Fishtrap EIS, Lolo National Forest, Sanders County, Montana, 69199-69200 [06-9462]

Download as PDF 69199 Notices Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 230 Thursday, November 30, 2006 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. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES November 21, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments 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 to be collected; (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 should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV or fax (202) 395–5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250– 7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720–8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:44 Nov 29, 2006 Jkt 211001 the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Foreign Agricultural Service Title: Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing Regulation. OMB Control Number: 0551–0001. Summary of Collection: The Importation of most cheese made from cow’s milk and certain non-cheese dairy articles (butter, dried milk, and butter substitutes) are subject to Tariff-rate Quotas (TRQs) and must be accompanied by an import license issue by the Department to enter at the lower tariff. Licenses are issued in accordance with the Department’s Import Licensing Regulation (7 CFR Part 6). Importers without licenses may enter these dairy articles, but are required to pay the higher tariff. The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) will collect information using several forms. Need and Use of the Information: FAS will use the information to assure that the intent of the legislation is correctly administered and to determine eligibility to obtain benefits under the Import Regulation. If the information were collected less frequently, FSA would be unable to issue licenses on an annual basis in compliance with the Import Regulation. Description of Respondents: Business or other-for-profit; Individuals or households. Number of Respondents: 680. Frequency of Responses: Record keeping, Reporting: Annually. Total Burden Hours: 291. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6–20267 Filed 11–29–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–10–P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Fishtrap EIS, Lolo National Forest, Sanders County, Montana Forest Service, USDA. Notice; intent to prepare supplemental environmental impact statement. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Fishtrap PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 project. The original Fishtrap Record of Decision, signed on November 22, 2005, was litigated in May 2006. The primary issue of the lawsuit was related to treatments intended to maintain and/or enhance old growth stands. As a result of a Court-ordered settlement agreement with Plaintiffs, the Lolo National Forest Supervisor agreed to: (a) Withdraw the project decision; (b) monitor past maintenance/restorative treatments within old growth stands and evaluate the effects of these activities; and (c) prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), incorporating this new information, before proceeding with the project. Over the last several months, Lolo National Forest personnel have been monitoring the effects of past maintenance/restorative treatments in old growth stands and are currently evaluating the information they collected. The Fishtrap SEIS will incorporate the results of this monitoring work. The project proposes to implement timber harvest, pre-commercial thinning, prescribed burning, herbicide treatment of noxious weeds, temporary road construction, road improvement work, and road decommissioning in the Fishtrap Creek drainage, Lolo National Forest, Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger District, Sanders County, Montana. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Hojem, District Ranger (406–826– 4308), or Pat Partyka, Team Leader (406–826–4314), at the Plains/ Thompson Falls Ranger District, Lolo National Forest, P.O. Box 429, Plains, Montana 59859. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Fishtrap analysis area of approximately 36,400 acres is located approximately 20 air miles north of Thompson Falls, Montana, Sanders County, in T23N, R28W; T23N, R29W; T24N, R27W; T24N, R28W; T24N, R29W; and T25N, R28W; PMM. Within this area, the Lolo National Forest proposes: (1) Approximately 2260 acres of timber harvest; (2) approximately 437 acres of pre-commercial thinning; (3) approximately 984 acres of prescribed burning; (4) approximately 0.75 miles of temporary road construction to access two harvest units; (5) approximately 151 miles of road decommissioning; (6) approximately 36 miles of road reconstruction; (7) approximately 40 miles of road maintenance of existing roads that would be used for timber E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM 30NON1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES 69200 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 230 / Thursday, November 30, 2006 / Notices haul; (8) approximately 124 miles of herbicide treatment of noxious weeds along roadsides. The Lolo National Forest Plan provides overall guidance for land management activities in the project area. The purposes for these actions are to: (1) Improve water quality, fish habitat and fish passage. (2) Improve grizzly bear habitat within the CabinetYaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. (3) Restore, maintain or enhance native ‘‘at risk’’ vegetative communities. (4) Provide for ecological sustainability and community stability through the use of forest products. (5) Improve and maintain big game winter range. (6) Provide for a transportation system that better reflects current access and resource concerns and reduces economic burdens associated with maintaining unneeded roads. Issues currently identified for analysis in the SEIS include potential effects on old growth, soils, wildlife (particularly grizzly bear), water quality, fisheries, and forest access. The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. A No Action alternative and other alternatives, which respond to significant issues, will be analyzed and compared to the Draft SEIS. The Draft SEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in June 2007. Comments on the Draft SEIS will be considered and responded to in the Final SEIS, scheduled to be completed by October 2007. 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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:44 Nov 29, 2006 Jkt 211001 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 45day 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. Responsible Official: Deborah L.R. Austin, Forest Supervisor, Lolo National Forest, Building 24—Fort Missoula, Missoula, MT 59804, is the responsible official. In making the decision, the responsible official will consider 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: November 21, 2006. Deborah L.R. Austin, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 06–9462 Filed 11–29–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–11–M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Telephone Bank Determination of the 2006 Fiscal Year Interest Rate on Rural Telephone Bank Loans Rural Telephone Bank, USDA. Notice of 2006 fiscal year interest rate determination. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: In accordance with 7 CFR 1610.10, the Rural Telephone Bank (Bank) cost of money rate has been established as 5.49% for all advances made during fiscal year 2006 (the period beginning October 1, 2005 and ending September 30, 2006). All advances made during fiscal year 2006 were under Bank loans approved on or after October 1, PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 1992. These loans are sometimes referred to as financing account loans. The calculation of the Bank’s cost of money rate for fiscal year 2006 is provided in Table 1. Since the calculated rate is greater than or equal to the minimum rate (5.00%) allowed under 7 U.S.C. 948(b)(3)(A), the cost of money rate is set at 5.49%. The methodology required to calculate the cost of money rates is established in 7 CFR 1610.10(c). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan P. Claffey, Deputy Assistant Governor, Rural Telephone Bank, STOP 1590—Room 5151, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250– 1590. Telephone: (202) 720–9556. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The cost of money rate methodology develops a weighted average rate for the Bank’s cost of money considering total fiscal year loan advances, debentures and other obligations, and the costs to the Bank of obtaining funds from these sources. Dissolution of the Bank At its quarterly meeting on August 4, 2005, the Board of Directors (the ‘‘Board’’) approved a resolution to dissolve the Bank. On November 10, 2005, the liquidation and dissolution process was initiated with the signing by President Bush of the 2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill, which contained a provision lifting the restriction on the retirement of more than 5 percent of the Class A stock held by the Government. In accordance with the Board’s resolution and the terms of the Loan Transfer Agreement between the Bank and the Government, dated August 4, 2005, the Bank’s liquidating account loan portfolio (the portfolio of Bank loans approved before October 1, 1992) was transferred to the Government on October 1, 2005. As a result of that transfer, there are no more advances of liquidating account loan funds. The dissolution of the Bank will not affect future advances of financing account loan funds. Requests for financing account advances will continue to be processed by employees of USDA Rural Development’s Telecommunications Program, just as they were while the Bank remained in operation. The terms and conditions of the financing account loans will not change, nor will the method for determining the interest rates, including the determination of the cost of money rates after the end of each fiscal year. The only significant change to the financing account advances is that beginning October 1, 2005, Class B stock in the Bank is no longer being E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM 30NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 230 (Thursday, November 30, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69199-69200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9462]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Fishtrap EIS, Lolo National Forest, Sanders County, Montana

