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

8680

Vol. 62, No. 38

Wednesday, February 26, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

National Agricultural Research,

Extension, Education, and Economics

Advisory Board

AGENCY: Research, Education, and

Economics, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Solicitation of

Advisory Board Recommendations.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.

L. 92–463), the United States

Department of Agriculture announces a

solicitation of the National Agricultural

Research, Extension, Education, and

Economics Advisory Board members for

recommendations on the

reauthorization of the Title VIII—

Research, Extension, and Education of

the Federal Agriculture Improvement

and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIR Act).

DATE: Deadline for Advisory Board

Comments, February 27, 1997.

Comments: The public may file

written comments before or after the

DATE above with the contact person

listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah Hanfman, Executive Director,

National Agricultural Research,

Extension, Education, and Economics

Advisory Board, REE Office of the

Advisory Board, Room 3918 South, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, STOP: 2255,

1400 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250–2255.

Telephone: 202–720–3684; Fax: 202–

720–6199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

National Agricultural Research,

Extension, Education, and Economics

Advisory Board has been asked by

USDA to give general comments on

some or all of the issues provided below

regarding reauthorization of the

Research, Extension, and Education

Title.

Recurring Questions

(1) What is the appropriate mix of

funding among intramural funds,

formula funds, competitive grants, and

special grants?

(2) Is stakeholder input into research

and extension priority setting working?

(3) What is the role of the university

system in terms of ARS agenda?

(4) What is the role of the Federal

Government?

(5) What are the priorities for the

Extension Service?

(6) What is the appropriate role for

Special Grants?

Context for Research Title

Reauthorization

Many changes have taken place in the

agricultural sector. The FAIR Act of

1996 provides the following changes:

(1) Contract payment provisions in

lieu of traditional support programs,

(2) A deregulated domestic

economy—U.S. ratification of GATT

means producers now compete in a

deregulated global economy as well, and

(3) Significant policy decisions

affecting natural resources & the

environment.

Principles Guiding USDA’s Approach

to Research Title Reauthorization

(1) Use existing legislative &

administrative authorities whenever

possible.

(2) Improve efficiency throughout the

research system—and re-invest in REE

research, education, and extension

programs.

(3) Encourage multi-functional, multiregional, and multi-institutional

activities to achieve maximum leverage

of federal, state, and local dollars.

(4) Support a range of funding

mechanisms and the current structure of

intramural and extramural research.

Must maintain long-term high-risk

research as well as shorter term

investigator-initiated research.

(5) Support the use of formula funds

for research and extension activities at

the land-grant universities, while

providing greater accountability.

(6) Support merit review with peer

evaluation in all research programs with

competitively-awarded programs, as

appropriate. We will improve merit

review and peer evaluation in the

intramural programs.

(7) Value an active federal-state-local

partnership in setting priorities,

conducting the work, and evaluating the

results, as is consistent with

Administration’s position on states’

roles. USDA will work in partnership

with state and local entities where we

have concurrent jurisdiction and build

better accountability.

(8) Strengthen public sector/private

sector partnerships.

(9) Be responsive to national and

regional needs as the first guideline in

priority setting.

(10) Improve communication with the

public.

(11) Overarching Principle: Work to

maintain world leadership in

agricultural science and education.

Comments on the above issues will be

consolidated by the Office of the

Advisory Board at the direction of the

Executive Committee and used in a

statement of recommendations to the

Secretary of Agriculture on Title VIII

reauthorization.

Done at Washington, DC this 21st day of

February, 1997.

Bob Robinson,

Administrator, Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service.

[FR Doc. 97–4823 Filed 2–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–22–M

Forest Service

Revised Land and Resource

Management Plans for Some National

Forest System Lands in Nebraska,

North Dakota, South Dakota, and

Wyoming

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement in

conjunction with the revision of land

and resource management plans for

several National Grasslands (NG) and

Forests (NF) on the Northern Great

Plains.

The ‘‘planning area’’ includes these

National Forest System lands:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices 8681

Administrative unit National grassland/forest State Counties

Cluster NF ................................................... Little Missouri NG ....................................... ND Billings, Dunn, Golden, Valley, McHenry,

McKenzie, Slope.

