This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

28885

Vol. 66, No. 102

Friday, May 25, 2001

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Game Range (Vegetation Management

Project), Lolo National Forest, Sanders

County, MT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service,

will prepare an environmental impact

statement (EIS) to disclose the

environmental effects of vegetation

treatment through prescribed burning,

timber harvest, reforestation,

precommercial thinning, and noxious

weed spraying in the Maier Gulch,

Weber Gulch, Dry Gulch and Ashley

Creek drainages (herein referred to as

the Game Range project). The 9400-acre

project area is located northeast of

Thompson Falls from the mouth of

Thompson River to Squaw Creek. About

half of the area proposed for vegetation

treatment is within the Cube Iron-Silcox

Inventoried Roadless Area. The

southwest analysis area boundary is

adjacent to private lands that interface

the Thompson Falls community.

Game Range is a joint planning,

analysis and implementation project for

ecosystem management of Lolo National

Forest land and State lands

administered by Montana Department of

Fish Wildlife and Parks.

The proposed actions of prescribed

burning, timber harvest, reforestation,

precommercial thinning, and noxious

weed treatment are being considered

together because they represent either

connected or cumulative actions as

defined by the Council on

Environmental Quality (40 CFR

1508.25). This EIS will tier to the Lolo

National Forest Plan Final EIS (April,

1986).

DATES: Written comments and

suggestions should be received on or

before June 25, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

and suggestions on the proposed

management activities or a request to be

placed on the project mailing list to Lisa

Krueger, District Ranger, Plains/

Thompson Falls Ranger District, Lolo

National Forest, P.O. Box 429, Plains,

and Montana, 59859.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frank Yurczyk, EIS Team Leader,

Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger District,

Lolo National Forest, Phone (406) 826–

4313.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Game

Range project area is within T21N,

R28W; T21N, R29W; T22N, R29W;

PMM.

Purpose and Need of Proposed

Activities

The purpose of the proposed activities

is to improve ecosystem health through

(1) reducing the risk of severe wildlife

by reducing fuel loading; (2) improving

big game winter range by prescribed

burning to stimulate forage production;

(3) improving old growth by restoring

historically more open stand conditions;

and (4) reducing noxious weed presence

by direct control and enhancement of

native vegetation. Prescribed burning,

timber harvest, precommercial thinning,

planting and herbicide application

would be used to achieve these

conditions. Timber harvest is proposed

on approximately 1740 acres of forested

land that has been designated as

suitable for timber management by the

Lolo National Forest Plan.

The Lolo National Forest Plan

provides the overall guidance for

management activities in the project

area through its goals, objectives,

standards and guidelines, and

Management Area direction. The need

for these proposed actions is to alter

current trends in the forest condition

and to regulate, over time, changes in

vegetative cover which could adversely

affect forest health, fuel build up,

watershed stability, wildlife habitat, or

timber commodity potential while

continuing to provide recreation uses.

Timber harvest will help support the

economic structure of local

communities while contributing to the

regional timber supply.

The Forest Service will consider a

range of alternatives. One of these will

be the ‘‘No Action’’ alternative, in

which none of the proposed activities

would be implemented. Additional

alternatives will examine varying levels

and locations for proposed activities in

response to issues and other resource

values.

The EIS will analyze the direct,

indirect and cumulative environmental

effects of the alternatives. Past, present

and foreseeable activities on private,

state, and National Forest lands will be

considered to disclose the site specific

effects.

Public Participation

Public participation is an important

part of the analysis. The public may

visit Forest Service officials at any time

during the analysis and prior to the

decision. Public scoping has been

ongoing under the Game Range project.

The Forest Service will be seeking

additional information, comments, and

assistance from Federal, State, and local

agencies and other individuals or

organizations that may be interested in

or affected by the proposed action. An

‘‘open house’’ and a public field

meeting have been held; no additional

public meetings are scheduled at this

time. Additional comments and those

previously received from the public on

the Game Range project will be used in

preparing the Draft EIS. Comments will

again be solicited during the Draft EIS

comment period.

Issues

A number of issues have already been

identified for environmental effects

analysis. The following principles

issues have been identified so far, to

guide alternative development and

provide focus for the EIS:

1. Fire has been excluded from the

area for the past 80 years. With fire

exclusion, total biomass has increased

with dense Douglas-fir and few

ponderosa pine in the understory. With

this change, stands are more susceptible

to high intensity wildfires, defoliating

insects and root diseases, with wildfires

more difficult to control. How would

project activities affect these conditions?

