Proposed Rules. Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice of public hearing

6,473 words·~29 min read·/register/2006/04/21/06-3782

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AT91 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Fender's Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid's Lupine), and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette Daisy) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period and a public hearing on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly ( *Icaricia icarioides fenderi* ), *Lupinus sulphureus* ssp. *kincaidii* (Kincaid's lupine), and *Erigeron decumbens* var. *decumbens* (Willamette daisy). DATES: *Written comments:* We will accept comments from all interested parties until 5 p.m. PST on May 19, 2006. *Public hearing:* The public hearing will be held on May 9, 2006, from 7 p.m. until 8:30 p.m.

An informal informational meeting will precede the hearing from 5 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: *Written comments:* If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposal by any one of several methods:

(1)You may submit written comments and information to Kemper McMaster, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE. 98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266.

(2)You may hand-deliver written comments to our Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address.

(3)You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to *fw1willamettech@fws.gov.* Please see the Public Comments Solicited section below for file format and other information about electronic filing.

(4)You may fax your comments to 503/231-6195.

(5)You may submit your comments through the Federal E-rulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Public Hearing The public hearing will be held at the Corvallis Benton County Library, 645 NW. Monroe Avenue, Corvallis, OR 97330. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kemper McMaster, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE. 98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266 (telephone 503/231-6179; facsimile 503/231-6195). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments Solicited We intend that any final action resulting from the proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning the proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments particularly are sought concerning:

(1)The reasons any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (Act), including whether the benefit of designation would outweigh any threats to the species due to designation;

(2)Specific information on the Fender's blue butterfly, *Lupinus sulphureus* ssp. *kincaidii* , and *Erigeron decumbens* var. *decumbens* and their habitat, and which habitat or habitat components (i.e., physical and biological features) are essential to their conservation, such as soil moisture gradient, microsite preferences, and light requirements;

(3)Specific information on: The amount and distribution of the Fender's blue butterfly, *Lupinus sulphureus* ssp. *kincaidii* , and *Erigeron decumbens* var. *decumbens* habitat; what areas should be included in the designations that were occupied at the time of listing and contain the features that are essential to the conservation of the species and why; what areas were not occupied at the time of listing but are essential to the conservation of the species and why;

(4)Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat; we specifically solicit information including:

(a)The benefits provided by a management plan; specifically describe how the plan addresses each primary constituent element

(PCE)in the absence of designated critical habitat; describe conservation benefits to Fender's blue butterfly, *Lupinus sulphureus* ssp. *kincaidii* , or *Erigeron decumbens* var. *decumbens* ; include citations that point to the certainty of implementation of those aspects of the management plans;

(b)The benefits of excluding from the critical habitat designation the areas covered by the management plan; we are especially interested in knowing how partnerships may be positively or negatively affected by a designation, or through exclusion from critical habitat, and costs associated with designation; and

(c)With specific reference to sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) of the Act, we request information from the Department of Defense to assist the Secretary of the Interior in making a determination as to whether any proposed critical habitat overlaps with lands, administered by or under the control of the Department of Defense, covered by an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) that benefits the conservation of the species;

(5)Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any impacts on small entities; and

(6)Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES section). Please submit Internet comments to *fw1willamettech@fws.gov* in ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Please also include “RIN 1018-AT91” in your e-mail subject header and your name and return address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly (see ADDRESSES section). Please note that the Internet address *fw1willamettech@fws.gov* will be unavailable at the termination of the public comment period. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment, but you should be aware that the Service may be required to disclose your name and address pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). Public Hearing Anyone wishing to make an oral statement for the record is encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement and present it to us at the hearing. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration. There are no limits on the length of written comments submitted to us. If you have any questions concerning the public hearing, please contact the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES above). Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the public hearings should contact Patti Carroll at 503/231-2080 as soon as possible. In order to allow sufficient time to process requests, please call no later than one week before the hearing date. Information regarding the proposal is available in alternative formats upon request. Background On November 2, 2005, we published a proposed rule in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 66492) to designate approximately 3,089 acres

