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

33084

Vol. 61, No. 124

Wednesday, June 26, 1996

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

[Docket Number FV–96–354]

North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA) Advisory Committee on

Private Commercial Disputes

Regarding Agricultural Goods

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

Agriculture.

ACTION: Notice of intent to establish a

NAFTA Committee.

SUMMARY: This notice describes the

application procedures for the members

of the public volunteering for service as

U.S. Representatives on the NAFTA

Advisory Committee on Private

Commercial Disputes Regarding

Agricultural Goods.

DATES: Applications and comments

must be received on or before July 26,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Applications and comments

should be sent to Mr. David L. Priester,

International Standards Coordinator,

Fruit and Vegetable Division,

Agricultural Marketing Service, U. S.

Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box

96456, Room 2071–South, Washington,

DC 20090–6456. Application forms may

be obtained by writing to the above

address or by calling 202–720–2184 or

faxing 202–720–0016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David L. Priester, Tele: 202–720–2184,

Fax: 202–720–0016.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As

provided for in Article 707, of the North

American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA), an Advisory Committee on

Private Commercial Disputes Regarding

Agricultural Goods will be established

to provide recommendations on

possible systems to achieve the prompt

and effective resolution of commercial

disputes regarding agricultural goods.

This Advisory Committee will work on

disputes for all agricultural

commodities, but initially it will focus

its attention on perishable fruits and

vegetables.

The Committee will be comprised of

up to ten (10) members (and ten (10)

alternates), of which up to eight (8)

members (and eight (8) alternates) may

be selected from outside the

Government. The Secretary of

Agriculture will appoint the members

and alternates.

Application Process

Candidates must complete the

Advisory Committee Membership

Background Information Form AD–755

(8/31/95). It is important that all

questions are answered and the

information requested is as complete as

possible. This information will be

treated as confidential and is used to

complete background clearance checks.

Selection Criteria

Committee members shall be

appointed by the Secretary of

Agriculture. The Committee will be

comprised of up to ten (10) members

(and ten (10) alternates) including

producers, shippers, receivers, packers,

attorneys, and other interested and

knowledgeable parties. The Secretary

invites those individuals, organizations,

and groups affiliated with the above

industries, to nominate individuals for

membership on the Committee.

Nominees should have expertise or

experience in the resolution of private

commercial disputes in agricultural

trade.

Equal opportunity practices will be

followed in all appointments to the

Committee in accordance with USDA

policies. To ensure that the

recommendations of the Committee

have taken into account the needs of the

diverse groups served by the

Department, membership shall include,

to the extent practicable, individuals

with demonstrated ability to represent

minorities, women, and persons with

disabilities.

Compensation

The members of the Advisory

Committee will not be paid a salary, or

any other compensation, and will be

responsible for their own travel and per

diem expenses for their service on the

Advisory Committee.

Time and Travel Requirement

Members should be prepared to spend

time for one or two meetings a year,

plus time for meeting preparation.

Applicants should be fully prepared to

travel to locations in Canada, Mexico,

and the United States.

Dated: June 20, 1996.

Robert C. Keeney,

Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 96–16302 Filed 6–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

Forest Service

Revision of the Land and Resource

Management Plan for the

Chequamegon and Nicolet National

Forests; Ashland, Bayfield, Florence,

Forest, Langlade, Oconto, Oneida,

Price, Sawyer, Taylor, and Vilas

Counties, Wisconsin

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The Forest Service intends to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for revising the Chequamegon

and Nicolet Land and Resource

Management Plans (Forest Plan)

pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5) and 36

CFR 219.12. The Forest Service will

prepare one environmental impact

statement and one revised Forest Plan

that encompasses both National Forests

(36 CFR 219.4(b)(3)).

The current Forest Plans for both the

Chequamegon and Nicolet were

originally approved on August 11, 1986.

These Plans guide the overall

management of these National Forests.