Cedar River NG .......................................... ND Grant, Sioux.

Sheyenne NG ............................................. ND Ransom, Richland.

Grand River NG .......................................... SD Corson, Perkins.

Nebraska NF ............................................... Oglala NG ................................................... NE Dawes, Sioux.

Nebraska NF .............................................. NE Blaine, Dawes, Sioux, Thomas.

Samuel R. McKelvie NF ............................. NE Cherry.

Buffalo Gap NG .......................................... SD Custer, Fall River, Jackson, Pennington.

Fort Pierre NG ............................................ SD Jones, Lyman, Stanley.

Medicine Bow-Routt NF .............................. Thunder Basin NG ...................................... WY Campbell, Converse, Crook, Niobrara,

Weston.

SUMMARY: This planning effort is called

the ‘‘Northern Great Plains Management

Plans Revisions.’’ Land and Resource

Management Plans (hereafter referred to

as Management Plan or Plans) will be

prepared for each participating

administrative unit, while one

environmental impact statement for all

affected units will be issued.

This notice describes the specific

portions of the current Management

Plans to be revised, environmental

issues considered in the revisions,

estimated dates for filing the

environmental impact statement,

information concerning public

participation, and the names and

addresses of the agency officials who

can provide additional information.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope

of the analysis should be received in

writing by July 31, 1997. The agency

expects to file a draft environmental

impact statement with the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

and make it available for public

comment in June 1998. The agency

expects to file the final environmental

impact statement in May 1999.

ADDRESS: Send written comments to:

Dave Cawrse, Team Leader, Northern

Great Plains Planning Team, USDA

Forest Service, 125 North Main Street,

Chadron, NE 69337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dave Cawrse, Planning Team Leader,

(308) 432–0300.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: Hal Salwasser,

Northern Regional Forester at 200 East

Broadway, Missoula, MT 59807; and

Elizabeth Estill, Rocky Mountain

Regional Forester at P.O. Box 25127,

Lakewood, CO 80225–0127.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to Part 36 Code of Federal Regulation

(CFR) 219.10 (g), the Regional Foresters

for the Northern and Rocky Mountain

Regions give notice of the agency’s

intent to prepare an environmental

impact statement for the revision effort

described above. According to 36 CFR

219.10 (g), land and resource

management plans are ordinarily

revised on a 10- to 15-year cycle. The

existing Management Plans were

approved as follows:

Custer National Forest—June 10, 1987;

Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest—

November 20, 1985;

Nebraska National Forest—December

14, 1984.

The Regional Foresters give notice

that they are beginning an

environmental analysis and decisionmaking process for this proposed action

so that interested or affected people can

participate in the analyses and

contribute to the final decisions. One

environmental impact statement will be

prepared. Separate decisions,

documented in Records of Decision,

will be issued for each administrative

unit. The combined revision effort

makes sense because of common issues

and concerns, and similar ecological

landscapes. This effort will enable the

administrative units to share

assessments, plan-related analyses, and

resource expertise, and will reduce

costs.

Opportunities will be provided to

discuss openly with the public the

alternatives to be developed, which can

potentially replace the existing

Management Plans. The public is

invited to discuss and help define the

range of alternatives to be considered in

the environmental impact statement.

Forest Service officials will lead these

discussions, helping to describe the

preliminary alternatives brought

forward by the agency. These officials

will also explain the environmental

analysis process and the disclosures of

that analysis, which will be available for

public review. Written comments

concerning the range of alternatives will

be encouraged.

Management plans describe the

intended management of National

Grasslands and Forests. Agency

decisions in these plans will do the

following things:

* Establish multiple-use goals and

objectives (36 CFR 219.11);

* Establish grassland and forestwide

management requirements (standards

and guidelines) to fulfill the

requirements of 16 U.S.C. 1604 applying

to future activities (resource integration

requirements, 36 CFR 219.13 to 219.27);

* Establish management areas and

management area direction

(management area prescriptions)

applying to future activities in that

management area (resource integration

and minimum specific management

requirements) 36 CFR 219.11 (c);

* Establish monitoring and

evaluation requirements (36 CFR 219.11

(d));

