7518 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices

Should dead and imminently dead

trees within fire areas be harvested and

if so how and where,

What amount, type, and distribution

of watershed restoration projects,

including road restoration, would be

implemented,

What burned areas need to be

replanted,

What road access restrictions would

be implemented to provide security for

grizzly bears, and

If Forest Plan exception or

amendments are necessary to proceed

with the Proposal Action within the

decisions area.

Public Involvement and Scoping

Some public participation efforts have

already been initiated. On October 1,

1994 a public field trip to the North

Fork Decision Area was held to provide

interested people with an opportunity to

view the fire areas and ask questions of

fire managers and resource specialists.

On January 10, 1995, an open house and

slide presentation was held with 25

individuals attending. Comments were

requested during both of these public

involvement efforts. An open house will

be held from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on

February 21, 1995 at the Rexford Ranger

District office, 1299 Hwy 93 N, Eureka,

MT 59917, to provide an opportunity for

the public to review of the proposed

action. Consultation with appropriate

State and Federal agencies has been

initiated. Preliminary effects analysis

indicated that the wildfires may

significantly affect the quality of the

human environment, and fire recovery

activities have the potential to both

intensify and reduce effects. These

potential effects prompted the decision

to prepare an EIS for the North Fork Fire

Salvage.

This environmental analysis and

decision making process will enable

additional interested and affected

people to participate and contribute to

the final decision. Public participation

will be requested at several points

during the analysis. The Forest Service

will be seeking information, comments,

and assistance from Federal, State, local

agencies, and other individuals or

organizations who may be interested in

or affected by the proposed projects.

This input will be used in preparation

of the draft and final EIS. The scoping

process will include:

• Identifying potential issues.

• Identifying major issues to be

analyzed in depth.

• Exploring addition alternatives

which will be derived from issues

recognized during scoping activities.

• Identifying potential environmental

effects of this project and alternatives

(i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative

effects and connected actions).

The analysis will consider a range of

alternatives, including the proposed

action, no action, and other reasonable

action alternatives.

Estimated Dates for Filing

The draft North Fork Fire Recovery

EIS is expected to be filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

and to be available for public review by

April, 1995. At that time 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 publishes

the Notice of Availability in the Federal

Register.

The final EIS is scheduled to be

completed by August, 1995. In the final

EIS, the Forest Service is required to

respond to comments and responses

received during the comment period

that pertain to the environmental

consequences discussed in the draft EIS

and applicable laws, regulations, and

policies considered in making a

decision regarding the proposal.

Reviewer’s Obligations

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

environment objections that could be

raised at the draft environmental impact

statement stage 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 and

respond to them in the final EIS.

To be most helpful, comments on the

draft EIS should be as specific as

possible and may address the adequacy

of the statement or the merit of the

alternatives discussed. 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.

Responsible Official

Robert L. Schrenk, Forest Supervisor,

Kootenai National Forest, 506 US

Highway 2 West, Libby, MT 59923 is the

responsible Official. I have delegated

the responsibility to prepare the North

Fork Fire Salvage Environmental Impact

Statement to Robert J. Thompson,

District Ranger, Rexford Ranger District.

As the Responsible Office I will decide

which, if any, of the proposed projects

will be implemented. I will document

the decision and reasons for the

decisions in the Record of Decision.

That decision will be subject to Forest

Service Appeal Regulations.

Dated: January 30, 1995.

Robert L. Schrenk,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 95–3046 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

Zaca Mine Project; Toiyabe National

Forest, Alpine County, CA

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service and Alpine

County Planning Department will be

jointly preparing an Environmental

Impact Statement/Report (EIS/EIR) for

the proposed development of an open

pit/heap leach gold and silver mining

project in Alpine County, California.

Preparation of the EIS will be assisted

by a third party contractor, funded by

the proponent, Western States Minerals

Corporation (WSM).

DATES: Comments concerning the scope

of the analysis should be received in

writing no later than March 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

R.M. ‘‘Jim’’ Nelson, Forest Supervisor,

Toiyabe National Forest, 1200 Franklin

Way, Sparks, Nevada 89431.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions about the proposed

project and preparation of the EIS to

Maureen Joplin, Project Team Leader,

Toiyabe National Forest. Telephone:

702–355–5394.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western

States Minerals Corporation (WSM) has

filed a proposed Plan of Operations

(POO) for an open pit/cyanide heap

leach gold/silver mine in Alpine

County, California. The project is

located approximately four miles

southeast of Markleeville in sections

29,30,31 and 32, T10N R21E, M.D.M.

