3048 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Notices

Rescissions Act) provides in relevant

part that:

‘‘[I]n allocating this $1,115,000,000

rescission, the Secretary may reduce the

appropriations needs of the Department by

(1) waiving any provision of section 202 of

the Housing Act of 1959 and section 811 of

the National Affordable Housing Act

(including the provisions governing the terms

and conditions of project rental assistance)

that the Secretary determines is not necessary

to achieve the objectives of these programs,

or that otherwise impedes the ability to

develop, operate or administer projects

assisted under these programs, and may

make provision for alternative conditions or

terms where appropriate * * * .’’

The Department has identified the

following provisions that affected the

procedures for calculating the amount of

project rental assistance contract (PRAC)

funds reserved for Section 202 and 811

projects funded in FY 1993, 1994, and

1995, as well as to reduce the term for

reserving PRAC funds and to waive

certain statutory and regulatory

provisions for Section 202 and 811

projects funded in FY 1995.

I. Projects Funded in Fiscal Years 1993

and 1994

A Memorandum from Assistant

Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing

Commissioner Retsinas dated August

28, 1995 notified State and Area Offices

that all Section 202 and Section 811

projects funded in FY 1993 and 1994

that had not yet reached initial closing

must include an Addendum to the

Agreement to Enter into the Project

Rental Assistance Contract (Forms

HUD–90172–A–CA and HUD–90172–B–

CA) at the time of initial closing. The

Addendum, which had to be signed by

both HUD and the Owner, alerted the

Owner of HUD’s right to reduce the

PRAC reserved for the project at a later

time.

By instructions to the HUD offices,

the PRAC funds reserved for projects

funded in FY 1993 and 1994, which

either had not gone to initial closing or

had the Addendum described above as

an attachment to their Agreement to

Enter into the PRAC, were reduced by

an amount equivalent to the anticipated

tenant contributions. Based on a review

of the average tenant contributions to

rent and the average project operating

expenses, tenants on the average

contribute at least 25 percent of the

projects’ operating expenses. Therefore,

the PRAC funds were calculated at 75

percent of the estimated project’s total

operating expenses, thereby reducing

the PRAC reserved funds by 25 percent.

II. Projects Funded in Fiscal Year 1995

A. For projects funded in FY 1995,

PRAC funds were reserved at 75 percent

of the estimated project’s total operating

expenses to take into consideration

estimated tenant contributions.

B. In addition to the above, based on

the authorization in the FY 1995

Rescissions Act, the Secretary is hereby

waiving the following statutory and

regulatory provisions:

1. Reducing the Term of the PRAC From

20 to 5 Years

Consequently, for all projects selected

in FY 1995, project rental assistance

funds were only reserved initially for

five years. The Department anticipates

that at the end of the five-year period,

renewals will be approved depending

upon the availability of funds.

2. Extending Income Eligibility for

Admission to Lower Income Households

Currently, eligible residents’ income

cannot exceed 50 percent of the median.

A waiver of this provision extends the

eligibility of elderly persons and

persons with disabilities to persons with

incomes up to 80 percent of median.

These individuals, whether their

incomes are up to 50 percent or 80

percent of median, must be admitted to

occupancy on a first-come, first-served

basis in accordance with fair housing

requirements.

3. Waiving the Federal Preferences for

Admission

Waiving this provision permits

project owners to admit to occupancy

eligible residents without regard to

Federal preferences. However, local

preferences will still be allowed in

accordance with HUD regulations.

Project owners must still ensure that

applicants for housing are selected for

occupancy in a fair and equitable

manner.

Dated: January 19, 1996.

Stephanie A. Smith,

Acting General Deputy Assistant Secretary

for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 96–1630 Filed 1–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–27–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Notice of Intent To Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement for

the Revision of the Forest Management

Plan for Trust Forest Lands Within the

Flathead Indian Reservation, Montana

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent and public

scoping meetings.