* Determine suitability and potential

capability of lands for producing forage

for grazing animals and for providing

habitat for management indicator

species (36 CFR 219.20), designate lands

not suited for timber production, and,

where applicable, establish allowable

timber sale quantity (36 CFR 219.14,

219.15, and 219.21);

* Where applicable, designate those

lands administratively available for oil

and gas leasing, and when appropriate,

authorize the Bureau of Land

Management to offer specific lands for

leasing (36 CFR 228.102 (d) and (e));

* Where applicable, recommend

Wild and Scenic River designations in

accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1274; and

* Where applicable, recommend nonWilderness allocations or Wilderness

recommendations for roadless areas (36

CFR 219.17).

The authorization of project level

activities within the planning area

occurs through project decision-making,

the second stage of forest and grassland

planning. Project level decisions must

comply with National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) procedures and must

include a determination that the project

is consistent with the Management Plan.

Need for Changes in the Current

Management Plans

Nearly a decade or more has lapsed

since the current Management Plans

were approved. Experience has shown

the need for changes in management
8682 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices

direction for some resources or

programs. Several sources have

highlighted needed changes in the

current Management Plans. In brief,

these sources include:

* New issues and changing public

values identified through public

interaction;

* New information and knowledge

gained through scientific research and

effectiveness monitoring;

* Management concerns derived

through implementation experience and

insight into relationships between

prairie and forest vegetation and other

resources and better ways of

accomplishing desired conditions.

In addition to changing public views

about how these lands should be

managed, a significant change in the

information and scientific

understanding of these ecosystems has

occurred. Some new information is a

product of research, while other

information has resulted from changes

in technology.

Major Revision Topics

Based on the information sources

identified earlier, the combined effect of

the needed changes demand attention

through plan revision. The major

revision topics described below

influenced the decision to revise the

plans.

Rangeland and Forest Health

Planning Questions

* What management goals, direction,

and prescriptions will best attain

desired conditions for rangeland and

forest health?

Background. Issues and concerns over

rangeland health frequently relate to the

current productivity of these lands and

the resulting capacity to provide

livestock forage and wildlife food and

cover. The quality and quantity of grass

and other vegetation produced on these

lands are influenced by soil type,

weather, land use, disturbances such as

fire and drought, and many other

factors. Livestock grazing can help

maintain, enhance or decrease

rangeland productivity, depending on

management. This planning effort will

provide an opportunity to assess how

livestock grazing can be used to best

attain desired rangeland productivity.

The issue of rangeland productivity is

also relevant to addressing the role of

National Grasslands in ‘‘* * *

administering sound and progressive

principles of land conservation and

multiple use, and to promote

development of grassland agriculture

and sustained-yield management of the

forage, fish and wildlife, timber, water

and recreation resources * * *’’ (36

CFR 213.1). This role for the National

Grasslands is established by regulation

and pertains to those lands

administered by the Forest Service

under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones

Farm Tenant Act.

Forest health issues on these lands are

closely tied to the ability of riparian and

other prairie woodlands to regenerate

and sustain themselves. Fire

suppression, and insect and disease

damage in coniferous forests are other

issues related to forest health.

Biological diversity is another aspect

of rangeland and forest health.

Numerous individuals and groups have

expressed concerns about land-use

effects on the diversity, abundance and

distribution of native plants and

animals. These concerns extend to

terrestrial and aquatic plants and

animals, rare species, declining

grassland bird species, game species and

other wildlife. For example, interest in

black-tailed prairie dog colonies as

habitat for threatened and endangered

species and other wildlife on National

Grasslands is high. Others suggest that

more focus be placed on returning bison

to their native habitats. Habitat for

numerous threatened, endangered and

sensitive species occurs on these areas,

and the likelihood of other species being

proposed for protection under the

Endangered Species Act supports the

need to revise current management

plans. State fish and wildlife agencies

and others have also expressed

considerable interest in management

and fish and wildlife habitats on these

lands and have expertise to provide for

conservation of these species and their

habitats. The Council on Environmental

Quality recommends incorporating

biodiversity conservation in

environmental analyses.