The six primary decisions made in

Forest Plans are:

(1) Forestwide Multiple-use Goals and

Objectives (36 CFR 219.11(b));

(2) Forestwide Management

Requirements (36 CFR 219.27);

(3) Management Area Direction (36

CFR 219.11(c)),

(4) Lands Suited/not Suited for

Timber Management (36 CFR 219.14,

219.16, 219.21);

(5) Monitoring and Evaluation

Requirements (36 CFR 219.11(d)); and

(6) Recommendations to Congress,

(such as recommendations, if any, for

additional Wilderness (36 CFR 219.27)).

Forest Plans must be revised every 10

to 15 years (U.S.C. 1604(f)(5) and 36
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Notices 33085

CFR 219.10(g)). In addition, the Forest

Service has determined there is a need

to revise these Forest Plans to adjust to

changed conditions, incorporate new

information, and consider the

management of National Forest System

lands in the context of the larger

landscape in which these lands are

situated.

In looking at the Chequamegon and

Nicolet National Forests in a landscape

context and based on the monitoring

and evaluation done and public

comment received, the Forest Service

has determined that there is a need to

make some changes to the primary

decisions made in the 1986 Forest

Plans. A revised Plan will be developed

to address the following major revision

topics that have been identified through

monitoring, evaluation, and public

comment:

(1) Access and Recreational

Opportunities;

(2) Biological Diversity;

(3) Special Land Allocation; and

(4) Timber Production.

Some inconsistencies between the

two 1986 plans that are not directly

related to the main revision topics will

be resolved as the two separate Forest

Plans are combined into one. To achieve

this consistency, it will be necessary to

make many minor changes, particularly

in Forest standards and guidelines.

When making decisions in the revised

Plan, we will examine the economic and

social impacts to local communities,

and the impacts at a broader regional

level. We will also examine biological

impacts at similar levels. In northern

Wisconsin communities, the

relationship between people and the

natural environment in which the needs

of people are met typically centers

around the forest products and tourism

industries.

The purpose of this notice is to inform

you that the Forest Service is now

soliciting comments and suggestions

from American Indian tribes, Federal

agencies, State and local governments,

individuals, and organizations on the

scope of the analysis to be included in

the draft environmental impact

statement for the Revised Forest Plan

(40 CFR 1501.7). Comments relevant to

scoping include: (1) identifying

potential issues, (2) identifying those

issues to be analyzed in depth, (3)

eliminating insignificant issues or those

which have been covered by a previous

environmental analysis, and (4)

identifying possible alternatives for

addressing the issues. General notice to

the public concerning the scope of the

analysis will be provided by mailings,

news releases, and public meetings.

The environmental analysis and

decision-making process will include

many further opportunities for public

participation and comment so that

people interested in this proposal may

contribute to the final decision. The

draft environmental impact statement is

tentatively scheduled for release in

November, 1997 and the final

environmental impact statement and

decision are scheduled for December,

1998.

The Forest Service will host a series

of open house meetings to provide

information about the process of

revising the Forest Plans and to gather

public input on the scope of the

decision to be made. Meetings will be

held as follows:

Date Time Location

July 9, 1996 ................................................................. 4 pm–7 pm .................................................................. Laona District Office.

July 15, 1996 ............................................................... 4 pm–7 pm .................................................................. Medford District Office.

July 16, 1996 ............................................................... 4 pm–7 pm .................................................................. Lakewood District Office.

July 16, 1996 ............................................................... 4 pm–7 pm .................................................................. Park Falls District Office.

July 24, 1996 ............................................................... 3 pm–8 pm .................................................................. Washburn District Office.

August 7, 1996 ............................................................ 4 pm–7 pm .................................................................. Glidden District Office.

August 8, 1996 ............................................................ 4 pm–7 pm .................................................................. Eagle River District Office.

August 8, 1996 ............................................................ 4 pm–7 pm .................................................................. Hayward District Office.

