66846 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 1997 / Notices

TYPE OF MEETING: Open to the public.

Persons may participate in the meeting

if time and space permit.

COMMENTS: The public may file written

comments before or after the meeting by

contacting the person below.

PURPOSE: The Council agenda will

include: Discussion of implications of

new Research and Education Title of

Farm Bill; Government Performance and

Results Act; science planning as it

relates to forestry and natural resources;

review of the Cooperative Forestry

Research Program (McIntire-Stennis);

and other current research issues.

FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Ralph A.

Otto, Natural Resources and

Environment, Aerospace Center, Suite

816, Stop 2210, Washington, D.C.

20250–2210; Telephone (202) 401–4555.

Done at Washington, DC. this 16th day of

December 1997.

Colien Hefferan,

Associate Administrator, Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service.

[FR Doc. 97–33339 Filed 12–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

North Fork St. Joe River Project; Idaho

Panhandle National Forests, Shoshone

County, Idaho

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The St. Joe Ranger District of

the Idaho Panhandle National Forest,

USDA Forest Service will prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

to disclose the environmental effects of

vegetation, road and trail, and

watershed restoration activities on

National Forest lands within the North

Fork St. Joe River drainage. The project

area is located immediately north of the

town of Avery, Idaho. Based on an interdisciplinary assessment of resource

conditions within the area, the purpose

and need for this proposal is

summarized as:

1. Maintain or improve long term

water quality within the project area.

Where water quality is currently

limited, work towards restoring

properly functioning hydrologic

condition. 2. Maintain or improve

habitat for native fish. 3. Maintain or

develop habitat conditions (including

forest structure, habitat connectivity,

security habitat and limited road

densities) to contribute to the

conservation of forest dwelling species.

4. Forest structure: Where conditions

permit, maintain or begin restoration of

large diameter trees and forest structures

once more common within the North

Fork St. Joe area. 5. Forest composition:

Where conditions permit, maintain or

begin restoration of large, potentially

long lived seral species (western white

pine, western larch, ponderosa pine,

white bark pine) which once dominated

the forested landscape of the St. Joe

River basin. 6. Promote fire use and

control strategies for safety and

efficiency of suppression and protection

and maintenance of resource values.

Trend toward allowing fire to play its

natural role as a forest disturbance

mechanism. Reduce the risk of very

large stand replacing fires through

vegetation management and restore

beneficial fire effects. 7. Maintain or

improve the unique and diverse

recreational opportunities available

within the area. Provide dispersed and

developed campsites for the increasing

recreational use. Mitigate, where

feasible and necessary, effects of the

increasing recreational use and

supporting infrastructure (trails,

campsites, access routes) on other

resource values. 8. Reduce the risk of

blending genetic material from the

poorly adapted, non-local ponderosa

pine trees planted earlier this century

with that of the native ponderosa pine.

Replace the poorly adapted trees with

more sustainable native species. 9.

Timber harvest, when feasible and cost

effective, will be used when it can help

achieve the other landscape objectives

so as to also contribute wood to the

local timber supply. In as much as it is

compatible with other objectives,

harvest activities will maintain or

improve the long term growth and

production of commercially valuable

wood products from the sites.

DATES: Comments should be postmarked

on or before January 21, 1998. Please

include your name and address and the

name of the project you are commenting

on.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

and suggestions on the proposed

management activities or requests to be

placed on project mailing list to Brad

Gilbert, District Ranger, St. Joe Ranger

District, P.O. Box 407, St. Maries, ID

83861. Brad Gilbert is the Responsible

Official.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete

Zimmerman, Project Team Leader, St.

Joe Ranger District, (208) 245–2531.

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 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 request 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

decision area contains approximately

75,000 acres within the Idaho

Panhandle National Forests in Shoshone

County, Idaho. All the proposed projects

would occur on National Forest lands in

the N. Fork St. Joe River drainage

immediately north of Avery, Idaho. The

legal location of the decision area is as

follows: all or portions of

Township 45 North, Range 5 East; Township

45 North, Range 6 East;

Township 46 North, Range 5 East; Township

46 North, Range 6 East;

Township 46 North, Range 7 East; Township

47 North, Range 5 East;

Township 47 North, Range 6 East; Township

47 North, Range 7 East;

The proposed action is designed to

achieve the purpose and need for action

as described above. The proposed

activities would be initiated over the

next ten years. While many of the

proposed management activities may

work towards achieving more than one

of the project objectives, they have been

grouped here into four basic categories

to simplify the description.

Vegetation

The St. Joe District proposes to use

prescribed fire, timber harvest, planting,

and other methods to achieve the

desired vegetation conditions described

above in the purpose and need.

Proposed individual treatments by

method are as follows (please note that

acreage values are gross and would

generally include 10 to 25 percent

untreated area within the gross area).

Prescribed burning would be the

primary treatment on approximately

3,420 acres. (1) Approximately 310 acres

of decadent shrubfields within primary

big game winter range would be burned

to stimulate fresh browse production.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 1997 / Notices 66847

(2) Approximately 2720 acres would be

burned to reintroduce the beneficial

effects of fire into this ecosystem,

reduce fuel loads, and create fuel breaks

to reduce the risk of larger, more

destructive conflagrations within the

landscape. About 1,140 of these acres

consist of decadent shrubfields outside

of primary big game winter range.