2. Big game winter range condition is

in a downward trend (low quality forage

and increased conifer cover) due to lack

of periodic fire. How would prescribed

burning and timber harvest affect big

game forage conditions?

3. Game Range project lies within the

Cabinet/Yaak Grizzley Bear recovery

Zone. Would the project affect grizzly

bear recovery or other threatened,

endangered or sensitive species?

28886 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2001 / Notices

4. The project area forms the backdrop

for Thompson Falls and the Clark Fork

valley. The scenic character of the

landscape is distinctive due to its

unique combination of vegetation

patterns, rock formations and proximity

to the Clark Fork River. How would

prescribed burning and timber harvest

affect the scenic quality?

5. Most of the project area is within

two to three miles of Thompson Falls.

How would prescribed burning affect air

quality in town and the Clark Fork

Valley?

6. Noxious weeds are established on

much of the lower part of the analysis

area. Would prescribed burning and

timber harvest affect conditions, spread

of existing weeds or establishment of

new weeds in the area? What effect does

noxious weed stocking have on big

game forage and growing conditions for

native plants? How can noxious weed

stocking be reduced and native

vegetation increased?

7. Approximately 5680 acres of the

Game Range analysis area is within the

Cube Iron—Silcox Roadless Area.

Timber harvest and prescribed burning

is proposed with no road construction.

Concern for management of the area was

expressed both within the agency and

during public scoping. What effect

would the project have on the roadless

resource?

8. Concern has been expressed that

complex silvicultural prescriptions that

are designed to achieve multi-resource

objectives and to be compatible with

ecosystem processes, would not be

economically feasible. Using prescribed

fire in some areas may result in a loss

of economically valuable timber.

Because there are few roads in the area,

86 percent of the proposed harvest area

would need to be helicopter yarded. Is

this cost effective? What is the net

public cost and benefit of the proposed

project including effects on recreation?

Other issues commonly associated

with timber harvesting and prescribed

burning include effects on cultural

resources, soil compaction and

nutrients, and other resources. This list

will be verified, expanded, or modified

based on additional public scoping for

this proposal.

Comment Period and Draft EIS

Schedule

The Draft EIS is expected to be filed

with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and available for public

review in July 2001. At that time, the

EPA will publish a Notice of

Availability of the Draft EIS in the

Federal Register. The comment period

on the Draft EIS will be 45 days from the

date the EPA’s notice of availability

appears in the Federal Register. It is

very important that those interested in

management of the Game Range project

participate at that time. The Final EIS is

scheduled for completion by October

2001.

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 environmental impact

statements must structure their

participation in the environmental

review of the proposal so its is

meaningful and alerts the 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 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 v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334,

1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these

court rulings, it is very important those

interested in this proposed action

participate by the close of the 45-day

comment period so 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.

I am the responsible official for this

environmental impact statement. My

address is Lolo National Forest,

Building 24—Fort Missoula, Missoula,

MT 59804.

Dated: May 7, 2001.

Deborah L.R. Austin,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 01–13205 Filed 5–24–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration

Notice of Request for Extension of a

Currently Approved Collection of

Information

AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 35), this notice announces the

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration’s (GIPSA)

intention to request an extension for a

currently approved collection of

information. The collection of

information is used to determine

whether a State’s central filing system

for notifying farm product buyers of

liens on farm products can be certified

by the Secretary.

DATES: We invite you to comment on

this notice; we will consider all

comments that we receive by July 24,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Gerald

Grinnell, Economic/Statistical Support,

Packers and Stockyards Programs,

GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–

3641; or via facsimile to (202) 690–1266.

Comments received may be inspected

during normal business hours in the

Economic/Statistical Support offices,

room 3052 (same address as listed

above).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information regarding the collection of

information activities and the use of the

information, contact Gerald Grinnell, at

(202) 720–7455 (same address as listed

above).

For a copy of the collection of

information, contact Sharon Vassiliades,

GIPSA, Regulatory Contact, at (202)

720–1738.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: ‘‘Clear Title’’ Regulations to

implement section 1324 of the Food

Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1631).

OMB Number: 0580–0016.

Expiration Date of Approval: July 31,

2001.

Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved collection of

information.

Abstract: The information is needed

to carry out the Secretary’s

responsibility for determining whether a

State’s central filing system for

notification of buyers of farm products

of any mortgages or liens on the