(ac)(1,250 hectares (ha)) as critical habitat for Fender's blue butterfly, 724 ac (293 ha) as critical habitat for *Lupinus sulphureus* ssp. *kincaidii* , and 718 ac (291 ha) as critical habitat for *Erigeron decumbens* var. *decumbens.* The proposed critical habitat is located in Polk, Benton, Yamhill, Lane, Marion, Linn, and Douglas Counties, Oregon, and Lewis County, Washington. The original comment period on the proposed critical habitat rule closed on January 3, 2006. Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) requires that a public hearing be held if it is requested within 45 days of the publication of a proposed rule. In response to a timely request received for a public hearing, we are conducting the public hearing on the date and at the address described in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections above, and reopening the comment period accordingly. Author The primary author of this package is Mikki Collins, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: April 14, 2006. Matt Hogan, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E6-5975 Filed 4-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AU58 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reinstated Proposed Rule to List the Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard as Threatened AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period for the reinstated proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard ( *Phrynosoma mcallii* ) as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). On November 17, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona vacated the January 3, 2003, withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard, remanded the matter to us for further consideration in accordance with its August 30, 2005, and November 17, 2005, orders, and ordered us to make a new listing decision. Pursuant to the Court's November 17, 2005, order, on remand we “need only address the matters on which the court's August 30, 2005, Order * * * found the January 3, 2003, Withdrawal unlawful, which may summarily be identified as whether the lizard's lost historical habitat renders the species in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range.” To ensure our new final listing decision is based on the best scientific and commercial data currently available, we are reopening the public comment period on the 1993 proposed listing rule to solicit information and comment regarding the flat-tailed horned lizard's lost historical habitat. DATES: We will accept comments from all interested parties until May 8, 2006. Comments received after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this action. ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on the specific issue identified by the District Court in its November 17, 2005, order for remand of the January 3, 2003, withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard, you may submit your comments and materials by any one of several methods: 1. You may submit written comments and information to Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (CFWO), 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011. 2. You may hand-deliver written comments to the CFWO, at the address given above. 3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to *fw8CFWOcomments@fws.gov* . Please see Public Comments Solicited section below for more information on submitting a comment by e-mail. 4. You may fax your comments to 760/431-9624. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the CFWO at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, at the CFWO (see ADDRESSES section), by telephone at 760/431-9440, or by facsimile at 760/431-9624. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments Solicited To assist us in making a final listing determination based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we are reopening the public comment period on the proposed rule (58 FR 62624; November 29, 1993) to list the flat-tailed horned lizard to accept public comment on the specific issue identified in the District Court's November 17, 2005, order, namely whether the flat-tailed horned lizard's lost historical habitat renders the species likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Comments relevant to the identified issue for consideration during the remand of the January 3, 2003, withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard that were previously submitted during prior comment periods on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they have been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in preparation of the final determination. Please submit Internet comments in ASCII format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Please also include “ATTN: Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard” in your e-mail subject header and your name and return address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly by calling our CFWO at phone number 760/431-9440. Please note that this Internet address will be closed at the termination of the public comment period. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment, but you should be aware that the Service may be required to disclose your name and address pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Previous Federal Actions On November 29, 1993, we published a proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard as a threatened species pursuant to the Act (58 FR 62624). On July 15, 1997, we withdrew the 1993 proposed rule (62 FR 37852). Defenders of Wildlife and other groups challenged the 1997 withdrawal decision. On June 16, 1999, the District Court for the Southern District of California granted summary judgment in our favor upholding our decision not to list the flat-tailed horned lizard. However, on July 31, 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling and directed the District Court to remand the matter back to us for further consideration in accordance with the legal standards outlined in its opinion ( *Defenders of Wildlife* v. *Norton* , 258 F.3d 1136). On October 24, 2001, the District Court for the Southern District of California remanded the 1997 withdrawal. Consistent with the District Court's remand order, we published a reinstatement of the 1993 proposed listing of the flat-tailed horned lizard as threatened and opened a 120-day comment period (66 FR 66384; December 26, 2001). The District Court further ordered us to commence a 12-month schedule for a final listing decision in compliance with the Ninth Circuit Court's order. As a result, we published a withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard on January 3, 2003 (68 FR 331). The Tucson Herpetological Society, and other environmental organizations and individuals, challenged this withdrawal decision in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. On August 30, 2005, the District Court for the District of Arizona issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment “on the ground that the Secretary's withdrawal of the proposed rule violated the Endangered Species Act and the Ninth Circuit's remand order by failing to evaluate the lizard's lost habitat and whether that habitat was a significant portion of the range.” The Service's failure to make this specific determination was the only violation cited by the District Court. The court upheld all other aspects of the January 3, 2003, withdrawal decision. On November 17, 2005, the District Court issued a subsequent order, consistent with its