August 12, 1996 .......................................................... 4 pm–7 pm .................................................................. Florence District Office.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope

of the analysis should be received in

writing by August 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

Forest Plan Revision, Chequamegon and

Nicolet National Forest, Federal

Building, 68 S. Stevens Street,

Rhinelander, WI 54501.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Probasco, Forest Planning Group

Leader; (715) 762–2461.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

section contains more detailed

information about the process to revise

the Forest Plans for the Chequamegon

and Nicolet National Forests. The

section is organized as follows:

A. Need for change—Why the Forest

Service believes that changes need to be

made to the existing Plans.

B. Working with others in revising the

Forest Plan—Describes the public

involvement plan.

C. The nature and scope of the

decision to be made—What decisions

are made in Forest Plans, what

decisions will be revisited in a revised

Plan, and who makes the decision.

D. Description of preliminary issues

and changes that may result from

addressing the issues—This is the heart

of the Notice of Intent. It provides

information about the four major

revision topics, preliminary issues and

what changes or decisions will be made

to address the issues.

E. What will not be addressed or

changed in the revised Forest Plan—

Describes those items outside the scope

of Plan revision.

F. Alternatives in the draft

environmental impact statement—

Because the major revision topics can be

addressed in more than one way, this

section describes how the Forest Service

will develop and consider alternative

ways of addressing the related issues.

A. Need For Change

The Forest Service proposes to

prepare one revised Forest Plan for both

the Chequamegon and Nicolet National

Forests. In doing so, we intend to

concentrate on those areas of the

existing Plans that truly need changing.

Each Forest currently has a Forest Plan

that has been in effect for the past 10

years. Many parts of the existing Plans

have been working well, and we

propose to carry those parts forward

into a revised Forest Plan with little if

any change (some changes may be

necessary for consistency as we merge

the two Plans together). There are

several reasons for revising the Forest

Plans for the Chequamegon and Nicolet

National Forests:

The law requires Forest Plans be revised at

least every 15 years. The original Plans were

approved in 1986, so it is now time to begin

the revision process.

Conditions have changed. Monitoring since

1986 shows conditions we did not anticipate

or project. For example, a harvest level study

on the Nicolet revealed inaccuracies in

growth and yield projections, and thus in the

sustainable level of timber harvest projected
33086 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Notices

in the 1986 Forest Plan. There is an increased

demand for the variety of goods, services and

uses produced by the Chequamegon and

Nicolet National Forests (Revision Topics

and Need for Change report, USDA, Forest

Service, 1996). For example, an increase in

gathering of special/miscellaneous forest

products indicates a need for standards and

guidelines to manage these resources.

New information is available. New

information and scientific understanding

regarding biological diversity have become

available since the Plans were approved. The

Forest Service has also conducted Scientific

Roundtables on Biological Diversity and

Socio/Economics which provided new

information and recommendations (New

Information report, USDA Forest Service,

1995).

Change in Policy. The 1986 Forest Plans

focused mainly on the capabilities of and

resource utilization on National Forest lands

within the proclaimed boundaries of the

Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests.

In revising Forest Plans for the next decade,

it will be important to describe the

management of these National Forests in the

context of the larger landscape in which they

are situated. Furthermore, decisions about

the management of the two National Forests

need to be made based in part on the ongoing

and future management of interspersed and

adjoining private and public lands. Revised

Plans will only provide direction for

federally-owned lands. Looking beyond the

boundaries of the Chequamegon and Nicolet

Forests is important in developing

complementary management strategies across

multiple ownerships, addressing issues at a

broader or regional scale, and looking at

cumulative effects at a landscape level.

B. Working With Others in Revising the

Forest Plan

The Forest Service intends to involve

the public in the revision effort to the

fullest extent practical, given the time

and resource constraints under which

the work is proceeding. This dialog will

include both keeping the public

informed about the work as it

progresses, and listening to and

considering the opinions and

suggestions offered by the public. This

dialog will occur with American Indian

tribes, other Federal, State, County and

local governments and agencies, and

with groups and individuals interested

in or affected by the Plan revision. The

input received will be used throughout

the revision process.