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public

that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),

Flathead Agency, intends to gather

information necessary for preparing an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

for the revision of the Forest

Management Plan (Plan) for the trust

forest lands of the Flathead Indian

Reservation, Montana. A description of

the proposed action and possible

alternatives to be addressed in the EIS

follows as supplemental information.

This notice is published in

accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

regulations found in 40 CFR 1501.7. The

purpose of this notice is to solicit

suggestions and information from other

agencies and the public on the scope of

the issues to be addressed in the EIS.

The BIA encourages all who wish to do

so to comment and participate in this

scoping process.

DATES: The public comment period

closes on March 29, 1996. Public

Scoping Meetings will be held on

February 20, 1996, at the Arlee

Elementary School Lunchroom, Arlee

MT; on February 21, 1996, at the Salish

Longhouse, St. Ignatius MT; on

February 22, 1996, at the Elmo Bingo

Hall, Elmo MT; and on February 23,

1996, at the Senior Citizen’s Center, Hot

Springs, MT. All meetings will begin at

6 p.m. and end at 8 p.m. A Public

Meeting will also be held on February

26, 1996, at the BIA East Conference

Room, Tribal Complex, Pablo, MT,

beginning at 1 p.m. and ending at 3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

addressed to Mr. Ernest ‘‘Bud’’ Moran,

Superintendent, Flathead Agency,

Pablo, MT 59855.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Confederated Salish and Kootenai

Tribes’ (Tribes) interdisciplinary team

has developed and drafted a proposed

action that complies with the Tribes’

Purpose and Need Statement for the

Plan. This Statement is as follows:

‘‘The purpose of the Flathead Indian

Reservation Forest Management Plan is to

provide long-term direction for Indian forest

resources. The plan describes resource

management practices and levels of resource

production. It establishes management

standards, allocates land, and prescribes

management practices to achieve balanced

forest ecosystems. The Plan is needed to: (1)

satisfy Tribal goals and objectives; (2) ensure

that management activities are compatible

with sustainable forest ecosystems; (3)

balance Tribal cultural, social, economic and

environmental values; and (4) establish an

adaptive management and monitoring

process that incorporates Tribal member

values.’’

There are approximately 451,391

acres of forest trust land on the Flathead
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Notices 3049

Indian Reservation. The proposed action

describes the forest in terms of seral

stages and structure. It measures

existing conditions against the natural

or pre-European contact condition and

proposes a Desired Condition that more

closely resembles the pre-European

contact condition. It also prescribes

management activities to manipulate

vegetation toward the Desired

Condition, and identifies management

standards and constraints for cultural

protection, for other natural resources,

and for social and economic concerns.

The EIS will evaluate alternatives that

address the purpose and need for action.

These may include: (1) No action, which

would continue current operating

policies, including those in the 1982–

1992 Flathead Forest Management Plan;

(2) management activities and strategies

to develop, restore or promote

sustainable ecosystems while treating

forest outputs as by-products of a

healthy forest; and (3) other reasonable

alternatives identified via public input.

Dated: December 19, 1995.

Ada E. Deer,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 96–1390 Filed 1–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–P

Bureau of Land Management

[NV–060–7122–00–8661; N64–93–001P]

Notice of Availability of the Final

Environmental Impact Statement for

the Cortez Pipeline Gold Deposit Plan

of Operation

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the

Final Environmental Impact Statement

for the Cortez Pipeline Gold Deposit

Plan of Operation for mining in Lander

County, Nevada.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c)

of the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) of 1969 as amended, and to

43 Code of Federal Regulations Part

3809, the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM), Battle Mountain District has

made available the Final Environmental

Impact Statement (Final EIS) for the

proposed development of an open pit

mine and associated facilities, in Lander

County, Nevada.

DATES: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) will publish its Federal

Register Notice of Availability on

February 2, 1996. That publication

begins the official 30 day period

required by the Council on

Environmental Quality for Final EISs.