August 30, 2005, order, vacating the 2003 withdrawal and remanding the matter to us for further consideration. The District Court reinstated the 1993 proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard as a threatened species for the duration of the remand, and ordered us to make a new listing decision by April 30, 2006, stating that, “on remand the agency need only address the matters on which the court's August 30, 2005, Order * * * found the January 3, 2003, Withdrawal unlawful, which may summarily be identified as whether the lizard's lost historical habitat renders the species in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range.” The order indicates that, while the Court believes this determination is required by the Ninth Circuit's opinion, “the Secretary has wide discretion in delineating a significant portion of the lizard's range,” including in defining the “range” of the species (which the Court states must include some lost habitat) and in choosing the point in time at which to examine the range. On December 7, 2005, we published a document (70 FR 72776) reinstating the November 29, 1993, proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard as a threatened species. On March 2, 2006, we published a document announcing the reopening of a 14-day public comment period on the proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard under the Act (71 FR 10631). To ensure the public is provided with an adequate opportunity to comment on the matters identified by the Court, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation with the Court on March 28, 2006, to allow for an additional public comment period. On March 29, 2006, the Court granted our request for an extension of the April 30, 2006, deadline, and ordered us to submit the new final listing determination for the flat-tailed horned lizard to the **Federal Register** on or before the date six weeks after the close of this additional public comment period. For the reasons outlined in this document, we are now reopening the comment period on the proposed rule for an additional 16 days. For your convenience, here is a list of the primary **Federal Register** documents pertaining to the proposed listing of the flat-tailed horned lizard as threatened: Action Date FR citation Proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard as threatened November 29, 1993 58 FR 62624. Withdrawal of proposed rule July 15, 1997 62 FR 37852. Reinstatement of proposed rule; reopening of comment period December 26, 2001 66 FR 66384. Withdrawal of proposed rule January 3, 2003 68 FR 331. Reinstatement of proposed rule December 7, 2005 70 FR 72776. Reopening of comment period March 2, 2006 71 FR 10631. Background The flat-tailed horned lizard ( *Phrynosoma mcallii* ) is a small, cryptically colored, phrynosomatid lizard that reaches a maximum adult body length (excluding the tail) of approximately 87 millimeters (3.4 inches). The lizard has a flattened body, short tail, and dagger-like head spines like other horned lizards. It is distinguished from other horned lizards in its range by a dark vertebral stripe, two slender elongated occipital spines, and the absence of external ear openings. The dorsal surface of the flat-tailed horned lizard is pale gray to light rusty brown. The ventral side is white and unmarked, with the exception of a prominent umbilical scar. The flat-tailed horned lizard is endemic (restricted) to the Sonoran Desert in southern California, Arizona, and northwestern Mexico. The species is documented in the Coachella Valley in Riverside County, California; the Imperial and Borrego Valleys in Imperial and eastern San Diego Counties, California; south of the Gila River and west of the Gila and Butler Mountains in Yuma County, Arizona; east of the Sierra de Juarez in the Laguna Salada and Yuha Basins in northeastern Baja California Norte, Mexico; and north and west of Bahia de San Jorge to the delta of the Colorado River in northwestern Sonora, Mexico (Grismer 2002; Rodriguez 2002). The flat-tailed horned lizard occurs at elevations up to 800 meters (2,600 feet) above sea level, but most populations are below 300 meters (980 feet) elevation. Various descriptions and estimates of the historical and current ranges of the flat-tailed horned lizard are described in the November 29, 2003, proposed rule (58 FR 62624); July 15, 1997, withdrawal of the 1993 proposed rule (62 FR 37822); and January 3, 2003, withdrawal of the 1993 proposed rule (68 FR 331). In 2003, the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Interagency Coordinating Committee released a revised version of the 1997 Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Rangewide Management Strategy (Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Interagency Coordinating Committee 2003). The 2003 Rangewide Management Strategy includes a map of the approximate historical and current range boundaries of the flat-tailed horned lizard. Using the geographic information system shape files used to develop the range map, we calculated the area of the historical and current ranges of the flat-tailed horned lizard in the United States and Mexico. Based on this information, we estimated the historical range (United States and Mexico) to be approximately 6,183,647 acres (2,502,433 hectares), which with the exclusion of the historic Lake Cahuilla would be reduced to approximately 4,874,238 ac (1,972,534 ha), and the current range (United States and Mexico) to be approximately 3,962,543 acres (1,603,884 hectares). A copy of this report can be viewed on the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office's Web site at *http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/.* For additional background information and previous Federal actions related to the listing determinations for the flat-tailed horned lizard, please refer to the January 3, 2003, **Federal Register** notice (68 FR 331). Author The primary author of this notice is the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: April 7, 2006. Marshall Jones, Jr., Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E6-5895 Filed 4-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 71 77 Friday, April 21, 2006 Notices AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Board for International Food and Agricultural Development; One Hundred and Forty-Seventh Meeting; Notice of Meeting Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of the one hundred and forty-seventh meeting of the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD). The meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on May 11, 2006 in the ground floor meeting room of the National Association of State Universities & Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), at 1307 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The BIFAD will hear briefings on the Title XII legislation, U.S. Government and U.S. university support for agriculture development in Africa; USAID and university partnerships; the status of portfolio of the Collaborative Research Support Programs (CRSPs), and other items of current interest. The meeting is free and open to the public. Those wishing to attend the meeting or obtain additional information about BIFAD should contact John Rifenbark, the Designated Federal Officer for BIFAD. Write him in care of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Ronald Reagan Building, Office of Agriculture, Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2.11-004, Washington DC, 20523-2110 or telephone him at

