Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 1997 / Notices 14667

Mammoth Community Water District

(District). Under the California

Environmental Quality Act, the District

must conduct its own environmental

assessment, and has determined that an

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is

required. In accordance with Federal

and State regulations, a joint EIR/RIS

will be prepared. The agency gives

notice of the environmental analysis

and decision making processes that will

occur on the proposal so that interested

and affected people are aware of how

they may participate and contribute to

the final decision.

DATES: Comments regarding the scope of

the analysis must be received by April

30, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

and suggestions concerning the

proposed action to the responsible

official, Dennis Martin, Forest

Supervisor, Inyo National Forest, 873

North Main Street, Bishop, California

93154, Attn. MCWD EIR/EIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions about this

environmental impact statement to

Thom Heller, Special Use Permit

Administrator, Inyo National Forest,

P.O. Box 148, Mammoth Lakes,

California 93546, or telephone (619)

924–5513.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed action consists of two specific

components: 1) a change in the

minimum streamflow requirements for

Mammoth Creek and the point of

measurement, and 2) a change in the

District’s authorized Place of Use (POU)

for Mammoth Creek water. The change

in minimum streamflow requirements

and point of measurement result in both

state and federal actions that require

CEQA and NEPA documentation.

Although addressed in the joint EIR/EIS,

the change in the POU is a state action

only, and not subject to NEPA. Three

alternatives are currently being

considered: changing the minimum

streamflow requirements to the

schedule shown on Table 2 (Proposed

action); changing the minimum

streamflow requirements to an

alternative, three-flow schedule; and not

changing the minimum streamflow

requirements (no action).

Public participation will be specially

important at several points during the

analysis. The first point is the scoping

process (40 CFR 1501.7). The Forest

Service has and is 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 action. This input will be used

in preparation of the draft EIR/EIS. The

scoping process includes:

1. Identifying potential issues.

2. Identifying issues to be analyzed in

depth

3. Eliminating insignificant issues or

those which have been covered by a

relevant previous environmental

analysis.

4. Exploring additional alternatives.

5. Identifying potential environmental

effects of the proposed action and

alternatives (e.g., direct, indirect, and

cumulative effects and connected

actions).

6. Determining potential cooperating

agencies and task assignments.

Mailings to individuals and agencies

that participate in the above planning

efforts will provide them with

information about the proposed project.

Public meetings, if held, will be

announced locally. Federal, State, and

local agencies, user groups and other

organizations who would be interested

in the study will be invited to

participate in scoping the issues that

should be considered.

The draft EIR/EIS is scheduled to be

completed by September, 1997. The

comment period on this draft EIR/EIS

will be 45 days from the date the

Environmental Protection Agency’s

notice of availability appears in the

Federal Register. It is very important

that those interested in the proposed

action participate at that time.

The Forest Service believes, at this

early stage, it is important to give

reviewers notice of several court rulings

related to public participation in the

environmental review process. First,

reviewers of draft environmental impact

statements must structure their

participation in the environmental

review of the proposed action 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 (1978). Also,

environmental objections that could be

raised at the draft EIR/EIS stage but that

are not raised until after completion of

the final EIR/EIS 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 EIR/

EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns on the proposed action,

comments on the draft EIR/EIS should

be as specific as possible. It is also

helpful if comments refer to specific

pages or chapters of the draft document.

Comments may also address the

adequacy of the draft EIR/EIS or the

merits of the alternatives formulated

and discussed in the document.

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

draft EIR/EIS, the comments will be

analyzed and considered by the Forest

Service in preparing the final EIR/EIS,

which is expected to be completed by

December, 1997. The Forest Service is

required to respond in the final EIS to

the comments received (40 CFR 1503.4).

The responsible official will consider

the comments, responses, and

environmental consequences discussed

in the final EIS and applicable laws,

regulations, and policies in making his

decision on the proposal.

The decision will either be approval

of the proposed action as submitted,

approval of the proposed action as

modified, or denial of the proposed

action (No. Action). If the proposal is

approved, the existing Memorandum of

Agreement would be modified and the

revised minimum flow requirements for

Mammoth Creek would be approved.

The responsible official will document

the decision and rationale in the Record

of Decision. The decision will be subject

to appeal under 36 CFR 215 or

regulations applicable at the time of the

decision.

Dated: March 21, 1997.

Dennis W. Martin,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 97–7773 Filed 3–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

Southwest Oregon Provincial

Interagency Executive Committee

(PIEC), Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Southwest Oregon PIEC

Advisory Committee will meet on April

17, 1997 at the J. Herbert Stone Nursery,

2606 Old Stage Road, Central Point,

Oregon. The meeting will begin at 9:00

a.m. and continue until 4:30 p.m.

Agenda items to be covered include: (1)

Update on coarse woody material

standard implementation; (2) COHO
14668 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 1997 / Notices

Salmon management status by State of

Oregon; (3) South Cascades Late

Successional Reserve Assessment

presentation; (4) Advisory Committee

critique evaluation and

recommendations, and (5) Public

comments. All Province Advisory

committee meetings are open to the

public. Interested citizens are

encouraged to attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions regarding this meeting

to Chuck Anderson, Province Advisory

Committee Staff, USDA, Forest Service,

Rogue River National Forest, 333 W. 8th

Street, Medford, Oregon 97501, phone

541–858–2322.