Other issues and concerns about

rangeland and forest health include soil

stability, water quality, noxious weeds,

exotic plants and animals, and wetlands

management.

Community and Lifestyle Relationships

Planning Questions

* How may communities, people and

their lifestyles be affected by decisions

made in the revision effort?

* How do communities and people

and their lifestyles affect uses and

management of these public lands?

* How do management decisions

affect the interdependent relationship of

resources, people, lifestyles, and

economies?

Background. Commodity and amenity

benefits from public lands within the

planning area have contributed to the

social systems and economic base of

many neighboring communities. The

human environment includes natural

and physical environment and the

interdependent relationship of people to

that environment.

Management decisions determine

public land uses and resource

availability from those lands. In

resource-based economies, these

decisions can perpetuate or disrupt

relationships between public land

management, communities, and

lifestyles. Communities with more

diverse economies may be better able to

adopt to changes, even though some

economic sectors may be strained as

change occurs. The capacity to handle

change without major hardships or

disruptions to social groups or

institutions is an important component

of community and lifestyle

relationships.

Economic effects can include changes

in local employment and income,

payments to state and local government,

and can also have possible implications

to local government services and

community infrastructure.

Livetock Grazing

Planning Questions

* How will management of vegetation

affect availability of forage for permitted

livestock?

* What are the desired vegetation

conditions and how can livestock

grazing be used to help achieve them?

Background. Livestock grazing occurs

on most of these lands under a permit

system and is a major economic activity

in these rural areas. Livestock grazing

levels and strategies need to provide for

sustained stewardship of the land,

resources and rural communities.

However, appropriate grazing levels and

strategies continue to be debated.

Researcher, scientist and resource

management specialists at various

universities, agencies and institutions

are currently gathering information that

will be valuable in assessing issues

related to livestock grazing.

The Forest Service is required by

regulation (36 CFR 219.20) to determine

suitability and potential capability of

National Grasslands and Forest to

produce forage for livestock. This

regulation prescribes that the grazing

systems and facilities (such as fencing

and water developments) to support

livestock grazing also be evaluated and

considered during the planning process.

The amount of facilities and structural

developments on these lands to support

livestock grazings is an issue. Some

individuals want to see more
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices 8683

developments on public lands while

others want to see less or current levels.

Another issue related to livestock

grazing is drought. Droughts can

substantially reduce available livestock

forage and, if prolonged, can result in

long-lasting changes in plant species

composition and rangeland

productivity. Livestock grazing

strategies during and after drought can

affect range recovery so grazing

guidelines for drought period may be

proposed for some areas.

Oil and Gas Leasing

Planning Questions

* Which National Forests System

lands (or portions) are administratively

available for oil and gas leasing?

* What specific lease stipulations

will apply to those lands determined to

be administratively available for

leasing?

* Are existing lease decisions and

stipulations consistent with

management goals and objectives?

Background. In 1987, Congress passed

the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas

Leasing Reform Act, which expanded

the Secretary of Agriculture’s role in the

leasing decision process. Within the

National Forest System, the Secretary of

Agriculture is authorized to identify

lands where leases can be sold and to

determine appropriate stipulations to

protect surface resources. Regulations to

implement this Act were developed by

the Secretary and became effective April

20, 1990 (36 CFR, Part 228, 100 et. seq.).

Leasing analyses in accordance with

the requirements of 36 CFR 228.102(c)

have been completed for about 1.7

million acres of the planning area,

including the Little Missouri, Cedar

River, and Thunder Basin National

Grasslands and the western half of Fall

River County on the Buffalo Gap

National Grassland. Existing leasing

decisions will be reviewed in light of

new information generated as a result of

Northern Great Plains Assessments and

other sources since the leasing decisions

were made (e.g., newly listed threatened

and endangered species, rare ecosystem

elements or habitats). This new

information may result in changes to

previous leasing availability decisions

or to leasing requirements, or both.

Existing leases will not be affected by

these changes.

The remaining 1.2 million acres of the

planning area (Sheyenne, Grand River,

Fort Pierre, Oglala National Grasslands,

the remainder of the Buffalo Gap

National Grassland, and Nebraska and

Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests)

will be examined for oil and gas

potential and, based on the potential,

may have a leasing analysis completed.