ADDRESSES: Bureau of Land

Management, Battle Mountain District

Manager, 50 Bastian Rd., P.O. Box 1420,

Battle Mountain, NV 89820 ATTN: Dave

Davis. Copies of the Final EIS may be

made in writing to the preceding

address or by calling Dave Davis at (702)

635–4000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dave Davis, Pipeline Project Manager, at

(702) 635–4000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Cortez

Gold Mines filed a Plan of Operations in

October, 1992 for the development of

the Pipeline Gold deposit open pit

mine. The Pipeline proposal calls for

the development of an 1827 acre open

pit gold mine operation located in the

southern end of Crescent Valley, Lander

County, Nevada. In addition to the 235

acre open pit, there will be a dewatering

program required to keep the pit dry

during mining operations. This

dewatering program will pump an

estimated 30,000 gallons per minute

(gpm). Approximately 28,000 gpm of the

total 30,000 gpm will be returned to the

Crescent Valley aquifer through a series

of infiltration ponds. Associated

facilities include a new 5,000 ton per

day mill, constructing a new combined

heap leach/tailings facility, waste

dumps and associated support facilities,

offices, etc.

The Draft and Final EISs evaluate the

impacts of the Pipeline proposal on a

number of resources. The focus of both

documents include the impacts to

ground and surface water resources, pit

lake chemistry, social and economic

impacts to the region, air quality,

cultural resources and Native American

religious concerns.

The Final EIS incorporates changes to

the findings in the Draft EIS that

resulted from the public comment

process on the Draft EIS. These changes

include an expanded regional ground

water modelling study. The regional

study supports and expands upon the

subregional ground water modelling

effort prepared for the Draft EIS. Water

quality modelling was expanded for the

Final EIS. These expanded water quality

modelling results indicate some metal

species and other constituents may

exceed current Nevada Drinking water

standards in the long term (250 years

after cessation of mining operations).

Precise estimates for such long term

predictions are impossible to predict

with current technology. In order to

better understand the potential future

impacts, the BLM also had an ecological

risk assessment for the pit lake

prepared. This risk assessment

identifies some potential to affect avian

wildlife in the long term. Mitigation is

proposed for those potential avian

impacts. Cortez has committed to an

irrevocable, long term monetary

contingency fund. This funding will be

used by the BLM for monitoring all

aspects of the project after cessation of

mining operations; although the primary

focus of the funding will be used to

monitor the pit lake water quality. The

contingency fund will also be used to

mitigate any future long term impacts

resulting from pit lake water quality.

Dated: January 22, 1996.

Gerald M. Smith,

District Manager.

[FR Doc. 96–1627 Filed 1–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–HC–M

[NV–050–1020–001]

Mojave-Southern Great Basin

Resource Advisory Council;

Amendment of Meeting Locations and

Times

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Amendment to meeting location

and times.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Federal Land Policy and Management

Act and the Federal Advisory

Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), 5

U.S.C., the Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management (BLM),

council meeting of the Mojave-Southern

Great Basin Resource Advisory Council

will be held as indicated below. The

agenda includes a discussion of laws

and regulations that pertain to grazing,

and a statewide update of standards and

guidelines.

All meetings are open to the public.

The public may present written

comments to the council. Each formal

council meeting will have a time

allocated for hearing public comments.

The public comment period for the

council meeting is listed below.

Depending on the number of persons

wishing to comment, and time available,

the time for individual oral comments

may be limited. Individuals who plan to

attend and need further information

about the meetings, or need special

assistance such as sign language

interpretation or other reasonable

accommodations, should contact

Michael Dwyer at the Las Vegas District

Office, 4765 Vegas Dr., Las Vegas, NV

89108, telephone, (702) 647–5000.

DATES, TIMES: Dates are February 14 and

15, 1996. The council will meet at the

BLM Las Vegas District Office located at

4765 Vegas Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada, at

7:30 a.m. on February 14, 1996, and will

depart for a field trip at 8 a.m.