As part of its overall efforts to ensure

that it honors treaty rights and its

responsibilities toward nearby Indian

Tribes, the Forest Service routinely will

consult and exchange information with

Tribes on a government-to-government

basis throughout the Forest Plan

revision process. This consultation will

include the development of goals,

standards, and guidelines needed to

ensure the exercise of tribal hunting,

gathering and fishing rights. In addition,

the Forest Service will be sensitive to

American Indian religious beliefs.

The Forest Service will work

collaboratively with other public forest

managers, especially other national

forests in the three-state area of

Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota,

the Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources, and the Wisconsin county

Forest Association. Many forest

management issues cross administrative

boundaries and must be dealt with on

a scale larger than a single national

forest.

There are several ways people can

become informed about and involved in

the Plan revision process. These

include, but are not necessarily limited

to, periodic newsletters, news releases,

workshops, and open house meetings.

The Forest Service is maintaining a

mailing list which contains the names

and addresses of individuals and groups

that have expressed an interest in Forest

Plan revision or in national forest

management in general. Those on this

list will be kept informed of the status

of the revision effort and of upcoming

public involvement activities. To have

your name added to the list, phone or

write to: Forest Plan Revision,

Chequamegon and Nicolet National

Forests, 68 South Stevens Street,

Rhinelander, WI 54501.

Although the Forest Service will be

working with individuals, groups, land

owning entities, tribal governments, and

other government agencies throughout

the entire planning process, there are

some specific points at which we will

be inviting participation or comment:

Notice of Intent—At the time of this

publication of the notice of intent,

people are invited to comment on the

scope of the analysis, including: (1)

identifying potential issues, (2)

identifying those issues to be analyzed

in depth, (3) eliminating insignificant

issues or those which have been covered

by a previous environmental analysis,

and (4) identifying possible alternatives

for addressing the issues. A series of

‘‘open house’’ meetings will provide a

forum for comments during July and

August. To be most useful, comments

on the notice of intent should be

submitted in writing, and be received by

August 27, 1996. Comments should be

mailed to: Forest Plan Revision,

Chequamegon and Nicolet National

Forests, 68 S. Stevens Street,

Rhinelander, WI 54501.

Alternative Development—During this

stage, the Forest Service will be

developing a range of alternatives for a

revised Forest Plan. People will be

invited to participate in a facilitated

meeting and open house to help develop

the alternatives.

Analysis of Environmental Effects—

During this stage, the Forest Service will

analyze the probable environmental

effects of each of the alternatives

considered. The results of that analysis

will be displayed in an environmental

impact statement. People will be invited

to participate in a facilitated meeting

and open house to help ensure that all

of the applicable effects are identified

and adequately described.

Publication of the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS)—This document will be filed

with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), which will publish a

notice in the Federal Register. The

Forest Service will invite written

comments on the DEIS for 90 days. The

DEIS is expected to be published and

filed with the EPA in November of 1997.

Recent court rulings emphasize the

importance of people providing

comments by the close of the 90-day

period.

The 90-day comment period for the

DEIS starts on the date the EPA

publishes a notice in the Federal

Register. It is very important that those

interested in the revision participate at

that time. To be most helpful, comments

on the DEIS should be as specific as

possible and should address the merits

of the alternatives discussed. It is also

helpful if comments refer to specific

pages or chapters of the draft statement

(see the Council on Environmental

Quality Regulations for implementing

the procedural provisions of the

National Environmental Policy Act at 40

CFR 1503.3).

The Forest Service believes that, 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 U.S. 519, 533 (1978). Also,

environmental objections that could be

raised at the draft environmental impact

statement 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 90-

day comment period on the draft

environmental impact statement, so that
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Notices 33087

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.

After the end of the 90-day comment

period on the DEIS, the Forest Service

will review, consider, analyze, and

respond to the comments in preparing

the final environmental impact

statement (FEIS). The FEIS is scheduled

to be completed in December of 1998.