Dated: March 19, 1997.

James T. Gladen,

Forest Supervisor, Designated Federal

Official.

[FR Doc. 97–7739 Filed 3–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

Use of Certified Forage To Prevent the

Spread of Noxious Weeds on National

Forest System Lands in Montana

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy;

request for public comment.

SUMMARY: The Regional Forester for the

Northern Region of the Forest Service is

proposing a requirement that would

prohibit the use of hay, grain, straw,

cubes or pelletized feed on National

Forest System lands in Montana unless

it is certified as free of noxious weeds

or noxious weed seeds may be used.

This requirement will affect such users

as recreationists using pack and saddle

stock, ranchers operating under Forest

Service grazing permits, outfitters and

guides operating under Forest Service

permits, and contractors who use straw

or hay for reseeding or erosion control

purposes on National Forest System

administered lands in Montana. This

proposal has been developed in

coordination with the State of Montana

and Bureau of Land Management

Montana State office, which is

publishing a similar proposal in a

separate notice in this same issue of

today’s Federal Register. The intended

effect is to coordinate prevention of the

spread of undesirable weeds on federal

lands in Montana.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by March 26, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Regional Forester, Forest Service,

USDA, P.O. Box 7669, Missoula, MT

59807.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Olivarez, Forest and Rangeland

Staff, Northern Region, Forest Service,

(406) 329–3621.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Noxious

weeds are a serious problem in the

western United States. Species like

Leafy Spurge, Spotted Knapweed, Musk

Thistle, Purple Loosestrife, and others

are alien to the United States and have

no natural enemies to keep their

populations in balance. Consequently,

these undesirable weeds invade healthy

ecosystems, displace native vegetation,

reduce species diversity, and destroy

wildlife habitat. Widespread

infestations lead to soil erosion and

stream sedimentation. Furthermore,

noxious weed invasions weaken

reforestation efforts, reduce forage for

domestic and wild ungulates,

occasionally irritate public land users

by aggravating allergies and other

ailments, and threaten federally

protected plants and animals.

To curb the spread of noxious weeds,

a growing number of Western states

have jointly developed noxious weedfree forage certification standards and,

in cooperation with various Federal,

State and county agencies, have passed

weed control laws. Because hay and

other forage products containing

noxious weed seed are part of the

infestation problem, Montana has

developed a hay inspection,

certification, and identification process;

participates in a regional inspection,

certification, and identification process;

and encourages forage producers to

grow products free of noxious weed

seeds.

Pursuant to 36 CFR § 261.50, the

Regional Forester may issue orders to

close or restrict uses on National Forest

System lands. If adopted, this proposed

requirement to close National Forest

System lands to users who do not use

a certified weed-free forage or similar

product would result in a standard

closure order applicable to all National

Forest System lands in Montana. The

Northern Regional Forester has been

implementing a similar policy on a

forest-by-forest-basis in Montana since

1989. As a result of cooperative efforts

between the State, the Forest Service,

and the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) Montana State Office, BLM is

proposing a similar standard

requirement for all public lands under

its jurisdiction. The BLM proposal

appears in a separate notice in this issue

of today’s Federal Register.

The Forest Service invites written

comment and suggestions on this

proposal, which will be considered

prior to adoption of a final policy and

issuance of a closure order. Notice of the

final decision will be published in the

Federal Register.

Dated: March 11, 1997.

Kathleen A. McAllister,

Deputy Regional Forester, R–1.

[FR Doc. 97–7754 Filed 3–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration

Advisory Committee Meeting

Pursuant to the provisions of section

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), notice

is hereby given of the following

committee meeting:

Name: Grain Inspection Advisory

Committee.

Date: April 16–17, 1997.

Place: Department of Agriculture, 1400

Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 107–A,

Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building,

Washington, D.C.

Time: 8:30 a.m. April 16–17.

Purpose: To provide advice to the

Administrator of the Grain Inspection,

Packers and Stockyards Administration

(GIPSA) with respect to the implementation

of the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71

et seq.).

The agenda includes: (1) GIPSA

Financial Status, (2) Overview of

International Monitoring Staff, (3) Fee

Schedule for Export Elevators, (4) Hedge

to Arrive Contracts, (5) Equipment

Approval Process, (6) Status of

Electronic Data Entry Activities, (7)

Grain Inspection Automation Policy, (8)

Moisture Instrument Selection Update,

and (9) Online Presentation of the

GIPSA Homepage.

The meeting will be open to the

public. Public participation will be

limited to written statements, unless

permission is received from the

Committee Chairman to orally address

the Committee. Persons, other than

members, who wish to address the

Committee or submit written statements

before or after the meeting, should

contact the Administrator, GIPSA, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW, STOP 3601,

Washington, D.C. 20250–3601,

telephone (202) 720–0219 or FAX (202)

205–9237.

Dated: March 20, 1997.

James R. Baker,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–7740 Filed 3–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–P