45788 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 1997 / Notices

Respondents: Commission merchants,

dealers, and brokers engaged in the

business of buying, selling, or

negotiating the purchase or sale of fresh

and/or frozen fruits and vegetables in

interstate or foreign commerce are

required to be licensed under the PACA

(7 U.S.C. 499(c)(a)).

Estimated Number of Respondents:

25,550.

Estimated Number of Responses per

Respondent: 1.67906.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 119,267 hours.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used; (3)

ways to enhance the quality, utility and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (4) 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 may be sent to:

Charles W. Parrott, Assistant Chief,

PACA Branch, Fruit and Vegetable

Division, Agricultural Marketing

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Room 2095-South, P.O. Box 96456,

Washington, D.C. 20090–6456. All

comments received will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours at the same address.

All responses to this notice will be

summarized and included in the request

for OMB approval. All comments will

also become a matter of public record.

Dated: August 25, 1997.

Eric M. Forman,

Acting Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 97–22988 Filed 8–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Revision of the Land and Resource

Management Plans for the Chippewa

and Superior National Forests;

Beltrami, Cass, Cook, Itasca,

Koochiching, Lake and St. Louis

Counties, MN

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is

to inform the public that the Forest

Service intends to prepare an

environmental impact statement for

revising the Chippewa and Superior

Land and Resource Management Plans

(forest plans) (pursuant to 16 U.S.C.

1604[f][5] and 36 CFR 219.12). The

Chippewa and Superior National

Forests are working together to revise

their forest plans. The Forest Service

will prepare only one environmental

impact statement but will prepare two

separate forest plans.

We are now soliciting comments and

suggestions from American Indian

tribes, federal agencies, state and local

governments, individuals and

organizations on the scope of the

analysis to be included in the draft

environmental impact statement for the

revised forest plans (40 CFR 1501.7).

Comments should focus on (1) the

proposal for revising forest plans and (2)

possible alternatives for addressing

issues associated with the proposal.

The current forest plans for the

Chippewa and Superior National

Forests were approved in June 1986.

These plans guide the overall

management of Minnesota’s two

national forests. Six primary decisions

are made in forest plans:

1. Forestwide multiple-use goals and

objectives (as required by 36 CFR

219.11[b])

2. Forestwide management

requirements (36 CFR 219.27)

3. Management area direction (36 CFR

219.11[c])

4. Lands suited and not suited for

timber management (36 CFR 219.14,

219.16, 219.21)

5. Monitoring and evaluation

requirements (36 CFR 219.11[d])

6. Recommendations to Congress (if

any) (36 CFR 219.17)

By law, forest plans must be revised

every 10 to 15 years (U.S.C. 1604[f][5]

and 36 CFR 219.10[g]). In addition,

based on public comments received and

the results of annual monitoring and

evaluation, we have determined the

need to make some changes to the

primary decisions made in the 1986

forest plans for the Chippewa and

Superior National Forests.

The process of revising the forest

plans will be narrow in scope, focusing

predominantly on vegetation

management aspects of those topics

identified as being most critically in

need of revision. We will also consider

the interests of American Indians and

Indian Tribes.

Revised plans will address 12 revision

topics that have been identified through

public comment and through

monitoring and evaluation:

1. Biological diversity

2. Habitat fragmentation

3. Ecosystem health

4. Age class distribution

5. Old growth forests

6. Rare natural resource management

7. Silvicultural prescriptions

8. Fire Management

9. Riparian management

10. Fish habitat management

11. Allowable sale quantity of timber

12. Wildlife habitat management

We will also be revising monitoring

requirements to provide for better

tracking and evaluation of the

implementation and effectiveness of

revised forest plans. We may make other

minor changes, particularly in the

standards and guidelines section of the

forest plans, to promote greater

consistency between the two plans, and

to reflect changes made when

addressing the 12 revision topics.

In many northern Minnesota

communities, the relationship between

people and the natural environment in

which the needs of people are met

predominantly centers around three

industries: forest products, tourism, and

mining. People also value the

opportunities forests provide for

enjoying recreation, solitude and scenic

beauty.

National forests are integral to the

image and sense of place of

communities across northern

Minnesota. When making decisions in

the revised plans, we will examine the

economic and social impacts to local

communities and at a broader regional

level, as well as biological impacts at

similar levels.

As part of the overall effort to ensure

that treaty rights are honored and

responsibilities to American Indian

tribes are met, we will routinely consult

with and exchange information with

tribes on a government-to-government

basis throughout the forest plan revision

process. This consultation will include

the development of goals and objectives

that provide for the exercise of tribal

hunting, gathering and fishing rights. In

addition, we will be sensitive to

American Indian religious beliefs

(Forest Service Manual 1563).