The responsible official will consider

the comments, responses, and

environmental consequences discussed

in the final environmental impact

statement, together with applicable

laws, regulations, and policies in

making a decision regarding this

revision. The responsible official will

document the decision and reasons for

the decision in the record of decision.

That decision will be subject to appeal

in accordance with Federal regulations

at 36 CFR 217. The responsible official

is Robert T. Jacobs, Regional Forester,

Eastern Region, 310 W. Wisconsin Ave.,

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203.

C. The Nature and Scope of the

Decision To Be Made

Separate Forest Plans for the

Chequamegon and Nicolet National

Forests were approved in 1986. Since

that time, the two National Forests have

merged their administrative operations,

and one Forest Supervisor oversees both

National Forests. Since planning

regulations allow one Forest Plan to be

prepared for all lands for which a Forest

Supervisor has responsibility (36 CFR

219.4(b)(3)), the two existing Plans will

be revised into one Forest Plan that

covers both National Forests. The scope

of this decision is limited to revisiting

any those portions of decisions that

need revision, update, or correction.

The following decisions are made in a

Forest Plan:

(1) Multiple-use goals and objectives

for the two National Forests

(Chequamegon and Nicolet) in

Wisconsin. Goals are statements that

describe a desired condition to be

achieved sometime in the future.

Objectives are concise, time-specific

statements of measurable planned

results that respond to the goals.

(2) Forest-wide management

requirements (standards and

guidelines). These are limitations on

management activities, or advisable

courses of action that apply across the

entire forest.

(3) Management area direction

applying to future activities in each

management area. This is the desired

future condition specified for certain

portions of the forest, and the

accompanying standards and guidelines

to help achieve that condition.

(4) Lands suited or not suited for

activities. For example, the Forest Plan

must identity those lands suited and not

suited for timber production.

(5) Monitoring and evaluation

requirements. Forest Plans are required

to identify certain key items that will be

monitored and evaluated to gauge how

well the plan is being implemented.

(6) Recommendations to Congress. For

example, Forest Plans may contain

recommendations that additional

Wilderness (if any) be recommended for

designation by Congress.

These decisions will be re-visited

only in how they apply to the revision

issues that are identified. In addition,

some minor changes in goals, objectives,

management area descriptions,

standards and guidelines, definitions,

and monitoring requirements will be

necessary to achieve consistency

between the Chequamegon and Nicolet.

Through the Plan revision process, we

will also add some direction that is

currently lacking in either Plan. For

example, we will provide direction for

the gathering of miscellaneous forest

products and for management of rare

plant species. We will expand the

direction for use of prescribed fire and

change direction for management of

riparian areas to incorporate guidelines

in Wisconsin Forestry Best Management

Practices. These changes would

normally be insignificant amendments

to the Forest Plans.

Mnay items are beyond the scope of

what can or should be changed in a

Revised Forest Plan. See Section F,

titled ‘‘What will not be addressed or

changed in the Revised Plan’’ for a list

of those items.

D. Description of Preliminary Issues

Identified and Changes That May

Result From Addressing the Issues

The portions of the Forest Plans to be

revised focus on four major revision

topics that were identified through

monitoring, evaluation, and public

comments. Those topics are access and

recreational opportunities, biological

diversity, special land allocation, and

timber production.

When making decisions concerning

the revised Forest Plan, we will examine

the economic and social effects at a

local level and at broader levels. We

will also examine biological effects at

similar levels. Community sustainability

reflects long-term relationships between

people and the natural environment in

which the needs of people are met

without compromising ecological

capacities. In northern Wisconsin

communities, these associations

typically center around the forest

products and tourism industries, but

also include a range of service

enterprises, social organizations, and

governmental institutions.

The four major revision topics were

derived from a list of potential revision

topics made available for public

comment in July and August of 1995. A

series of 13 open house meetings were

held, and over 100 individuals

responded with written comments.