Plant and Animal Control

Planning Questions

* How and when should resource or

property damage caused by noxious

weeds, exotic plants, insects, disease,

rodents and other animals be controlled

or managed?

Background. Under certain

conditions, some plant and animal

species can cause unacceptable

economic and/or environmental

damage. Plant and animal damage

control activities currently conducted or

authorized by the Forest Service on

National Grasslands and Forests are

largely directed towards noxious weeds

and prairie dogs. Biological controls and

herbicides are currently being used to

control noxious weeds such as leafy

spurge and Canada thistle. These weeds

can substantially reduce native plant

species and forage production. Prairie

dog reductions in selected colonies on

the National Grasslands are primarily in

response to concerns of neighboring

private landowners who do not want

prairie dogs moving onto their lands.

Concerns expressed about these

programs range from the economic

losses from damage to potential effects

of the control activities on wildlife and

the environment. Human health and

safety issues are also associated with the

use of pesticides and herbicides.

Predators are occasionally removed

from some of the National Grasslands

and Forests to protect livestock,

wildlife, and public health and safety.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) is the lead federal

agency for predator control on these

public lands and is conducting its own

evaluation and planning for these

activities. However, in South Dakota,

predator control is conducted by the

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish

and Parks through an agreement with

APHIS. Under this agreement, APHIS

acts in an advisory capacity. APHIS also

has the lead responsibility for

evaluating, planning and initiating

grasshopper control projects on the

National Grasslands. Issues related to

the responsibilities of APHIS will not be

addressed in this planning effort.

Recreation and Travel Management

Planning Question

* What recreation opportunities

should be provided?

* What travel opportunities should

be provided?

Background. Demand for recreational

opportunities on these public lands is

increasing dramatically. Contributing

factors are: 1) Increasing number of

hunters on public lands; 2) increasing

appreciation for the beauty of the

prairie; and 3) people taking shorter

vacations on nearby public lands. The

public is asking us to address

recreational uses and values on these

National Grasslands and Forests. During

revision, scenery management

objectives and recreational

opportunities will be determined.

Results from customer surveys will help

determine public expectations for

recreational opportunities.

Recreational uses and interests vary

widely across the planning area. Some

recreational activities, such as mountain

biking and use of all-terrain vehicles,

have increased in popularity since land

and resource management plans were

written. Current recreational use in

some units exceeds levels anticipated in

the existing plans. Increased

recreational use highlights the

importance and value of these National

Forests and Grasslands in filling

recreational, esthetic and spiritual

needs.

Upland bird and big game hunting are

major dispersed recreational activities

on many of these public lands. Hunters

are interested in how wildlife cover on

these areas is managed. This concern is

not fully addressed in existing land and

resource management plans. Prairie dog

shooting is another popular activity on

the grasslands. Hunters have expressed

concern over prairie dog management

activities that might affect their

recreational opportunities.

Travel management is often an

important element in recreational

experiences. Some users desire

primitive recreational experiences with

restricted motorized travel. Some

recreationists rely on motorized access

for their experiences, such as all-terrain

vehicle users. Because recreational use

on these public lands has increased over

the last decade, the potential for

conflicts has also increased. The

appropriateness of motorized travel as it

complements or conflicts with specific

recreational settings and associated

experiences will be examined and

determined during the revision process.

Special Area Designations

Planning Questions

* Which, if any, roadless areas

should be recommended to Congress for

Wilderness designation?

* How should roadless areas not

recommended for Wilderness

designation be managed?

* Which rivers on the planning units

are eligible for inclusion in the National

Wild and Scenic Rivers System?
8684 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices

* Which, if any, eligible rivers are

suitable and should be recommended

for inclusion into the National Wild and

Scenic River System?

* How should eligible rivers not

recommended for inclusion be

managed?

* What, if any, Research Natural

Areas or Special Interest Areas may be

needed for their contributions to

furthering knowledge about natural

systems or other objectives?

Background. The planning area

includes many unique and outstanding

combinations of physical and biological

resources, and areas of social interest.

These are collectively referred to as

‘‘special areas.’’ Interest in protecting

special areas has been shown by the

public, other agencies, and Forest

Service employees.

