7516 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices

Requester Product Field test location

Texas Department of

Health;

Rhone

Merieux,

Inc.; and

the Centers

for Disease

Control and

Prevention.

A live, genetically engineered,

vacciniavectored

rabies vaccine that

expresses

the rabies

glycoprotein; the

vaccine is

enclosed in

baits.

Dimmit,

Zavala,

Frio, Bexar,

Atascosa,

Wilson,

Karnes,

Goliad,

Refugio,

Aransas,

San

Patricio,

Bee, Live

Oak,

McMullen,

La Salle,

Calhoun,

and Maverick Counties, Texas.

The environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact have

been prepared in accordance with: (1)

The National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),

(2) Regulations of the Council on

Environmental Quality for

Implementing the Procedural Provisions

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3)

USDA Regulations Implementing NEPA

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS

Guidelines Implementing NEPA (44 FR

50381–50384, August 28, 1979, and 44

FR 51272–51274, August 31, 1979).

Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of

February 1995.

George O. Winegar,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–2897 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–M

Forest Service

North Fork Fire Salvage and

Associated Activities, Kootenai

National Forest, Lincoln County, MT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The North Fork, 336, and

Maxine Wildfire burned over 8000 acres

of Kootenai National Forest system

lands in the late summer of 1994. The

Forest intends to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

to assess and disclose the environment

effects of opportunities designed to

recover economic value of burned

timber, reduce future fuels

accumulations and the corresponding

risk of severe reburn, rehabilitate

existing sediment sources, improve

hydrologic conditions in affected

watersheds, and protect long-term soil

productivity. These objectives would be

accomplished through salvage harvest of

fire-killed timber; reforestation of

harvested and several burned areas;

fuels reduction in harvested areas;

restoration of non-essential roads,

revegetation of road cuts and fill slopes,

and drainage improvement on existing

roads; providing for immediate and

long-term recruitment of instream large

woodly material within the North Fork

decision area. The North Fork decision

area is located approximately 20 air

miles southwest of Eureka, Montana.

All proposals within the North Fork

decision area would protect visual

quality on stream segments eligible for

classification under the Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act, provide for wildlife habitat,

and conserve fisheries habitat.

The proposal’s actions to salvage firekilled trees and reforest burned area,

construct, reconstruct, and restore

roads, reduce fuels and future fire

hazard, and implement watershed

recovery projects are being considered

together because they represent either

connected or cumulative actions as

defined by the Council on

Environmental Quality (40 CFR

1508.25). The EIS will trier to the

Kootenai National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan and Final

EIS of September 1987, which provides

overall guidance for achieving the

desired forest condition of the area.

DATES: Written comments and

suggestions should be relieved by March

10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The Responsible Official is

Robert L. Schrenk, Forest Supervisor,

Kootenai National Forest. Written

comments and suggestions concerning

the scope of the analysis should be sent

to Robert J. Thompson, District Ranger,

Rexford Ranger District, 1299 Hwy 93 N,

Eureka, Montana, 59917.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terry Chute, Planner, Rexford Ranger

District. Phone (406) 296–2536.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the

night of August 14–15, 1994, a lightning

stormed started 207 fires on the

Kootenai National Forest in northwest

Montana. Several fires ranging in size

from less than one acre to over 7000

acres occurred on the Rexford Ranger

District. The North Fork Fire Recovery

EIS is being prepared in response to

conditions resulting from the largest of

these fires, the 8000+ acre North Fork

Fire Complex. An interdisciplinary

landscape analysis team is using an

ecosystem based approach to assess the

fires affects and identify management

opportunities that could be

implemented to move the postfire

landscape toward a desired ecological

condition.

Burn intensities in the North Fork

wildfires varied considerably. Within

the fire perimeters approximately 5350

acres burned at high intensity (average

90% tree mortality), 1400 burned at

moderate intensity (average 70%

mortality), and 1300 acres burned at low

intensity (average 30% mortality). The

fires burned into or adjacent to the Wild

and Scenic study corridors in Big Creek

and South Fork Big Creek (eligible for

Recreation classification), and North

Fork Big Creek and Copeland Creek

(eligible for Wild classification), all of

which are pending Wild and Scenic

River study. The fires also burned

within the Big Creek Roadless area #701.

