Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 1998 / Notices 20375

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 two-month comment period so

that substantive comments and

objectives 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 FEIS.

The FEIS is scheduled to be completed

in the Fall of 2000. The responsible

official will consider the comments,

responses, and environmental

consequences discussed in the FEIS,

and applicable laws, regulations, and

policies in making decisions regarding

making the revisions and amendment.

The responsible official will document

the decisions and reasons for the

decisions in a Record of Decision for the

revised and amended plans. The

decisions will be subject to appeal in

accordance with 36 CFR part 217.

Dated: April 16, 1998.

Jack A. Blackwell,

Regional Forester.

[FR Doc. 98–10782 Filed 4–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Modoc National Forest Noxious Weed

Control Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will

prepare an environmental impact

statement to eradicate between 100 and

300 acres of noxious weeds annually,

beginning 1999 for a period of 10 to 20

years, within site specific areas of the

Modoc, Lassen, and Siskiyou Counties

in northeastern California. The

proposed 26 target weeds are Plumeless

thistle, Musk thistle, Canada thistle,

Yellowspine thistle, Scotch thistle,

Russian knapweed, Rush skeletonweed,

Diffuse knapweed, Spotted knapweed,

Yellow starthistle, Hoary cress or

whitetop, Squarrose knapweed,

Marlahan mustard, Leafy spurge,

Halogeton, St. Johnswort, Dalmation

toadflax, Purple loosestrife,

Mediterranean sage, Puncture vine,

Perennial pepperweed, Medusahead,

Jointed goatgrass, Barbed goatgrass,

Common crupina, and Wavyleaf thistle.

The proposed treatment methods are

mechanical, biological, cultural,

preventive, chemical, and through land

management practices such as livestock

grazing. The herbicides which will be

used are chloraulfuron, dicamba,

clopyralid, 2,4-D, picloram, hexazinone,

glyphosate, triclopyr, sulfometuron

methyl, and simazine. The proposed

herbicides are distributed under a

number of trade names and strengths.

The agency invites written comments

and suggestions on the proposed

project.

In preparing the environmental

impact statement, the Forest Service

will identify and consider a range of

alternatives. Possible alternatives to this

proposal are no action, utilize all

treatments except aerial, and all

treatments except chemical.

DATES: Comments concerning the

proposal should be received in writing

by May 25, 1998, to receive timely

consideration in the preparation of the

draft EIS. The draft EIS will be filed

with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and to be available for

public review in August 1998. The final

EIS and Record of Decision are expected

to be issued in November 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

and suggestions concerning the scope of

the analysis to Steven F. Bishop, Acting

Forest Supervisor, Modoc National

Forest, 800 West 12th Street, Alturas,

CA 96101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions about the proposed

action and environmental impact

statement to Jim Irvin, or Allison

Sanger, Project Leader, Modoc National

Forest, 800 West 12th Street, Alturas,

CA 96101, 530–233–5811.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: There are

26 noxious weed species which

receiving intensive control in or near

the Modoc National Forest. Thirteen of

the 26 species are listed as ‘‘A’’ rated

weed pests which means they have

limited distribution in California and

are subject to eradication, quarantine, or

other holding actions at the State and

County levels. All 26 of these are exotic

pests, not native to California and thus

replace the native species then they

invade different plant communities.

In 1997, approximately 90 acres of

noxious weeds were treated on the

Modoc National Forest in Modoc,

Lassen, and Siskiyou Counties.

Infestations are scattered primarily over

Lassen and Modoc Counties, the largest

being the common crupina infestation

above Round Valley which covers a

total of 740 acres of private and Forest

Service lands. Most infestations are less

than one acre in size.

An Integrated Weed Pest Management

approach will be use to control and

eradicate these weeds species. This

approach uses a combination of control

methods which include; mechanical

control such as hand pulling, clipping,

mowing, and burning of weeds; cultural

control such as fertilization, seeding,

and cultivation; biological control

through the use of parasites and

pathogens; preventive through the use

of education and guidelines to increase

awareness and prevent new infestations

onto Forest lands; chemical control

through the use of herbicides; and

control by land management practices

such as livestock grazing.