Special area designations may include

Wilderness; Wild and Scenic Rivers;

Research Natural Areas (RNAs); and

special recreational areas with scenic,

historical, geological, botanical,

zoological, paleontological,

archaeological or other special

characteristics. These special areas may

influence land allocation and

management.

Maintaining grassland roadless areas

and establishing grassland Wilderness

areas have become important to some

people. Within the last few years,

various groups have offered proposals

for grassland Wilderness in South

Dakota and North Dakota. Likewise,

interest for Research Natural Areas in

grassland ecosystems has increased

since the planning effort. Some would

like to see the Forest Service preserve

and study some areas of native prairie

vegetation.

The Forest Service is required (36

CFR 219.17) to evaluate all roadless

areas for potential Wilderness

designation during the revision process.

This process will produce an inventory

of roadless areas meeting minimum

criteria for Wilderness according to the

1964 Wilderness Act or 1975 Eastern

Wilderness Act, as appropriate. Actual

Wilderness designation is a

Congressional responsibility; the Forest

Service only makes recommendations.

The purpose and authority for study

of Wild and Scenic Rivers are in the

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October

1, 1968, as amended. All rivers and

streams determined eligible for potential

inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River

System will be examined. The Custer

National Forest Management Plan

(1987) identified the Little Missouri

River as an eligible river. A suitability

study will be done as part of the

revision process.

Topics Outside the Scope of

Management Plan Decisions

Some topics are raised by the public

that are outside the scope of this action.

They include topics that require

departmental or legislative actions or

topics that come under the authority of

other governmental agencies. Examples

of topics that fit these categories are

listed below:

Departmental and Legislative

Topics—grazing fee levels; recreation

user fees; sale or transfer of

administration of National Grasslands;

transfer of Cedar River and Grand River

National Grasslands to the Standing

Rock Sioux Tribe; and transfer of

Buffalo Gap National Grassland to the

Oglala Sioux Tribe.

Topics for Other Governmental

Agencies—predator control;

grasshopper control; and transfer of

Shadehill Reservoir to another federal

agency.

What To Do With This Information

This revision effort is being

undertaken to develop management

direction to:

* Provide goods and services to

people;

* Involve people and communities;

and

* Sustain ecosystem functions.

‘‘Collaborative stewardship,’’ which is

defined as caring for the land and

serving the people by listening to all

constituents and living within the limits

of the land, will guide the revision

effort.

Framework for Alternatives To Be

Considered

A range of alternatives will be

considered when revising the

Management Plans. The alternatives

will address different options to resolve

concerns raised as revision topics listed

above and to fulfill the purpose and

need. Reasonable alternatives will be

evaluated and reasons will be given for

eliminating some alternatives from

detailed study. A ‘‘no-action

alternative’’ is required, meaning that

management would continue under

existing plans. Alternatives will provide

different ways to address and respond to

public issues, management concerns,

and resource opportunities identified

during the scoping process. In

describing alternatives, desired

vegetation and resource conditions will

be defined. Resource outputs from

Management Plans will be estimated

based upon achieving desired

conditions. Preliminary information is

available to develop alternatives;

however, additional public involvement

and collaboration will be done to

complete this development.

Involving the Public

An atmosphere of openness is one of

the objectives of the public involvement

process, where all members of the

public feel free to share information

with the Forest Service and its

employees on a regular basis. All parts

of this process will be structured to

maintain this openness.

The Forest Service is seeking

information, comments, and assistance

from individuals, organizations and

federal, state, and local agencies who

may be interested in or affected by the

proposed action (36 CFR 219.6). The

Forest Service is also looking for

collaborative approaches among all

landowners who desire health and

productivity for the planning area.

Many federal and state agencies and

some private organizations have been

cooperating in the development of

assessments of current biological,

physical, and economic conditions. This

information will be used to prepare the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS). The range of alternatives to be

considered in the DEIS will be based on

public issues, management concerns,

resource management opportunities,

and specific decisions to be made.

Public participation will be solicited

by notifying in person and/or by mail

known interested and affected publics.

