15122 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Notices

TWELVE-MONTH CONTRACT FEE

SCHEDULE

Location capacity (bales)

Contract

fees (dollars)

1 to 20,000 ................................... $500

20,001 to 40,000 .......................... 650

40,001 to 60,000 .......................... 800

60,001 to 80,000 .......................... 1,000

80,001 to 100,000 ........................ 1,250

100,001 to 120,000 ...................... 1,500

120,001 to 140,000 ...................... 1,750

140,001 to 160,000 ...................... 2,000

160,001 + ..................................... 1 2,250

1Plus $50.00 per 5,000 bale capacity or

fraction thereof above 160,000 bales.

Signed at Washington, DC on March 16,

1995.

Bruce R Weber,

Acting Executive Vice President, Commodity

Credit Corporation.

[FR Doc 95–7049 Filed 3–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

Forest Service

Zaca Mine Project Toiyabe National

Forest, Alpine County, California

AGENCY: Forest Service.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of intent

to prepare an environmental impact

statement.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service and Alpine

County Planning Department have

cancelled preparation of an

Environmental Impact Statement/Report

(EIS/EIR) for the Zaca Mine Project

following withdrawal of the proposal by

Western States Minerals Corporation.

Public comments regarding this project

are no longer needed. The Notice of

Intent to Prepare an EIS was originally

published on February 8, 1995 in the

Federal Register, Volume 60, NO. 26,

pages 7518–7519.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions regarding this notice may be

directed to Maureen Joplin, Project

Team Leader, Toiyabe National Forest,

1200 Franklin Way, Sparks, NV, 89431;

telephone: 702–355–5394.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western

States Minerals Corporation (WSM) has

withdrawn its proposed Plan of

Operations (POO) for an open pit/

cyanide heap leach gold/silver mine in

Alpine County, California. The project

would have been located approximately

four miles southeast of Markleeville in

sections 29, 30, 31 and 32, T1ON R21E,

M.D.M. Total area of proposed

disturbances was 228 acres. Forest

Service and Alpine County were in the

process of collecting comments from

other agencies and the public when

WSM withdrew its proposed plan. WSM

offered the following statement:

‘‘Western States Minerals Corporation

has decided to discontinue permitting of

its wholly owned Zaca Project at this

time. This decision is based entirely

upon economic reasons. The Company

has other Projects that it will develop at

this time, because they appear to be

more economically viable in the present

business climate. Western States

Minerals Corporation fully intends to

develop the Zaca Project at some future

date.’’

Dated: March 10, 1995.

Gary Sayer,

Deputy Forest Supervisor, Toiyabe National

Forest.

[FR Doc. 95–6961 Filed 3–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

Rangeland Health; Wasatch-Cache

National Forest, Box Elder, Cache,

Rich, Tooele, Weber, Morgan, Summit

Counties, Utah and Uinta County,

Wyoming

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will

prepare an environmental impact

statement on a proposal to amend the

Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land

and Resource Management Plan to add

management direction and standards

and guidelines for desired future

condition of rangelands.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope

of the analysis should be received in

writing by April 20, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

William P. LeVere, Deputy Forest

Supervisor, 8236 Federal Building, 125

South State St., Salt Lake City, Utah

84138.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Reese Pope, Planning Staff Officer, (801)

524–5188.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Wasatch-Cache National Forest is

proposing to amend the Wasatch-Cache

National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan to add management

direction and standards and guidelines

for desired future condition of

rangelands. The desired future

condition of four range types will be

defined: Riparian, uplands, alpine, and

aspen. Riparian areas will be managed

for mid-to-late seral ecological

conditions to maintain or restore

biological, physical, and aesthetic

values of riparian ecosystems. Uplands

will be managed for mid-to-late seral

status to maintain watershed conditions.

Alpine areas will be managed for

protective ground cover with a

diversified vegetative cover.

Management of aspen will be to

maintain and improve aspen sites and

associated vegetation. Specific

utilization standards and stubble

heights will be set to move toward

desired rangeland conditions.

A scoping document has been sent to

700 individuals and organizations and

local and state government agencies.

Preliminary issues identified by the

interdisciplinary team include effects on

threatened, endangered, and sensitive

species, effects on riparian areas and

upland watershed conditions, effects to

local economies, effects on rangeland

from livestock and wildlife, effects on

recreational values and visual resources

and effects on range condition on

important wildlife habitat. Two

preliminary alternatives have been

identified. The proposed action which

would amend the Forest Plan with new

management direction for rangelands

and the No Action which would

continue setting direction in individual

allotment management plans.

The public is invited to submit

comments or suggestions to the address

above. The responsible official is

William LeVere, Deputy Forest

Supervisor. A draft EIS is expected to be

filed in May of 1995 and the final EIS

filed in August of 1995.

The comment period on the draft

environmental impact statement will be

45 days from the date the

Environmental Protection Agency’s

notice of availability appears in the

Federal Register. It is very important

that those interested in the proposed

action participate at that time. To be the

most helpful, comments on the draft

environmental impact statement should

be as specific as possible and may

address the adequacy of the statement or

the merits of the alternatives discussed

(see The Council on Environmental

Quality Regulations for implementing

the procedural provisions of the

National Environmental Policy Act at 40

CFR 1503.3).

In addition, Federal court decisions

have established that 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 reviewers’ position and

contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear

Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553

(1978). Environmental objections that

could have been raised at the draft stage

may be waived if not raised until after

completion of the final environmental

impact statement. City of Angoon v.