Chemical methods include the use of

backpack sprayers, truck mounted

power sprayers, or aerial application of

a specific area only. The chemicals

(herbicides) would be in either liquid or

granular form. Helicopters are used for

aerial application to minimize resource

damage in areas with limited access,

and large infestations. To obtain the

greatest reduction of weeds from

chemical control, selection of the proper

herbicide with application at the proper

time and method are of the utmost

importance.

Aerial application is being proposed

for only one area on the Forest, a 160

acre (740 acre total) infestation of

common crupina found on private and
20376 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 1998 / Notices

Forest Service lands in the northeastern

corner of Round Valley. This will be a

one-time aerial application of herbicides

with follow-up by ground treatment. No

other aerial application of herbicides

will be analyzed in this document.

Public participation is especially

important at several points during the

analysis. The first point is during the

scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7). The

Forest Service will 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 action. This input will be

used in preparation of the draft

environmental impact Statement (DEIS).

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 (i.e., direct, indirect,

cumulative effects and connected

actions).

The Modoc County Agriculture

Department will be invited to

participate as a cooperating agency to

supervise the eradication of this weed.

The DEIS is expected to be filed with

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and to be available for public

review in August 1998. The comment

period on the draft environmental

impact statement will be 45 days from

the date the EPA 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 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, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (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 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

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 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. 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 EIS, the comments will be

analyzed and considered by the Forest

Service in preparing the final

environmental impact statement. In the

final EIS the Forest Service is required

to respond to the comments received (40

CFR 1503.4). The responsible official

will consider the comments, responses,

environmental consequences discussed

in the EIS, and applicable laws,

regulation, and policies in making a

decision.

Dated: April 9, 1998.

Stephen F. Bishop,

Acting Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 98–10954 Filed 4–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–32–P

UNITED STATES ARMS CONTROL

AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY

The Director’s Advisory Committee;

Notice of Closed Meetings

April 21, 1998.

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5

U.S.C. app. 2§ 10(a)(2) (1996), the U.S.

Arms Control and disarmament Agency

(ACDA) announces the following

Advisory Committee meetings:

Name: The Director’s Advisory Committee

(DirAC).

Dates: May 11–12, 1998, June 8–9, 1998.

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Place: For the May meeting: Offutt Air

Force Base Omaha, Nebraska. For the June

meeting: State Department Building, 320 21st

Street, N.W. Room 4930 Washington, D.C.

Type Of Meetings: Closed.

Contact: Robert Sherman, Executive

Director, Director’s Advisory Committee,

Room 5844, Washington, D.C. 20451, (202)

647–4622.

Purpose of Advisory: To advise the Director

of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament

Agency respecting scientific, technical, and

policy matters affecting arms control,

nonproliferation, and disarmament.

Purpose of the Meetings: The Committee

will review specific arms control,

nonproliferation, and verification issues.

Members will be briefed on current U.S.

policy and issues regarding agreements

including the START II Treaty,

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the

Convention on Conventional Weapons.

Members will exchange information and

concepts with key ACDA personnel. All

meetings will be held in Executive Session.

Reason for Closing: The DirAC members

will be reviewing and discussing matters

specifically authorized by Executive Order

12,958 to be kept secret in the interest of

national defense and foreign policy.

Authority to Close Meetings: The closing of

the meetings is in accordance with a

determination by the Acting Director of the

U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

dated April 21, 1998, made pursuant to the

provisions of Section 10(d) of the Federal

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2

§ 10(d) (1996).

Nancy Aderholdt,

Acting Director of Administration.

April 21, 1998.

Determination To Close Meetings of the

Director’s Advisory Committee

The Director’s Advisory Committee

(DirAC) will hold meetings in Omaha,

Nebraska, on May 11–12, and Washington,

D.C., on June 8–9, 1998.

The entire agenda of these meetings will be

devoted to specific national security policy

and arms control issues. In accordance with

section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory

Committee act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d) (1996),

I have determined that the meetings may be

closed to the public in accordance with 5

U.S.C. § 552b(c)(1) (1996). Materials to be

discussed at the meetings have been properly

classified, and are specifically authorized

under criteria established by Executive Order

12,958, 60 Fed. Reg. 19,825 (1995), to be kept

secret in the interests of national defense and

foreign policy.

Ralph Earle, II,

Acting.

[FR Doc. 98–11095 Filed 4–22–98; 11:22 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–32–M

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR

SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List; Proposed Additions

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From

People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed additions to

Procurement List.