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare supplemental environmental impact 
statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare a supplemental environmental 
impact statement (EIS) for the Fishtrap project. The original Fishtrap 
Record of Decision, signed on November 22, 2005, was litigated in May 
2006. The primary issue of the lawsuit was related to treatments 
intended to maintain and/or enhance old growth stands. As a result of a 
Court-ordered settlement agreement with Plaintiffs, the Lolo National 
Forest Supervisor agreed to: (a) Withdraw the project decision; (b) 
monitor past maintenance/restorative treatments within old growth 
stands and evaluate the effects of these activities; and (c) prepare a 
supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), incorporating this 
new information, before proceeding with the project. Over the last 
several months, Lolo National Forest personnel have been monitoring the 
effects of past maintenance/restorative treatments in old growth stands 
and are currently evaluating the information they collected. The 
Fishtrap SEIS will incorporate the results of this monitoring work.
    The project proposes to implement timber harvest, pre-commercial 
thinning, prescribed burning, herbicide treatment of noxious weeds, 
temporary road construction, road improvement work, and road 
decommissioning in the Fishtrap Creek drainage, Lolo National Forest, 
Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger District, Sanders County, Montana.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Hojem, District Ranger (406-826-
4308), or Pat Partyka, Team Leader (406-826-4314), at the Plains/
Thompson Falls Ranger District, Lolo National Forest, P.O. Box 429, 
Plains, Montana 59859.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Fishtrap analysis area of approximately 
36,400 acres is located approximately 20 air miles north of Thompson 
Falls, Montana, Sanders County, in T23N, R28W; T23N, R29W; T24N, R27W; 
T24N, R28W; T24N, R29W; and T25N, R28W; PMM. Within this area, the Lolo 
National Forest proposes: (1) Approximately 2260 acres of timber 
harvest; (2) approximately 437 acres of pre-commercial thinning; (3) 
approximately 984 acres of prescribed burning; (4) approximately 0.75 
miles of temporary road construction to access two harvest units; (5) 
approximately 151 miles of road decommissioning; (6) approximately 36 
miles of road reconstruction; (7) approximately 40 miles of road 
maintenance of existing roads that would be used for timber

[[Page 69200]]

haul; (8) approximately 124 miles of herbicide treatment of noxious 
weeds along roadsides.
    The Lolo National Forest Plan provides overall guidance for land 
management activities in the project area. The purposes for these 
actions are to: (1) Improve water quality, fish habitat and fish 
passage. (2) Improve grizzly bear habitat within the Cabinet-Yaak 
Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. (3) Restore, maintain or enhance native 
``at risk'' vegetative communities. (4) Provide for ecological 
sustainability and community stability through the use of forest 
products. (5) Improve and maintain big game winter range. (6) Provide 
for a transportation system that better reflects current access and 
resource concerns and reduces economic burdens associated with 
maintaining unneeded roads.
    Issues currently identified for analysis in the SEIS include 
potential effects on old growth, soils, wildlife (particularly grizzly 
bear), water quality, fisheries, and forest access.
    The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. A No 
Action alternative and other alternatives, which respond to significant 
issues, will be analyzed and compared to the Draft SEIS.
    The Draft SEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in June 2007. 
Comments on the Draft SEIS will be considered and responded to in the 
Final SEIS, scheduled to be completed by October 2007.
    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.
    Responsible Official: Deborah L.R. Austin, Forest Supervisor, Lolo 
National Forest, Building 24--Fort Missoula, Missoula, MT 59804, is the 
responsible official. In making the decision, the responsible official 
will consider 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: November 21, 2006.
Deborah L.R. Austin,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 06-9462 Filed 11-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.