Another 740 acres consist of subalpine

balds along the northern divide where

conifers have begun encroaching after

seventy plus years of successful fire

suppression. The remaining 840 acres

consist of lodge-pole pine stands within

the unroaded portions of the North Fork

St. Joe River landscape. (3)

Approximately 270 acres of poorly

adapted ponderosa pine planted early in

this century would be burned to kill

these ‘‘off-site’’ trees. The purpose is to

prevent these trees from cross

pollinating with the native ponderosa

pine (genetic contamination). These

acres would be replanted with better

adapted local stock of ponderosa pine,

western white pine, and/or western

larch. An additional 970 acres of similar

non-local ponderosa pine would be

treated in this manner if the trees prove

uneconomical to harvest prior to

burning (see harvest of non-local

ponderosa pine below). (4)

Approximately 34 acres in and around

white bark pine stands would be burned

and/or treated mechanically to limit

encroachment by other tree species and

facilitate natural and planted

regeneration.

Timber harvest, in combination with

prescribed fire and tree planting, would

be the primary treatment on

approximately 2,580 acres. (1)

Regeneration harvest treatments (harvest

methods designed to establish a new

stand of more desirable tree species)

would occur on approximately 2,030

acres. Prescribed fire would be used to

reduce fuels and prepare the sites for

planting. About 1,060 of these acres

consist primarily of lodgepole pine, a

short lived seral tree specie. The

remaining 970 acres consist of poorly

adapted ponderosa pine planted early in

this century. The purpose of removing

these ponderosa pine is to prevent these

trees from cross pollinating with the

better adapted native ponderosa pine

(genetic contamination). As noted

above, if any or all of these ‘‘off-site’’

ponderosa pine stands prove

uneconomical to harvest (they occur

primarily in unroaded areas and would

require the more expensive helicopter

logging) they would still be burned to

kill the trees prior to planting to better

adapted species.

(2) Commercial thinning (harvesting

excess and less desirable trees from a

stand to provide more growing room for

the remaining trees) would occur on

approximately 550 acres.

Access

The St. Joe District proposes to

manage the transportation network

(roads and trails) in the following ways:

(1) Maintain existing access (motorized

and non-motorized) on approximately

145 miles of road and 72 miles of trail

within the area. (2) Approximately 5.7

miles of new road would be constructed

to provide access for timber harvest

activities noted above. All but 0.3 miles

of these new roads would be either

obliterated or stabilized for long term

storage following use. The 0.3 miles that

would be kept drivable would provide

new access for an existing mining claim,

thereby allowing obliteration of an

additional mile of existing road

currently accessing the claim. (3)

Approximately 36 miles of existing road

would be either obliterated or stabilized

for long term storage. (4) Approximately

1 mile of new trail would be constructed

to replace trail access currently served

by one of these roads which are

proposed to be obliterated.

Recreation

The St. Joe District proposes to make

improvements to several campsites as

follows: (1) Additional campsites and

facilities would be constructed at the

Squaw Creek Campground. (2) Several

dispersed camp sites would be

hardened within the Loop Creek

meadows and toilet facilities added to

protect adjacent resources.

Aquatic Restoration

The St. Joe District proposes the

following aquatic restoration activities

in addition to those identified above

(e.g. road stabilization, etc.). (1)

Complete exploratory core drilling on

three old railroad grade through-fills to

determine and evaluate their condition

and structural integrity. Based on the

results, develop an action plan to

mitigate potential risks. (2) Plant trees

within 140 acres of riparian areas

adjacent to the North Fork St. Joe River

and Clear Creek. (3) Develop and

implement a stream restoration plan for

Loop Creek downstream from the mouth

of Moss Creek. (4) Construct baffles to

facilitate fish passage through the Loop

Creek water bypass tunnel.

Preliminary Issues

We expect issues and concerns with

this project to include the effects on

wildlife, fish, water quality, roadless,

visual quality/aesthetics and recreation

as well as the effects of road

construction, clearcutting, size of

openings, and economic feasibility.

Final issues will be developed and

analyzed based on your comments and

the interdisciplinary team’s analysis of

potential effects of the proposed action

on the various resource values. These

issues will be used to develop

alternatives to the proposed action and

guide the type and detail of analysis

conducted.

Additionally, some of the vegetation

treatment may result in openings of over

60 acres. While we would like

comments that would affect alternatives

early, comments on the size of openings

and their effects will be accepted for 60

days after publication of this notice.

This 60 day public review period and

approval of the Regional Forester for

exceeding the 40 acre limitation for

regeneration harvest would be required

prior to the signing of the Record of

Decision.

The Forest Service will consider a

range of alternatives to this proposed

action. One of these will be the ‘‘No

Action’’ alternative. Additional

alternatives will examine varying levels

and locations for the proposed activities

to achieve the proposal’s purpose, as

well as to respond to the issues and

other resource values.