We are committed to and will

continue to participate in statewide land

management planning and coordination

efforts resulting from enactment of the

Minnesota Sustainable Forest Resources

Act of 1995. Technical guidelines

developed through this process will be

considered when developing standards

and guidelines in revised plans.

The environmental analysis and

decision-making process leading to

revised forest plans will include

opportunities for public participation
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 1997 / Notices 45789

and comment, so that individuals

interested in this proposal may

contribute to the decision-making

process:

Tentative date Step Public involvement

Aug. 1997 ..... Notice of intent, proposal.60-day formal

comment

period,

open

house

meetings,

written

comments.

Early 1998 .... Alternative

development.

Public workshops.

Late 1998 ..... Proposed revised

plans, draft

environmental impact statement.

Formal comment period, open

house

meetings,

written

comments.

Late 1999 ..... Final revised

plans, final

environmental impact statement and

Record of

Decision.

Informational

meetings to

explain decision on

final plan.

We will provide the public with

general notices on opportunities to

participate through mailings, news

releases and public meetings. In

addition to formal opportunities for

public comment, we will consider

received at any time throughout the

revision process.

The Forest Service will host a series

of open house meetings to (1) present

and clarify proposed changes to forest

plans; (2) describe ways that individuals

can respond to this notice of intent; and

(3) accept comments from the public on

the proposal for revising the forest

plans.

The following open house meetings

will be held from 4 pm to 7 pm on

September 17–18, 1997:

September 17 LaCroix Ranger District

Office, Cook, MN

September 18 Gunflint Ranger District

Office, Grant Marais, MN

September 18 Kawishiwi Ranger

District Office, Ely, MN

September 18 Laurentian River District

Office, Aurora, MN

September 18 Tofte Ranger District

Office, Tofte, MN

September 18 Blackduck Ranger

District Office, Blackduck, MN

September 18 Cass Lake Ranger

District Office, Cass Lake, MN

September 18 Deer River Ranger

District Office, Deer River, MN

September 18 Marcell Ranger District

Office, Marcell, MN

September 18 Walker Ranger District

Office, Walker, MN

The following open house meetings

will be held from 7 pm to 9:30 pm, with

a presentation on the proposal for plan

revisions repeated every half hour:

September 23 Northern Inn, Bemidji,

MN

September 25 Earle Brown Continuing

Education Center, St. Paul, MN

September 30 MN Interagency Fire

Center, Grand Rapids, MN

October 2 Superior National Forest

Headquarters, Duluth, MN

DATES: Comments on this Notice of

Intent should be received in writing by

October 28, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

Forest Plan Revision, Chippewa and

Superior National Forests, Route 3, Box

244, Cass Lake, MN 56633–8929. Or

direct electronic mail to:

chippewa@northernnet.com (ATTN:

Forest Plan Revision).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Duane Lula, Forest Planner, at (218)

626–4383. TTY (218) 626–4399.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Additional detail on this proposal is

available on request. This is in the form

of a document titled ‘‘Notice of Intent,

Description of Proposal for Revising

Forest Plans, and Supplementary

Information.’’ You are encouraged to

review this additional document prior

to commenting on the notice of intent.

You may request the additional

information by calling the phone

number listed above or by writing or email to the addresses listed in this

notice.

The DEIS and the proposed revised

plans are expected to be published late

in 1998. The comment period on the

draft environmental impact statement

and proposed revised forest plans will

be 90 days from the date the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

publishes the notice of availability in

the Federal Register.

Comments received in response to

this solicitation, including names and

addresses of those who comment, will

be considered part of the public record

on this proposed action and will be

available for public inspection.

Comments submitted anonymously

will be accepted and considered;

however, those who submit anonymous

comments will not have standing to

appeal the subsequent decision under

36 CFR Parts 215 or 217.

Additionally, 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, such as to

protect trade secrets.

The Forest Service will inform the

requester of the agency’s decision

regarding the request for confidentiality,

and, where the requester is denied, the

agency will return the submission and

notify the requester that the comments

may be resubmitted with or without

name and address within 10 days.

Special note to reviewers of the draft

environmental impact statement: The

Forest Service believes that, 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 U.S. 519, 533

[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 90-day comment period on

the draft environmental impact

statement, 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

specifics pages or chapters 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.
45790 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 1997 / Notices

The responsible official is Robert T.

Jacobs, Regional Forester, Eastern

Region, 310 W. Wisconsin Ave,

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203.

Dated: August 12, 1997.

Robert T. Jacobs,

Regional Forester.