News releases will be used to give the

public general notice, and public

scoping opportunities will be offered in

numerous locations. Public

participation activities will include (but

are not limited to) requests for written

comments, open houses, focus groups,

field trips, and collaborative forums.

Public participation will be sought

throughout the revision process and will

be especially important at several points

along the way. The first opportunity to

comment is during the scoping process

(40 CFR 1501.7). Scoping includes: (1)

identifying potential issues, (2) from

these, identifying significant issues or

those that have been covered by prior

environmental review, (3) exploring

additional alternatives, and (4)

identifying potential environmental

effects of the proposed action and

alternatives.

Release and Review of the EIS

The DEIS is expected to be filed with

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and to be available for public

comment by June 1998. At that time, the

EPA will publish a notice of availability

for the DEIS in the Federal Register.

The comment period on the DEIS will

be 90 days from the date the EPA
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices 8685

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 the DEIS 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 DEIS stage but are not

raised until after completion of the Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

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 three-month 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 FEIS.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns on the proposed actions,

comments on the DEIS 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 DEIS or the merits of

the alternatives formulated and

discussed in the statements. 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.

After the comment period ends on the

DEIS, comments will be analyzed,

considered, and responded to by the

Forest Service in preparing the Final

EIS. The FEIS is scheduled to be

completed in May 1999. The

responsible officials will consider the

comments, responses, environmental

consequences discussed in the FEIS,

and applicable laws, regulations, and

policies in making decisions regarding

these revisions. The responsible officials

will document their decisions and

reasons for their decisions in a separate

Record of Decision for each

Management Plan. Each decision will be

subject to appeal in accordance with 36

CFR 217.

The responsible official for each of the

Management Plans is the appropriate

Regional Forester.

Dated: February 11, 1997.

Kathleen McAllister,

Deputy Regional Forester, Northern Region.

Dated: February 13, 1997.

Elizabeth Estill,

Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region.

[FR Doc. 97–4681 Filed 2–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

BARRY GOLDWATER SCHOLARSHIP

AND EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION

FOUNDATION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 pm, Wednesday,

March 12, 1997.

PLACE: SDC–59, Dirksen Senate Office

Building, Washington, DC 20510.

STATUS: The meeting will be open to the

public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Report on financial status of the

Foundation fund

A. Review of investment policy and

current portfolio

2. Report on results of Scholarship

Review Panel

A. Discussion and consideration of

scholarship candidates

B. Selection of Goldwater Scholars

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Gerald J. Smith, President, Telephone:

(703) 756–6012.

Gerald J. Smith,

President.

[FR Doc. 97–4901 Filed 2–24–97; 12:41 pm]

BILLING CODE 4738–91–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of the Census

Current Industrial Reports Surveys—

WAVE I (Voluntary and Mandatory

Submissions)

ACTION: Proposed collection; comment

request.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Commerce, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork and

respondent burden, invites the general

public and other Federal agencies to

take this opportunity to comment on

proposed and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A)).

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before April 28, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Linda Engelmeier, Departmental

Forms Clearance Officer, Department of

Commerce, Room 5327, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the information collection

instrument(s) and instructions should

be directed to:

Contact Industries Telephone Address

Michael Zampogna ............. Manufactured nondurable

products.

(301) 457–4810 ................. Bureau of Census, Manufacturing & Construction Division, Room 2212, Building 4, Washington, DC

20233.

Kenneth Hansen ................ Manufactured durable

products.

(301) 457–4755 ................. Bureau of Census, Manufacturing & Construction Division, Room 2207, Building 4, Washington, DC

20233.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract

The Census Bureau conducts a series

of monthly, quarterly, and annual

surveys as part of the Current Industrial

Reports (CIR) program. The CIR deal

mainly with the quantity and value of

shipments of particular products and

occasionally with data on production

and inventories; unfilled orders,

receipts, stocks and consumption; and

comparative data on domestic

production, exports, and imports of the

products they cover. These surveys

provide continuing and timely national

statistical data on manufacturing. The

results of these surveys are used

extensively by individual firms, trade

associations, and market analysts in

planning or recommending marketing

and legislative strategies.

The CIR program includes both

mandatory and voluntary surveys.