Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices 24829

APPENDIX A.—USDA’S RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISES COMMUNITIES—Continued

Name State Counties

La Jicarita EC ............................................................................ NM Mora, Rio Arriba, Taos.

Greater Portsmouth EC ............................................................ OH Scioto.

Southeast Oklahoma EC .......................................................... OK Choctaw, McCurtain.

Josephine County EC ............................................................... OR Josephine.

City of Lock Haven Federal EC ................................................ PA Clinton.

Williamsburg-Lake City EC ....................................................... SC Williamsburg, Florence.

Beadle/Spink/South Dakota EC ................................................ SD Beadle, Spink.

Fayette County/Haywood County Enterprise Community ........ TN Haywood, Fayette.

Scott/McCreary Area Enterprise Community ............................ TN Scott (TN), McCreary (KY).

Accomack-Northampton, Virginia EC ....................................... VA Northampton, Accomack.

Lower Yakima County Rural Enterprise Community ................ WA Yakima.

Central Appalachia EC .............................................................. WV Roane, Braxton, Clay, Nicholas, Fayette.

McDowell County EC ................................................................ WV McDowell.

[FR Doc. 95–11494 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–07–M

Forest Service

Charlie Tyson Project; Idaho

Panhandle National Forests, St. Maries

Ranger District, Benewah County,

Idaho

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Forest Service is gathering

information to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

This EIS is proposing management

activities designed to move the Charlie

Tyson project area toward its desired

future condition, a healthy and diverse

ecosystem. Desired future condition

goals specific to the project area were

developed by an interdisciplinary team

for the purpose of maintaining

ecosystem productivity and diversity

while incorporating human values and

needs. The goals for this project area are

listed below:

1. The first goal is to provide

vegetation patterns and natural

variability that include important

components within the range of historic

levels. Using historic vegetation patterns

as a reference point, the project will

strive to maintain more mature timber

(80+ years old) in larger patches than

currently exist in the project area. To

maintain historic natural variability for

the project area, the project will strive

to promote more canopy layers and

more species components. This entails

perpetuating seral tree species,

subalpine fir/spruce, quaking aspen and

open ridge tops with large ponderosa

pine. This shift toward the historic

range of vegetation patterns also entails

maintaining riparian area with stable

stream channels and fish habitats

supporting viable populations of desired

fish species; thus the area would be

fully supporting beneficial uses.

2. The second goal is to incorporate

additional human values and needs by

providing commercial wood products, a

long range transportation plan where

only essential roads for land

management exist, a visually attractive

landscape, a diverse array of

recreational activities and maintaining

existing grazing allotments. There are

areas with past clearcut harvest units

that detract from the visual

attractiveness of the landscape; the

harsh edges of these clearcuts could be

softened by partial cutting. For

recreation, emphasis for this area is on

dispersed use and trail development;

unauthorized trail use will be addressed

and three historic Forest Service trails

could be added to the trail system.

3. The third goal is to maintain

wildlife habitats. Currently, the project

area has a lack of quality security for

wildlife. Activities proposed will

include restricting trail and road access

for various kinds of users.

It will take time to implement the

desired future condition described

above; proposed management activities

would entail using techniques to shift

the project area toward desired future

condition. Management techniques

would include prescribed fire, timber

harvesting, road building, road use

restrictions and closures, wildlife

security area(s), watershed/fish habitat

improvements and trail development.

The Forest Service estimates that this

proposed action would include: 415

acres of underburning, 2773 acres of

timber harvesting (commercial

thinning—1892 acres, group selection—

46 acres, irregular shelterwood—381

acres, group shelterwood—403 acres,

seedtree—20 acres, clearcutting—31

acres), 10.6 miles of new road

construction, 1.7 road miles taken off

the road system and a 6200 acre area

closure to all motorized vehicles in the

Charlie-Preston drainages (providing

5000 acres of wildlife security). The

proposed action also entails

implementing fish/watershed

improvement projects in the East Fork

of Charlie, Preston and Brown Creeks

and adding three historic Forest Service

Trails back on the trail system for

maintenance.

DATES: Written comments concerning

the scope of this analysis must be

received within 30 days from the date

of this publication in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

District Ranger, St. Maries Ranger

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

83861.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions about the proposed action

and EIS should be directed to Tracy J.

Gravelle, St. Maries Ranger District,

Phone: 208–245–2531.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Charlie Tyson project area lies within

Benewah County, Idaho and

encompasses the Charlie Creek

drainage. It is located approximately 1

air mile south of Emida, Idaho. The

project area contains 18,100 acres of

which approximately 14,400 acres are

administered by the Forest Service.

Management activities would be

administered by the St. Maries Ranger

District of the Idaho Panhandle National

Forests. This EIS will tier to the Forest

Plan (September 1987) which provides

overall guidance for the Idaho

Panhandle National Forests in terms of

Goals, Objectives, Standards and

Guidelines, and Management Area

direction.

Preliminary scoping, including public

and other agency participation, was

initiated in August 1991 and has

recommenced this year. A public

meeting for the area was held on

September 4, 1991 in St. Maries, Idaho.