[FR Doc. 97–22313 Filed 8–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Notice of Intent; Environmental Impact

Statement for the Crane and Rowan

Mountain Timber Sales, Tongass

National Forest, Stikine Area,

Petersburg, AK

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement.

SUMMARY: This proposed action was

announced on April 1, 1997 as two

separate Environmental Assessments

(EA), one each for the Crane and Rowan

Mountain Timber Sales. The decision to

prepare EAs for these projects was based

upon, among other things, several prior

extensive environmental analyses that

have been conducted for similar

projects. Individually they did not

indicate a significant effect to the

human environment. After considering

the public input, we have decided to

document the analysis of these two

proposed timber sales in an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

1. Purpose and scope of the decision.

The purpose of the projects is to make

available for harvest approximately 10–

15 million board feet (MMBF) of timber

from the Crane Timber Sale and

approximately 9–12 MMBF from the

Rowan Mountain Timber Sale. These

projects will contribute sawlog and

utility timber volume and related

employment and income opportunities

to the timber industry in Southeast

Alaska and will help meet the goals and

objectives of the Revised Tongass Land

Management Plan.

The geographic location of this

proposed project is the north portion of

Kuiu Island and includes value

comparison units (VCU) 399, 400, 402,

and 421. The western portion of VCU

420 (west side of Port Camden) is also

included. Timber harvesting and

roading has occurred in all of the VCU’s.

The decision to be made is:

(1) Whether or not timber harvest will

occur in the Crane and Rowan Mountain

project area;

(2) How much timber will be

harvested;

(3) Location and design of harvest

units;

(4) Location and design of road

construction and potential

reconstruction; and

(5) What mitigation measures and

monitoring will be implemented.

A reasonable range of alternatives will

be developed, including a No Action

alternative. No additional road building

or timber harvest would occur under the

No Action alternative.

2. Scoping and public participation.

Public scoping for these projects began

on April 1, 1997. We mailed a scoping

letter to interested groups,

organizations, and members of the

public who indicated an interest in the

project by responding to the Stikine

Area Project Schedule, or who

otherwise notified the Stikine Area that

they were interested in the Crane and

Rowan Mountain Timber Harvest

Projects. This Notice of Intent

constitutes an extension of this scoping

process, which will end September

19th, 1997. At the time of this notice, a

scoping letter is being mailed to

interested groups, organizations, and

members of the public explaining the

transition from an Environmental

Analysis to an Environmental Impact

Statement Process.

Scoping results from the April 1, 1997

mailing have reinforced the preliminary

issues identified and did not suggest

additional issues. The issues as noted in

the April 1 mailing are listed below:

1. Cultural Resources—How should

timber management activities be

designed to protect cultural resources?

2. Economics—How should the

project be designed to contribute to the

economic health of Southeast Alaska?

3. Fish—How should fish habitat be

managed and what effect would timber

harvest and related activities have on

fish habitat?

4. Recreation—How should recreation

opportunities be protected or enhanced

in the design of timber management

activities?

5. Soil—How should timber

management activities be designed to

protect the soil resource? What effects

would activities have on soil

productivity?

6. Subsistence—How should timber

management activities be designed to

protect traditional subsistence uses?

What effect would activities have on

subsistence uses and users?

7. Timber Management—How should

the project be designed to provide for

efficient and long-term timber

management?

8. Scenery—How should timber

management activities be designed to

protect areas of high scenic quality and

what effect would activities have on the

landscapes of Kuiu Island?

9. Water Quality—How should timber

management activities be designed to

protect water quality? What effects

would activities have on water quality?

10. Wildlife Habitat—What effects

would timber harvest and related

activities have on wildlife habitat?

DATES: Comments concerning the scope

of the analysis should be received in

writing by September 19, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Information relating to the supplement

may be obtained by contacting Bob

Gerdes, Interdisciplinary Team Leader,

USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 309,

Petersburg, AK 99833.

EXPECTED TIME FOR COMPLETION: A draft

EIS is projected for issuance

approximately 2 months from the date

of the Notice of Intent, or October 17,

1997.

The Final Environmental Impact

Statement and Record of Decision is

expected to be released by March 30,

1998. The Responsible Official will

make a decision regarding this proposal

after considering public comments, and

the environmental consequences

displayed in the Final Environmental

Impact Statement, and applicable laws,

regulations, and policies. The decision

and supporting reason will be

documented in the Record of Decision.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Interested parties are

invited to comment. The comment

period on the Draft EIS will be 45 days

from the first day after publication of

notice of availability in the Federal

Register by the Environmental

Protection Agency. 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 helpful

for comments to refer to specific pages

or chapters 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 while addressing these

points.

In addition, Federal court decisions

have established that reviewer’s of Draft

EISs 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. versus

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978).

Environmental objections that could