39810 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 / Notices

the Secretary of Agriculture on

implementing the terms of the Federal

Interagency Partnership on the Lake

Tahoe Basin and other matters raised by

the Secretary.

The Secretary has determined that the

work of the Committee is in the public

interest and relevant to the duties of the

Department of Agriculture.

The Committee will meet on a

quarterly basis, conducting public

meetings to discuss management

strategies, gather information and

review federal agency accomplishments,

and prepare a progress report every six

months for submission to regional

federal executives.

The Committee will consist of no

more than 20 members representing a

broad array of interests in the Lake

Tahoe Region. Representatives will be

selected from the following sectors: (1)

gaming; (2) environmental; (3) national

environmental organizations; (4) ski

resorts; (5) North Shore economic and

recreation interests; (6) South Shore

economic and recreation interests; (7)

resort associations; (8) education; (9)

property rights advocates; (10) memberat-large; (11) member-at-large; (12)

science and research; (13) local

government; (14) Washoe Tribe; (15)

State of California; (16) State of Nevada;

(17) Tahoe Regional Planning Agency;

(18) union/labor interests, and (19)

transportation. Nominations to the

Committee should describe and

document the proposed member’s

qualifications for membership on the

Lake Tahoe Basin Advisory Committee.

The Committee Chair will be

recommended by the Committee and

approved by the Secretary. Vacancies on

the Committee will be filled in the

manner in which the original

appointment was made.

Appointments to the Committee will

be made by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Equal opportunity practices, in line

with USDA policies, will be followed in

all appointments to the Committee. To

ensure that the recommendations of the

Committee have taken into account the

needs of the diverse groups served by

the Department, membership should

include to the extent practicable

individuals with demonstrated ability to

represent minorities, women, persons

with disabilities, and senior citizens.

Dated: July 21, 1998.

G. Lynn Sprague,

Regional Forester, Pacific Southwest Region.

[FR Doc. 98–19926 Filed 7–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Salmon River Canyon Project; Nez

Perce National Forest, Payette National

Forest, Bitterroot National Forest,

Salmon/Challis National Forest, Idaho

County, ID

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will

prepare an environmental impact

statement (EIS) to analyze and disclose

the environmental effects of fuels

reduction within the Salmon River

Canyon. The area is located between

Cottonwood, ID and North Fork, ID.

Some activities are proposed within the

Gospel Hump and Frank Church—River

of No Return Wildernesses. This EIS

will tier to the Nez Perce National

Forest Land and Resource Management

Plan, the Bitterroot National Forest

Forest Plan, the Land and Resource

Management Plan for the Salmon

National Forest, and the Payette

National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan which provide overall

guidance for achieving the desired forest

condition of the area. The purpose of

the proposed action is to reduce fuels

that have accumulated as a result of fire

suppression in areas of historic high

frequency, low intensity fires.

DATES: Written comments and

suggestions should be received by

August 24, 1998 to receive timely

consideration in the preparation of the

Draft EIS.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments and

suggestions on the proposed action or

requests for a map of the proposed

action or to be placed on the project

mailing list to Coy Jemmett, Forest

Supervisor, Nez Perce National Forest,

Route 2 Box 475, Grangeville, ID 83530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bill Shields, Planner, Nez Perce

National Forest, Route 2 Box 475,

Grangeville, ID, 83530, Phone (208)

983–1950.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Activities

are proposed on the following Ranger

Districts: Salmon River and Red River

Districts, Nez Perce NF; New Meadows,

McCall, and Krassell, Payette NF; West

Fork, Bitterroot NF; and North Fork,

Salmon NF. Activities are also proposed

on the Cottonwood Resource Area of the

Bureau of Land Management. The

proposed activity is ignition of

approximately 210,000 acres through

the use of helicopter and hand ignition

over a ten-year period. This treatment is

expected to reduce fuels in the Salmon

River Canyon area. The following goals

will be achieved:

1. Reintroduce fire as a primary

ecological disturbance process in

ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir types, to

initiate the restoration of vegetation

densities toward historic levels.

2. Increase the opportunities to allow

lightning fires to play, as nearly as

possible, their natural ecological role

within wilderness in accordance with

Wilderness Fire Management Plans.

3. Reduce the risk from wildland fire

to private land and structures within

and adjacent to the Salmon River

Canyon .

The Forest Service will consider a

range of alternatives to the proposed

action. One of these will be the ‘‘no

action’’ alternative, in which none of the

proposed actions will be implemented.

Additional alternatives will examine

varying levels and locations for the

proposed activities, including entry into

wilderness areas, to achieve the

proposal’s purposes, as well as to

respond to the issues and other resource

values.

Public participation is an important

part of the project, commencing with

the initial scoping process (40 CFR

1501.7), which starts with publication of

this notice and continues for the next 30

days. In addition, the public is

encouraged to visit with Forest Service

officials at any time during the analysis

and prior to the decision. The Forest

Service will be seeking information,

comments, and assistance from Federal,

State, and local agencies, the Nez Perce

Tribe, and other individuals or

organizations who may be interested in

or affected by the proposed action.