An additional public open house was

held in the town of Emida, Idaho on
24830 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices

January 19, 1994. Two periods of time

are identified for the receipt of

comments on this analysis. These two

public comment periods are: During this

scoping process and the period between

draft and final environmental impact

statements. Comments received within

30 days from the date of this publication

(Federal Register) will be especially

useful in the preparation of the draft

EIS.

Several issues have been identified

from scoping, field surveys and

reconnaissance. The principal issues

identified to date are:

1. The vegetation patterns and species

composition of the area do not mimic

the natural variability noted from data

compiled in the early 1900’s.

2. There is a lack of quality wildlife

security which is perpetuated by

existing road management and well

established All Terrain Vehicle use in

the project area.

3. The forest surrounding the project

area is fairly well fragmented.

4. There are areas with past clearcut

harvest units that detract from the visual

attractiveness of the landscape.

5. There is unauthorized trail building

in the area.

6. The old Forest Service NakarnaTyson (#338), Eena Creek (#337) and

Moolock Creek (#320) trails lie within

the project area. These trails are still

being used by the public and are in good

condition. This is an opportunity to put

this trail back on the system.

7. There are some areas needing

watershed/fish habitat rehabilitation

and this is an opportunity to complete

this work. In addition, if management

activities were to be implemented, what

would be potential impacts on the fish

habitat, water quality and stream

channel equilibrium.

8. If management activities were to be

implemented, what would be the

potential impacts on wildlife habitats.

9. How much sustainable timber

harvest is available from the project

area.

10. The local community has voiced

their concern over availability of small

timber sales. These sales enable smaller

timber operators the opportunity to

purchase timber sales.

Development of alternatives is

underway. The analysis will consider

the No Action alternative in addition to

the proposed action (described above)

and two alternative actions. The two

alternative actions would respond in

varying degrees to the purpose and need

defined above. These two alternatives

are as follows:

1. One alternative would confine

proposed timber management activities

to areas which can be reached by

existing roads, i.e. no new system roads

would be necessary. This proposal

would include underburning, timber

harvesting, a wildlife security area in

the Charlie-Preston Creek drainages,

watershed/fish improvements and trail

development. Potential harvest units for

this alternative present many small sale

opportunities.

2. One alternative is being proposed

for management activities that are

limited to certain areas of the project

area. This addresses the wildlife

security issue for a different part of the

project area. This alternative would

include underburning, timber

harvesting, road construction, potential

road obliteration, a wildlife security

area in the Eena, Moolock, Brown,

Pamas and Short Creek drainages,

watershed/fish improvements and trail

development. Potential harvest units for

this alternative present many small sale

opportunities.

The Forest Service believes it is

important to give reviewers notice at

this early stage 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 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. 334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980).

Reviewers may wish to refer to CEQ

regulations 40 CFR 1503.3.

The draft environmental impact

statement should be available for public

review in May, 1994. The final EIS is

scheduled to be completed by

September, 1994. The District Ranger,

who is the responsible official for this

EIS, will make a decision regarding this

proposal. This decision and reasons for

the decision will be documented in a

Record of Decision.

Dated: March 3, 1995.

Bradley J. Gilbert,

District Ranger, St. Maries Ranger District,

Idaho Panhandle National Forests.

The policy of the USDA Forest

Service prohibits discrimination on the

basis of race, color, national origin, age,

religion, sex disability, familial status,

or political affiliation. People believing

they have been discriminated against in

any Forest Service related activity

should write to: Chief, Forest Service,

USDA, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC

20090–6090.

[FR Doc. 95–11451 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 17–95]

Foreign-Trade Zone 153—City of San

Diego, California, Application for

Subzone, Calbiochem-Novabiochem

Corporation (Life Science Chemicals),

San Diego, CA

An application has been submitted to

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) by the City of San Diego,

California, grantee of FTZ 153,

requesting special-purpose subzone

status for the life science chemicals

processing/distribution facility of

Calbiochem-Novabiochem Corporation

(CNC) in San Diego, California, within

the San Diego Customs port of entry.

The application was submitted pursuant

to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade

Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–

81u), and the regulations of the Board

(15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed

on April 26, 1995.

CNC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of

Calbiochem-Novabiochem International,

Inc. (U.S.), a global manufacturer and

distributor of life science fine chemicals

used for clinical research and the

development of biochemical products.

Life science chemicals include human

plasma proteins, enzymes, amino acids,

detergents, peptides, toxins, antibodies,

immunochemicals, resins, inhibitors,

buffers, coupling reagents, and chiral

synthons.

The CNC facility (2 buildings—a 3rd

one planned—totalling 134,000 sq. ft. on

7.8 acres) is located at 10394 Pacific

Center Court, San Diego, California. The

facility (80 employees) is primarily used

to test and repackage life science

chemicals for use by academic and

government researchers and, industrial

and pharmaceutical companies. Some of

the products, accounting for about 5

percent of plant shipments, are also

involved in blending/processing activity

prior to packaging.

The application identifies three types

of products that would be initially

produced by the blending activity under

zone procedures at this time: Chromium

tripicolate (duty rate—3.7%), sodium

cholate (3.1%), and amino acids (4.2%).

The foreign sourced materials involved

in their manufacture are picolinic acid