(202)712-0163 or fax

(202)216-3010. John T. Rifenbark, USAID Designated Federal Officer for BIFAD, Office of Agriculture, Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture & Trade, U.S. Agency for International Development. [FR Doc. E6-5976 Filed 4-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6116-01-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Tracy Placer Mine, Rogue River—Siskiyou National Forest, Josephine County, OR AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS), to examine surface resource impacts connected with extracting gold from placer deposits within a 4.25-acre (approx.) area, in response to a mining claimant's proposed plan of operations. Proposed mining would occur along the south bank of Sucker Creek, about 11 miles southeast of Cave Junction, Oregon. During previous placer operations in the area, an existing but steeply inclined road provided vehicle access to several nearby sites. Because the placer deposit the claimant proposes to mine is located on the stream bank opposite from the road, the proponent proposes to use the existing road but would traverse Sucker Creek to reach the mine site by means of a low water crossing (ford). The purpose for preparing this EIS is to forecast and disclose environmental consequences to surface resources, resulting from road use and mine operations, as well as to ascertain reasonable operational terms and conditions needed during development of locatable mineral resources of the United States (as authorized by the Mining Law of 1872, as amended). Although this is an action having “effects primarily of local concern (40 CFR 1506.6(3)),” the Forest Service is nonetheless publishing this notice in the **Federal Register** to make diligent effort at involving the public, agencies, organizations, Indian tribes and other interested parties in preparation of this EIS. DATES: The EIS Team Leader (at the address below) should receive written comments concerning the scope of this analysis, identification of significant issues or both within 30 days following publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Once the scope of analysis is established, and significant issues identified, the Forest Service will prepare a draft EIS to document alternatives considered and to disclose anticipated environmental consequences. The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)and to be available for public comment during July 2006. Following issuance of the draft EIS, and receipt of public comments related to the draft, completion of a final EIS is scheduled for November 2006. ADDRESSES: Send written comments or inquiries regarding this proposal to Howard Jubas, EIS Team Leader, care of USDA Forest Service, Grants Pass Interagency Office, 2164 NE Spalding Ave., Grants Pass, Oregon 97526. If electronic submission of written correspondence is preferred, send electronic documents to the following e-mail address: *comments-pacificnorthwest-siskiyou-galice-illinoisvalley@fs.fed.us* . The subject line must contain the name of the project for which you are submitting comments. The responsible official, Pamela Bode, District Ranger, may be contacted at the following mailing address: Illinois Valley Ranger District, Rogue River—Siskiyou National Forest, 26568 Redwood Highway, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information or questions, contact Howard Jubas, EIS Team Leader, at