While opinions were divided about how

an issue should be addressed in a

revised Plan (ie. have more or have

less), most people who commented

generally agreed these key topics

needed to be considered. The access and

recreation topics were combined

because they are very closely related.

The topic of sustainability of local

communities is a vital consideration in

all of the topics and will be

incorporated into the effects analysis.

The section that follows describes the

major revision topics to be addressed.

The decisions made on key topics will

result in changes to Forestwide goals

and objectives, Forestwide standards

and guidelines, and management area

allocations, prescriptions, and

guidelines.

Topic: Access and Recreation

Opportunities

Access for people to use the Forests

has become an increasingly

controversial topic in recent years as a

result of increasing visitors, changes in

land use, costs of road management and

impacts on fish and wildlife habitat.

The number of people visiting the

Forests is one on the rise, as projected.

However, the large increase in

motorized use in and through the

Forests, primarily that of all-terrain

vehicles (ATVs) was not anticipated.

More people visiting the Forests has

resulted in greater conflict between

motorized and non-motorized users. In

addition, concerns have been raised

about the variety and distribution of

recreation opportunities offered by the

Plans. Changes in Plan direction are

needed in order to improve the quality

of recreation experiences while

providing access for all users.

Some preliminary issues for which

decisions will be made:

All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs)—

Presently, the two National Forests have

different approaches for the use of

ATVs. All areas on the Nicolet are

closed to ATVs with the exception of

use by Forest Service personnel and use

by permit to persons with disabilities.

On the Chequamegon, all areas are open

unless posted closed. The revised Plan
33088 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Notices

will include direction for ATV use that

can be uniformly enforced on both

Forests, emphasizes quality experiences

for both motorized and non-motorized

uses, and reduces conflicts between

motorized and non-motorized users.

The revised Plan will determine

which areas of both Forests are

potentially available for ATV use. Some

areas may be allocated as open for

ATVs, some areas as closed to ATVs,

and some areas in which ATV use will

be limited to designated trails.

Compared to the current Plan, it is

likely that more land may be available

for ATV use on the Nicolet, while less

land may be available for this use on the

Chequamegon.

Motorized and Non-motorized Use—

There is an extensive system of roads

and trails open to motorized vehicles

(eg. cars, trucks, ATVs, snowmobiles, 4-

wheel drive vehicles) which allows

access to nearly every part of both

Forests. The use of motorized vehicles

is often in conflict with uses by people

who are seeking more solitude.

Motorized use can also reduce the

quality of habitat for some wildlife,

because there is a greater potential for

human encounters. The revised Plan

will specify in which parts of the

Forests motorized or non-motorized

uses will be emphasized. This would

enhance the overall recreation quality;

provide adequate access for recreation,

transporting wood products, and

gathering special/miscellaneous forest

products; protect fish and wildlife

habitat; and conserve biological

diversity. The Plan will also set

standards for road density and road

management.

Mix of Recreation Opportunities—The

Chequamegon and Nicolet National

Forests are managed to provide

recreation opportunities within a wide

range of settings. These settings are

categorized using criteria such as the

level of motorized access to lakes and

streams, the scenic conditions, the level

of vegetative management, and the

remoteness of the area. Concerns have

been raised that the present Forest Plan

direction favors roaded and motorized

recreation settings at the expense of

semi-primitive and non-motorized

opportunities. Implementing standards

and guidelines in the current Plans has

not produced visible differences among

recreation settings because there is little

difference in harvest size limits,

silvicultural practices, road density, and

recreational developments between

semi-primitive and roaded-natural

areas.

The revised Forest Plan will change

standards and guidelines for size of

timber harvests and silvicultural

prescriptions so that there is a more

distinct difference in recreation

opportunities between semi-primitive

and roaded-natural areas. The present

land allocations will be reconsidered,

with an emphasis on allocating some

additional semi-primitive, nonmotorized acres and reducing

incompatible uses where possible. The

locations of some present semiprimitive, non-motorized areas on the

Nicolet may change to improve their

compatibility with surrounding Forest

and road settings.