The North Fork decision area contains

approximately 36,000 acres within the

Kootenai National Forest in Lincoln

County, Montana. All of the proposed

projects are located in the Big Creek

drainage with sub-drainages of North

Fork Big, South Fork Big, Good, Mesler,

Roberts, Copeland, and Drop Creeks,

included. The legal location of the

decision area is as follows: Sections 1,

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,

15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 29, and 30

of Township 34 North, Range 30 West;

Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 24 of

Township 34 North, Range 30 West;

Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14,

15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,

26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and

36 of Township 35 North, Range 30

West; Sections 1, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25,

26, 35, and 36 of Township 35 North,

Range 31 West; and Sections 21 and 32

of Township 36 North, Range 30 West;

Principle Montana Meridian. The land

in and adjacent to the decision area is

entirely federal ownership under the

jurisdiction of the Forest Service.

Proposed Action

The primary purpose of the project is

to recover valuable timber products

from trees burned by wildfires that

occurred in 1994, with the secondary

benefit of reducing the potential for

future uncontrollable wildfires. Actions

are also proposed to enhance watershed

recovery and improve grizzly bear

habitat security. The Forest Service

proposes to harvest approximately 24–

27 million board feet of timber by

salvaging fire-killed timber and

imminently dead trees on

approximately 2119 acres of forest land

outside riparian protection areas (draft

PACFISH criteria) and wild and scenic

eligible corridors. Only trees that were

killed, or are expected to die as a result

of the fires, would be harvested. The

proposal includes prescribed burning of

about 2006 acres, and excavator piling
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices 7517

on about 113 acres to reduce fuel loads

in harvested areas, which would reduce

the risk of future large, uncontrollable

wildfires. An estimated 2000 acres of

proposed salvage units would be

planted with conifer seedlings to help

meet desired conditions for species

diversity. The Forest Service proposal

also includes approximately 0.5 miles of

temporary road construction, 1.8 miles

of permanent road construction, and 2.5

miles of road reconstruction to access

the specific harvest units. All temporary

roads constructed for this project, as

well as an estimated 39 miles of existing

non-essential road are proposed for

restoration to reduce sediment and

water yields, and improve grizzly bear

habitat security. Non-essential roads are

those that are no longer considered a

necessary part of the permanent

transportation system. Drainage

improvement activities (such as surface

ripping, drainage structure

improvement, seeding) would be

implemented on an additional 4 miles

of existing system roads, with the intent

of restoring natural drainage and

reducing sediment. These roads will be

needed for future management access,

and would remain a part of the

permanent transportation system.

Additional road access restrictions may

be needed to provide adequate security

areas for grizzly bears, however

identification of specific road closure

proposals is pending further analysis. In

addition, projects to improve watershed

recovery, reforestation of 475–550 acres

of severely burned areas not proposed

for salvage, revegetation of road cut and

fill slopes, and repair of damaged hiking

trails would be accomplished if

adequate funds are available.

The decision area includes all or a

portion of three roadless areas: the

entire Big Creek Roadless Area #701,

and portions of the Zulu Roadless Area

#166 and Mt. Henry Roadless Area #666.

Some timber salvage, fuels reduction

activities, and reforestation would occur

within the Big Creek Roadless Area; no

activities are proposed within the Zulu

or Mt. Henry Roadless Areas. No road

construction is proposed within any

roadless area. No proposed activities are

located in areas considered for inclusion

to the National Wilderness System as

recommended by the Kootenai National

Forest Plan or by any past or present

legislative wilderness proposals.

Due to the high level of tree mortality

in proposed harvest units, most

harvested areas would resemble

clearcut, seed-tree, or shelterwood

silvicultural methods. Only those live

trees which must be cut to facilitate

logging fire-killed trees would be

harvested. In addition to most live trees,

10–15 snags per acre would be retained

in all harvested areas if available.