Comments from the public and other

agencies will be used in preparation of

the Draft EIS. The scoping process will

be used to:

1. Identify potential issues.

2. Identify major issues to be analyzed

in depth.

3. Eliminate minor issues or those

which have been covered by a relevant

previous environmental analysis, such

as the Nez Perce National Forest Plan

EIS.

4. Identify alternatives to the

proposed action.

5. Identify potential environmental

effects of the proposed action and

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

cumulative effects).

While public participation in this

analysis is welcome at any time,

comments received within 30 days of

the publication of this notice will be

especially useful in the preparation of

the draft EIS, which is expected to be

filed with the Environmental Protection

Agency and available for public review
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 / Notices 39811

in January 1999. A 45-day comment

period will follow publication of a

Notice of Availability of the draft EIS in

the Federal Register. The comments

received will be analyzed and

considered in preparation of a final EIS,

which is expected to be filed in June

1999. A Record of Decision will be

issued not less than 30 days after

publication of a Notice of Availability of

the final EIS in the Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes it is

important at this early stage to give

reviewers notice of several court rulings

related to public participation in the

environmental review process. First,

reviewers 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. v.

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 513 (1978). Also,

environmental objections that could be

raised at the draft EIS stage but that are

not raised until after completion of the

final 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 available to the Forest Service at a

time when it can meaningfully consider

them and respond to them in the final

EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns on the proposed action,

comments should be as specific as

possible. 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.

Coy Jemmett is the responsible official

for this environmental impact

statement.

Dated: July 17, 1998.

Philip N. Jahn,

Acting Forest Supervisor, Nez Perce National

Forest.

[FR Doc. 98–19725 Filed 7–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR

SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List; Additions and

Deletions

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From

People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled.

ACTION: Additions to and Deletions from

the Procurement List.

SUMMARY: This action adds to the

Procurement List a commodity and

services to be furnished by nonprofit

agencies employing persons who are

blind or have other severe disabilities,

and deletes from the Procurement List

commodities previously furnished by

such agencies.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 24, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase

From People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled, Crystal Gateway 3, Suite 310,

1215 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, Virginia 22202–4302.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beverly Milkman (703) 603–7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 27 and June 12, 1998, the

Committee for Purchase From People

Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled

published notices (63 FR 9999, 32189

and 32190) of proposed additions to and

deletions from the Procurement List:

Additions

The Following Comments Pertain to Kit,

Fuel & Oil Filter Element

Comments were received from a

previous contractor in response to a

request for sales data. The commenter

challenged the capability of the

designated nonprofit agency to produce

the kit, claiming that the kit is a flight

safety item which can only be

effectively produced by a filter element

manufacturer with special equipment,

including testing equipment.

The Government contracting activity

which purchases the kit and is familiar

with all technical requirements for its

production performed a plant facility

inspection at the nonprofit agency and

concluded that the agency was capable

of producing the kit. Production of the

kit is an assembly operation, using parts

which meet appropriate technical

criteria. The Committee’s industrial

engineer reviewed the Government’s

capability report and a similar

assessment by an industrial engineer at

the central nonprofit agency which

represents the designated nonprofit

agency, and the Committee’s

determination that the nonprofit agency

is capable of producing the kit is based

on these assessments.

The Following Comments Pertain to

Mess Attendant, Janitorial/Grounds

Maintenance, Naval Station, Everett,

Washington

In response to a Committee request for

sales data, comments were received

from one of the three contractors for the

services consolidated into the service

requirement being added to the

Procurement List. The existing services

are being performed by 8(a) contractors,

and the other two have graduated from

the 8(a) Program. The commenting

contractor indicated that loss of the

contract would have a severe adverse

impact on its sales if some sort of

partnering arrangement with the

designated nonprofit agency does not

occur.

The contracting activity has indicated

that the service requirement would

remain in the 8(a) Program if it is not

added to the Procurement List. As the

other two contractors have graduated

from that program, they would not be

eligible to receive contracts whether or

not the service requirement is added to

the Procurement List, so any impact

they may suffer would not be caused by

the addition.

The designated nonprofit agency has

agreed to subcontract the mess attendant

portion of the service requirement to the

commenting contractor for the duration

of its eligibility to participate in the 8(a)

Program, if a reasonable price that is

consistent with the contracting activity’s

available resources can be agreed upon.

This arrangement will enable the

contractor to continue performing the

services until it graduates from the 8(a)

Program, if its performance continues to

be satisfactory. As a consequence, the

Committee does not believe that the

addition of the service requirement will

have a severe adverse impact on that

contractor.

After consideration of the material

presented to it concerning capability of

qualified nonprofit agencies to provide

the commodity and services and impact

of the additions on the current or most

recent contractors, the Committee has

determined that the commodity and

services listed below are suitable for

procurement by the Federal Government

under 41 U.S.C. 46–48c and 41 CFR 51–

2.4.

I certify that the following action will

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The major factors considered for this

certification were:

1. The action will not result in any

additional reporting, recordkeeping or

other compliance requirements for small