Total area of proposed disturbance is
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices 7519

228 acres. Forest Service review of the

project is required to minimize impacts

to natural resources, to develop an

approved plan of operations pursuant to

regulations at 36 CFR 228, and to

coordinate permitting with other state

and federal agencies. Alpine County

will review the proposal for a

Conditional Use Permit consistent with

planning and zoning and for

consistency with California’s Surface

Mining and Reclamation Act. Alpine

County and Forest Service will act as

joint lead agencies for the project

review. Scoping of interested agencies

began with a meeting on January 24,

1995. Public comments will be

requested through notices published in

the Reno Gazette-Journal, Douglas

County Record-Courier, Alpine

Enterprise, Nevada Appeal, and Tahoe

Daily Tribune, through direct mailings,

and through a public meeting to be held

at Turtle Rock Park, Alpine County on

February 22, 1995. Copies of the

proposed operating plan may be viewed

at the Carson and Bridgeport Ranger

District offices (Carson City, NV and

Bridgeport, CA), and at the Forest

Supervisor’s office (Sparks, NV). Forest

Service and Alpine County evaluated a

similar project at the same location in

1982. An environmental assessment/

environmental (EA/EIR) impact report

was written, and the project approved

but never implemented. Copies of the

1982 EA/EIR are available for review at

the Forest Supervisor’s office, and at the

Carson and Bridgeport Ranger Districts.

Preliminary issues associated with the

project are water quality in Monitor

Creek and the East Fork of the Carson

River, impacts to wetlands, reclamation

of disturbed areas, public safety, and

socioeconomic impacts. Alternatives

will be formulated which address these

and any other issues generated by

scoping; the no action alternative will

also be analyzed. A draft EIS/EIR is

anticipated for release in January of

1996.

Several government agencies will be

invited to participate in this project as

cooperating or participating agencies.

These agencies include, but are not

limited to, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, California Regional Water

Quality Control Board, California Dept.

of Fish and Game and California Dept.

of Transportation. Additional federal,

state, and local permits and licenses

may be required to implement the

proposed action. These may include,

but are not limited to, a Section 404

permit, Water Pollution Control Permit,

Reclamation Permit for Mining

Operations, and a General Discharge

Permit for Stormwater.

The Forest Service is the lead federal

agency for this project and R.M. ‘‘Jim’’

Nelson, Forest Supervisor of the

Toiyabe National Forest is the

responsible official. The Draft EIS is

expected to be filed with the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

and be available for review in January

of 1996. At that time, EPA will publish

a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS

in the Federal Register. The comment

period on the Draft EIS will be at least

45 days from the date the EPA’s notice

of availability appears 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

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 or 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.

Dated: January 31, 1995.

Gary Sayer,

Deputy Forest Supervisor, Toiyabe National

Forest.

[FR Doc. 95–3077 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–821–805, A–821–806, A–823–806]

Notice of Amended Preliminary

Determinations of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Antidumping Duty

Investigations of Pure and Alloy

Magnesium From the Russian

Federation and Pure Magnesium From

Ukraine

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Commerce Department.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dorothy Tomaszewski, Mark Wells, or

Erik Warga, Office of Antidumping

Investigations, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C., 20230; telephone

(202) 482–0631, 482–3003 or 482–0922.

Scopes of Investigations

These investigations cover pure and

alloy primary magnesium. The scopes

are fully described in the preliminary

determinations (see Notice of

Preliminary Determinations of Sales at

Less Than fair Value: Pure and Alloy

Magnesium from the Russian Federation

(59 FR 55427, November 7, 1994) and

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure

Magnesium from Ukraine (59 FR 55420,

November 7, 1994)).

Case History

On October 27, 1994, the Department

of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) made

its affirmative preliminary

determinations of sales at less than fair

value in the above-cited investigations

concerning subject merchandise from

Russia and Ukraine. The petitioners, on

November 14, 1994, alleged that the

Department made several ministerial

errors in those preliminary

determinations and requested that the

Department correct these ministerial

errors accordingly.

On December 22, 1994, the

Department found that the petitioners’

allegations relating to the use of the

initiation margins, as recalculated by

the Department, as best information