(541)471-6760. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As set forth in the provisions of the 1872 Mining Law (as amended), a mining claimant (proponent) proposes to exercise his exclusive right to mine for gold within his placer mining claim (ORMC 159735). The location of the proposed placer mining operation is in the NW 1/4 of Section 19, Township 40 South, Range 6 West, Willamette Meridian, Josephine County, Oregon. The proposed mine site is located approximately 11 air miles southeast of Cave Junction, Oregon, at an elevation approximately 2400 feet above sea level. The proclaimed boundary of the Siskiyou National Forest encompasses all proposed mining excavations within the claim, as well as the access road to the mine site, and all operations would be conducted on National Forest System lands. * Proposed Action:* The claimant proposes to mine gold from a 4.25-acre (approx.) placer deposit during a five-year period, beginning in 2007. Mine work would be suspended during winter when snow precludes access to the area. However, the miner proposes to access the mine and complete some work during the other three seasons, as is practical, although excavation and placer mining operations would be a predominantly summer activity. The placer deposit borders the south bank of Sucker Creek, a tributary to the East Fork Illinois River, for approximately 1000 feet. The entire area where mining activity would occur consists mostly of gravel- to cobble-sized rocks, sands and subsoil materials. The entire deposit was turned over and worked extensively during hydraulic mining operations conducted in the later 1800s. To provide access to the mine site for trucks and earth moving machinery, the miner proposes to repair and partially re-construct an existing road. Presently, a gate blocks this road and the spur is now impassable to large vehicles. The existing road is steeply inclined, narrow and native surface. Originally constructed decades ago, the road is used periodically to transport mining equipment, tools and supplies to several placer claims adjoining Sucker Creek. While the existing road template was certainly constructed with most attention given to short length and low cost, and it is ill-suited to anything except high-clearance trucks and excavation equipment, the road is well integrated into the landscape and stable in its existing location. In his plan of operations, the claimant proposes to begin operations by clearing second-growth Douglas-firs, several Port-Orford-cedars and understory vegetation from a portion of the mine site using a tracked excavator and crawler tractor. At the same time that land clearing occurs, the site would be leveled. No less than two acres would be cleared initially but about two acres also would be left intact until after mining is complete in the original entry area. This initial clearing and leveling would result in felling of approximately 50 to 100 trees having breast height diameters ranging from 15 to nearly 45 inches. Cleared trees and other vegetation would be piled on the periphery of the placer deposit and out of the path of mining excavations, to the extent practicable. Following site preparation, the excavator, crawler tractor and a dump truck would be used to dig, move or pile loose rocks and sand that form the placer deposit. To begin mining, the claimant proposes to excavate a four-to eight-foot deep depression and afterward fill it with water to create a temporary pond. The pond would be sufficiently sized to contain a (6-inch or 8-inch) suction dredge, plus a materials collection hopper, while also impounding enough water for the dredge to wash (sluice) excavated materials. Nearly all placer cobbles (less than 6 inches in diameter), gravels and sands would be “wet processed” on site by using the dredge to separate embedded gold from its substrate. Pond water would continuously re-circulate through the operating suction dredge during the gold separation process. Stones, sands and muddy water discharged from the apparatus would drop directly into the pond. No processed waste rocks, sands or muddy water discharged from the dredge would be deposited onto ground surface surrounding the pond or into Sucker Creek. As processing of placer substrate materials proceeds, the location of the water-storage pond would be progressively shifted across the site. The trailing end of the pond would be filled with processed rocks and sands as the leading perimeter of the pond is excavated. Water to fill the pond would be diverted from a nearby small perennial creek named Cedar Gulch; however, the pond would be only filled to its operating levels and then the water intake would be closed. There would be no outlet from the impoundment, leading toward Sucker Creek, so there would be no water flowing out of the pond on the ground surface and directly into Sucker Creek. Water would be depleted from the pond only by infiltration through substrate materials or by evaporation. Once mining of the placer deposit is completed, the area would be re-contoured using the waste rock excavated on site. Loose cobbles, gravels and fine-grained earthen materials would be shaped to leave gentle relief and a smoothed profile. Some (or perhaps all) of the previsouly felled trees and other vegetative debris would be placed over the distributed area. Since no toxic compounds (such as mercury or cyanide) would be used to separate gold from parent materials, and no hardwork load mining would occur, there would be no hazardous waste, leachates, mill tailings or refuse ores to contend with on the site. *Scope of Environmental Analysis:* The scope of this environmental analysis is limited to a review of proposed placer mine operations, including road access to the mine, with regard to potential environmental impacts to affected surface resources. The Forest Service, in implementing the Mining Law of 1872, does not have discretion to deny otherwise lawful locatable minerals mining (entry) where a reasonable plan of operations is proposed. However, Forest Service resource specialists working on this project do aim to fulfill all legally mandated environmental analysis and statement requirements, including thorough consideration of operating terms and conditions that decrease environmental effects. The application of operational terms and conditions are intended to direct mining operations and reclamation activities that minimize adverse effects on National Forest System surface resources (36 CFR 228.1). *Preliminary Issues:* The interdisciplinary team assigned to this project has completed an initial review of the claimant's plan of operations and did identify two prospective significant issues. One of these issues, regarding potential for degradation of Sucker Creek water quality, validated the merit of preparing an EIS. The two significant issues heretofore identified are:

(1)The degree of impact from proposed mine operations related to species listed as threatened under the Endangered Special Act, as amended (specifically coho salmon and the northern spotted owl) and

(2)The degree to which proposed mine operations might increase water temperature, turbidity or both in Sucker Creek (especially with regard to the potential for a threatened violation of Clean Water Act requirements). *Preliminary Alternatives:* Three alternatives are readily evident for consideration in the forthcoming draft EIS: 1), the no action alternative (as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA), 2), the miner's (claimant's) proposed action (plan of operations), and 3), an alternative mining plan incorporating reasonable terms and conditions that would minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System surface resources. *Responsible Official:* Pamela Bode, District Ranger, Illinois Valley Ranger District, is the Forest Service official responsible for decision-making. *Nature of Decision to Be Made:* The responsible official will be accountable for disclosing important environmental consequences, identifying the environmentally preferable alternative, and selecting an alternative to implement. She will review the analysis contained in the Tracy Placer Mine EIS and make a decision regarding the terms and conditions that shall be required to operate, identifying especially where, when and to what extent such terms and conditions are essential to protect surface resources. The responsible official will consider public comments/reactions to the proposal, opinions from advisory/regulatory government agencies having a role in this action, environmental consequences disclosed in the final EIS and applicable laws, regulations or policies in making this decision. The responsible official will document the decision and rationale for the decision in the Record of Decision (ROD). However, the ROD, which is tied to the final EIS, would not directly result in approval of the claimants' plan of operations. Rather, the ROD would fulfill statutory requirements for environmental review while also providing rationale for establishing reasonable terms and conditions. Once issued, the Record of Decision will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations as promulgated at 36 CFR part 215. *Comment Requested:* This notice of intent commences the Forest Service's obligation to determine the “scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action [40 CFR 1501.7].” Written comment suggesting the scope

(span)of the analysis to be undertaken, as well as significant issues related to proposed placer mining along Sucker Creek, should be mailed to the EIS Team Leader within 30 days following publication of this notice. Comments submitted to the Forest Service that are associated with this **Federal Register** notice will be used to guide preparation of the draft EIS. Following completion of the draft EIS, a comment period of no less than 45 calendar days will be allotted beginning on the day after the date EPA publishes the Notice of Availability in the **Federal Register** . At the end of this period, comments submitted to the Forest Service, together with names and addresses of those who responded, will be included in the public record for this proposal and as such will be available for public review. Forest Service officials will analyze, consider and respond to substantive comments submitted for the draft EIS and will then publish substantive comments and accompanying responses in the final EIS. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering substantive critique of the environmental analysis documented in the draft EIS, comments should be as specific as possible. In particular, Forest Service officials welcome comments that address the adequacy of the draft EIS in disclosing environmental consequences or defining the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Wherever possible, respondents should reference a specific page or chapter in the draft EIS to identify where a fault, omission or question arises. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (at 40 CFR 1503.3) implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA in addressing these points. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision (as authorized by 36 CFR part 215). However, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances (for example, to protect trade secrets). The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality and, in situations where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within a specified number of days. The Forest Service wishes to give reviewers notice, at this first stage of EIS preparation, of several key court rulings that relate to standards for public participation in the entire environmental review process. First, reviewers of a draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental review so that it is meaningful and alerts the Forest Service to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC,* 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Additionally, environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft EIS, but that were not raised until completion of the final EIS, may be waived or dismissed by the court. *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). therefore, it is important for persons interested in this proposed action to make available to the Forest Service their comments at a time when those responses can be meaningfully considered (that is, in response to this notice and subsequent to release of the draft EIS). Such timely submissions of information permits Forest Service analysts to correct, revise or supplement disclosures made in the draft environmental analysis and thus improve overall decision-making. Dated: April 6, 2006. Pamela W. Bode, District Ranger. [FR Doc. 06-3782 Filed 4-20-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 2

Traces to 2 documents

U.S. Code