Timber harvest would be done by

skyline, forwarder or winter tractor, and

helicopter, and designated to result in

minimal ground disturbance, risk of

erosion, and compaction.

The Kootenai National Forest Land

and Resource Management Plan

provides overall management objectives

in individual delineated management

areas (MA’s). The decision area contains

nine MA’s: 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19,

and 24. Briefly described, MA 2 is

managed to protect and enhance

roadless recreation use and provide

wildlife values. MA 3 is managed to

provide opportunities for dispersed

recreation in naturally appearing

environments using trails and primitive

roads for access. MA 10 is managed to

maintain or enhance habitat

effectiveness for winter use by big-game

animals and protect scenic quality in

areas visible from major travel routes.

MA 12 is managed to maintain or

enhance the summer-range habitat

effectiveness for big-game species and

produce a programmed yield of timber.

MA 13 is managed to provide the

special habitat necessary for old growth

dependent wildlife. MA 14 focuses on

maintaining or enhancing grizzly bear

habitat, reducing grizzly/human

conflicts, assisting in the recovery of the

grizzly bear, realizing a programmed

yield of timber production, and

providing for the maintenance or

enhancement of other wildlife species,

especially big game. MA 15 is managed

primarily for timber production while

providing for other resource values. MA

19 is managed to protect soil stability

and water quality by maintaining the

vegetation in a healthy condition and

minimizing surface disturbance. MA 24

is managed to protect mid to high

elevation sites with rocky, thin soils.

This MA is also managed for any

wildlife resources that may occur.

Timber salvage and fuels reduction is

proposed in MA 12, MA 14, and MA 24.

Preliminary Issues

Several preliminary issues of concern

have been identified by the Forest

Service. These issues are briefly

described below:

• Water Quality—Streams in the

decision area have been impacted by

past management and large wildfires.

How would the proposed action affect

water yield, sediment production,

stream stability, and recovery from past

impacts?

• Timber Supply—An estimated 92

million board feet of timber was killed

in the North Fork Fire complex. Much

of this fire-killed timber will quickly

lose its commercial value due to rapid

deterioration. To what extent does the

proposed action recover the commercial

value of fire-killed timber to help meet

local and national needs?

• Activity in Roadless Areas—What

effect would the proposal have on the

roadless character of the Big Creek

Roadless Area and other roadless areas?

• Grizzly Bear—The decision area lies

within the recovery area for the Cabinet/

Yaak grizzly bear ecosystem. How

would the proposal maintain and

enhance grizzly bear habitat, and

contribute to recovery efforts?

• Old Growth—An estimated 1500

acres of designated old growth was

destroyed by intense, stand replacing

wildfire. What options are available to

manage for suitable levels of old growth

habitat in the decision area?

• Fisheries—Some streams contain

fisheries habitat and resident fish

populations, including torrent sculpin

(a Region 1 sensitive species), possibly

bull trout (currently being considered

for listing as a threatened or endangered

species), and westslope cutthroat trout

(likely hybridized). How would the

proposed action affect fisheries habitat

and populations?

• Future Fire Risk—The wildfires of

1994 killed more trees over a larger area

than would be expected in this

ecosystem. Over the next 20 years most

of these fire killed trees will fall,

creating high fuel loadings over an area

that is unprecedented in scale.

Recurrence of wildfires are anticipated

within the next 50 years, and could

produce more severe effects to soils,

water resources, and vegetation than the

1994 fires. How would the proposed

action reduce future fuel loads and the

corresponding risk of severe,

uncontrollable wildfire?

Forest Plan Amendment

The Kootenai National Forest Land

and Resource Management Plan has

specific management direction for the

North Fork decision area. The North

Fork proposed action is designed to

maintain or improve resource

conditions and move towards achieving

desired ecological conditions, and is

consistent with the goals and objectives

of the Forest Plan. Prior to making a

NEPA decision, a thorough examination

of all standards and guidelines of the

Forest Plan would be completed and, if

necessary, plan exceptions or

amendments would be addressed in the

EIS.

Decision To Be Made

The Kootenai National Forest

Supervisor will decide the following:
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