Public participation is an important

part of the analysis and will play an

important role in developing the

alternatives. The mailing list for public

scoping will be developed from

responses to this NOI and responses to

the Forest’s ‘‘Quarterly Schedule of

Proposed Actions.’’ In addition, the

public is encouraged to visit with Forest

Service officials during the analysis and

prior to the decision. The Forest Service

will also be seeking information,

comments, and assistance from Federal,

State, and local agencies and other

individuals or organizations who may

be interested in or affected by the

proposed actions. Comments from the

public and other agencies will be used

in preparation of the Draft EIS.

The draft environmental impact

statement is expected to be filed with

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and available for public review in

March 1998. The final environmental

impact statement is expected to be

completed in May 1998.

The comment period on the draft

environmental impact statement will be

45 days from the date the

Environmental Protection Agency

publishes the notice of availability in

the Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes, at this

early stage, it is important to give

reviewers notice of several court rulings

related to public participation in the

environmental review process. First,
66848 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 1997 / Notices

reviewers of draft environmental impact

statements must structure their

participation in the environmental

review of the proposal so that it is

meaningful and alerts the agency to the

reviewer’s position and contentions.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.

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

environmental objections that could be

raised at the draft environmental

statement stage but that are not raised

until after completion of the final

environmental statement may be waived

or dismissed by the courts. City of

Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F 2d 1016, 1022

(9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages,

Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338

(E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court

rulings, it is very important that those

interested in this proposed action

participate by the close of the 45-day

comment period so that substantive

comments and objections are made

available to the Forest Service at a time

when it can meaningfully consider them

and respond to them in the final

environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concern on the proposed action,

comments on the draft environmental

impact statement should be as specific

as possible. It is also helpful if

comments refer to specific pages or

chapters of the draft statement.

Comments may also address the

adequacy of the draft environmental

impact statement or the merits of the

alternatives formulated and discussed in

the statement. Reviews 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.

The United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in its programs on the

basis of race, color, national origin, sex,

religion, age, disability, political beliefs,

and marital or familial status. (Not all

prohibited bases apply to all programs.)

Persons with disabilities who require

alternatives means of communication of

program information (braille, large

print, audiotape, etc.) should contact

USDA’s TARGET Center ad (202) 720–

2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint, write the

Secretary of Agriculture, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Washington,

DC 20250, or call 1–800–245–6340

(voice) or 202–720–1127 (TDD). USDA

is an equal employment opportunity

employer.

Dated: December 11, 1997.

Bradley Burmark,

Deputy District Ranger.

[FR Doc. 97–33346 Filed 12–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration

Posting of Stockyards

Pursuant to the authority provided

under Section 302 of the Packers and

Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 202), it was

ascertained that the livestock market

named below is a stockyard as defined

by Section 302 (a). Notice was given to

the stockyard owner and to the public

as required by Section 302 (b), by

posting notices at the stockyard on the

date specified below, that the stockyard

is subject to the provisions of the

Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as

amended (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.).

Facility No., name, and location of stockyardDate of posting

PA–159, Troy Sales, Troy,

Pennsylvania.

September 17,

1997.

Done at Washington, D.C. this 12th day of

December 1997.

Daniel L. Van Ackeren,

Director, Livestock Marketing Division,

Packers and Stockyards Programs.

[FR Doc. 97–33331 Filed 12–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–824]

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final

Results of Changed Circumstances

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, and Revocation in Part of

Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

changed circumstances antidumping

duty administrative review, and

revocation in part of antidumping duty

order.

SUMMARY: On November 10, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published a notice of

initiation of a changed circumstances

antidumping duty administrative review

and preliminary results of review with

intent to revoke, in part, the

antidumping duty order on certain

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat

products from Japan. We are now

revoking this order in part, with respect

to corrosion-resistant steel flat products

with certain dimensions and coatings,

based on the fact that domestic parties

have expressed no interest in the

importation or sale of this product,

imported from Japan.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 22, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gideon Katz or Maureen Flannery, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Office 9, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone (202) 482–5255 and (202)

482–3020, respectively. The Applicable Statute and

Regulations: Unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the statute are

references to the provisions effective

January 1, 1995, the effective date of the

amendments made to the Tariff Act of

1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as codified at 19

CFR by Part 351, 62 FR 27295 (May 19,

1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 19, 1997, Sudo

Corporation (Sudo) requested that the

Department conduct a changed

circumstances administrative review to

determine whether to partially revoke

the order with regard to imports of

certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel

flat products from Japan. The order with

regard to imports of other types of

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat

products is not affected by this request.

On October 28, 1997, domestic

producers AK Steel Corporation,

Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Inland

Steel Industries, Inc., LTV Steel

Company, Inc., National Steel

Corporation, and U.S. Steel Group, a

unit of USX Corporation, informed the

Department in writing that they did not

object to the changed circumstances

review and had no interest in the

importation or sale of electrolytic zinccoated steel coiled rolls produced in

Japan as described in detail in Sudo’s

letter.

We preliminarily determined that

domestic producers’ affirmative

statement of no interest constituted

changed circumstances sufficient to

warrant a partial revocation of this

order. Consequently, on November 10,

1997, the Department published a notice

of initiation and preliminary results of