Forest has identified a need to 

improve the forest health of this area. 

Since fires have been suppressed and 

controlled in this area, the number of 

small trees in the dry forest types (lower 

elevation, south and west facing slopes) 

has greatly increased. This has created 

a need to reduce current and future fuel 

buildup throughout the area. Douglas-fir 

are being killed by the Douglas-fir bark 

beetle, and Lodgepole pine and 

whitebark pine are being killed by the 

mountain pine beetle. The whitebark 

pine is also being killed by white pine 

blister rust. Aspen stands and grassland/ 

sagebrush areas are declining on the 

landscape. There is also an opportunity 

for a research study involving Douglasfir and prescribed fire. The purpose and 

need for action is to restore and 

maintain the health of these fire 

dependent ecosystems, including 

increasing the resistance and resilience 

of these areas to catastrophic 

disturbance from fire events and/or 

disease and insect outbreaks. Also, the 

West Fork of Cabin Gulch road is 

directly contributing sediment to the 

creek, and needs corrective action. 

Proposed Action 

The types of treatments being 

proposed are thinnings; patch cuts; 

reduction of encroaching species on the 

whitebark pine and aspen stands; 

reclamation of sagebrush and grassland 

meadows; prescribed fire; and road 

decommisioning and construction. The 

harvest of green trees and salvage of 

dead and dying trees are part of this 

proposal. These actions are consistent 

with the Forest Plan Management Area 

direction for the area. A project in 

conjunction with research scientists 

from the Rocky Mountain Research 

Station and entomologists from the 

Forest Health Protection office of the 

Regional Office is another important 

part of our proposal. The research 

project will evaluate the effects of 

silvicultural thinnings and prescribed 

fire and the resultant impact of the 

residual stand/trees susceptibility to 

Douglas-fir beetle activity. 

To accomplish these actions we 

envision the use of the following 

activities: Commercial timber harvest 

(removing wood as a forest product), 

slashing (cutting trees that aren’t 

valuable as a product and leaving them 

on site), burning (burning encompasses 

underburning, and mixed severity 

burning), and using equipment to ‘‘chew 

up’’ small trees and juniper (the piece 

of equipment is called a masticator). 

The logging systems being considered 

include cable or skyline logging, tractor 

logging and helicopter logging. This 

proposal includes 9 miles of temporary 

road. Those roads would be fully 

recontoured following this project. 

Specifics of the Proposed Action Are: 

Thinning 2,100 acres; Patch cutting 325 

acres; Douglas-fir thinning and 

prescribed fire research 550 acres; 

Whitebark Pine Restoration 100 acres; 

Aspen Restoration 100 acres; Grassland/ 

Shrubland Reclaimation 375 acres. 

Underburning: This will be primarily 

on the acres listed in the above 

components of the proposed action. 

Mixed severity burn: 475 acres. 

We are also proposing to close the 

West Fork of Cabin Gulch road by 

recontouring the road (approximately 3 

miles). We are proposing to build a 

permanent road, 0.6 miles in length, 

that would allow people to access the 

upper portion of the West Fork of Cabin 

Gulch from the North Fork of Deep 

Creek. 

Responsible Official: Kevin Riordan— 

Forest Supervisor, 2880 Skyway Drive, 

Helena, MT 59601. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The nature of the decision is: Whether 

or not to implement the proposed action 

or an alternative to the proposed action 

that addresses the purpose and need for 

action. The following components 

define the nature of the decision at this 

point: Which treatment areas have the 

greatest benefit in increasing the areas’ 

resistance and resilience to catastrophic 

disurbances such as wildfire or insect 

and disease outbreaks; Which areas may 

be of interest from a research 

perspective relative to fire and Douglasfir bark beetle activity; and Whether or 

not Forest Plan amendment(s) are 

required? At this point in time it 

appears there may need to be a site 

specific, Forest Plan amendment 

relative to big game hiding cover. 

Scoping Process 

• Scoping Package (mailing)— 

November 2005. 

• Scoping Meeting—December 2005 

in Townsend, MT. 

• NOI—December 9, 2005. 

• Post on Web site—December 2005. 

• DEIS Public Meetings—April 2006. 

72606 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 6, 2005 / Notices 

• DEIS Comment Period—March–

April, 2006. 

• FEIS and ROD—June 2006. 

Comment Requested 

This notice of intent initiates the 

scoping process which guides the 

development of the environmental 

impact statement. Comments are due by 

January 9, 2006. 

A draft environmental impact 

statement will be prepared for comment. 

The comment period on the draft EIS is 

expected to be from mid-March through 

April of 2006. This date will be 

established when 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 

[enter correct time period] 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. 

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 29, 2005. 

Kevin Riordan, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 05–23605 Filed 12–5–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service 

Notice of Request for Extension of a 

Currently Approved Information 

Collection 

AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative 

Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed collection; comments 

requested. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 

notice announces the Rural BusinessCooperative Service’s intention to 

request an extension for a currently 

approved information collection in 

support of the program for the 1890 

Land Grant Institutions Rural 

Entrepreneurial Program Outreach 

Initiative. 

DATES: Comments on this notice must be 

received by February 6, 2006 to be 

considered. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Edgar L. Lewis, Program Manager, Rural 

Development, USDA, STOP 3252, Room 

4221, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–3252. 

Telephone: (202) 690–3407, E-mail: 

edgar.lewis@wdc.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: 1890 Land Grant Institutions 

Rural Entrepreneurial Program Outreach 

Initiative. 

OMB Number: 0570–0041. 

Expiration Date of Approval: March 

31, 2006. 

Type of Request: Extension of a 

currently approved information 

collection. 

Abstract: The purpose of the 1890 

Land Grant Institutions Rural 

Entrepreneurial Program Outreach 

Initiative is to provide technical 

assistance for business creation in 

economically challenged rural 

communities, for educational programs 

to develop and improve upon the 

professional skills of rural 

entrepreneurs, and for outreach and 

promotion of USDA Rural 

Development’s programs in small rural 

communities with the greatest economic 

need. This initiative seeks to create a 

working partnership between USDA 

Rural Development and the 1890 

Institutions through cooperative 

agreements. 

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection is estimated to 

average 15 minutes to 15 hours per 

response. 

Respondents: Only 1890 Land Grant 

Institutions of Higher Education and 

Tuskegee University. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

18. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 17. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 297. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 762 hours. 

Copies of this information collection 

can be obtained from Cheryl Thompson, 

Regulations and Paperwork 

Management Branch (202) 692–0043. 

Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of Rural Development, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of 

Rural Development’s estimate of the 

burden to collect the required 

information, including the validity of 

the strategy 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 on the paperwork burden 

may be sent to Cheryl Thompson, 

Regulations and Paperwork 

Management Branch, Rural 

Development, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, STOP 0742, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–0742. All 

responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for OMB approval. All comments will 

become a matter of public record.