Economic, Social and Biological

Considerations—Year-round outdoor

recreation continues as an important

part of northern Wisconsin’s economy.

As one of many recreation providers in

northern Wisconsin, the Chequamegon

and Nicolet offer a variety of public

forest settings for local and out-of-town

customers. Changes in these

opportunities or in the type or level of

access could result in either growth or

loss of visitors, disruption or local user

activities and impacts on local

communities. For example, a change in

management that alters motorized

access could restrict where and how

some people use the woods. At the same

time, other users may find additional

opportunities. These effects and other

biological effects will be addressed

during Plan revision in perspective with

the Forests’ role for providing access

and outdoor recreation.

Topic: Biological Diversity

The term biological diversity is used

to describe the variety and variability of

life and the ecological complexes in

which they occur. The issue includes

many aspects and is very complex. A

conceptual model identifies three

interrelated components of diversity—

composition, structure and function—

operating at multiple scales and

changing through time. For National

Forest management, it is important that

biological diversity be considered on a

regional (Great Lake States) or subregional (Northwoods) scale that

includes several National Forests and

the public lands around and between

forests that are managed by other

agencies. This kind of analysis is

important because National Forest lands

may be able to compensate for declining

trends in biological diversity on other

lands, or may be able to provide

complementary management

opportunities along Forest boundaries.

The biological diversity issue has

assumed an increasingly important

place in natural resource management

issues. There is a greater awareness of

the complexity of the subject and of the

extent to which some elements of

biological diversity are declining due to

habitat loss or alteration. Some see the

National Forest as playing a role in

slowing the rate at which species are

becoming extinct, slowing the rate at

which biological communities are

becoming simplified and declining in

abundance or size, and in conserving

biological diversity. Other people are

concerned that efforts to protect

biological diversity may result in lower

levels of timber production, limits on

motorized access to some areas, or lower

populations of some game animals. This

subject touches the core values of

people in matters such as relative

importance of commodity and noncommodity forest products, and forest

development versus conservation.

When applied to Chequamegon and

Nicolet National Forest management,

the biological diversity issue results

from a concern that broad-scale

landscape patterns have changed

substantially from a baseline condition

that presumably sustained species and

communities now in decline due to

habitat loss or alteration.

In a forest landscape, the term

‘‘landscape patterns’’ refers to the

spatial arrangement of forest patches

composed or different species or

successional stages. The terms may also

be applied to patches of different land

uses, such as residential, commercial or

agricultural. The change in landscape

patterns that has arisen from human

influences has had a negative effect on

some plant and animal species. Some

effects are direct, such as when primary

habitat is altered. Other changes are

indirect, as when a change in landscape

patterns affects the ability of a species

to disperse or propagate, or when a

species achieves a different competitive

ability relative to other species with

which it formerly coexisted. Some of

these effects are apparent immediate,

while others take many years before

they can be detected.

Current Forest Plans (1986) did not

take a broad-scale approach to the

analysis of biological diversity, nor did

they consider landscape patterns.

Rather, biological diversity was

addressed primarily at small scales as

tree diversity (species, within-stand

vertical structure and age of vegetation)

and as individual species (Endangered,

Threatened, Sensitive and Indicator).

Concern for biological diversity has

been at the heart of challenges to the

current Chequamegon and Nicolet

Forest Plans, both from administrative

appeals and later through a lawsuit. The

Forest Plan needs to be revised to

incorporate these new approaches for

addressing concerns about biological

diversity.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Notices 33089

Some preliminary issues for which

decisions will be made:

Spatial Scale of Reference-Lake States

Area—New scientific information has

shown that maximizing biological

diversity at a small scale may reduce

biological diversity at a broader scale.

An analysis of regional biological

diversity may highlight unique

conditions or capabilities of the

National Forests. The revised Plan will

address the unique role of the

Chequamegon and Nicolet Forests in

conserving biological diversity

regionally. In some cases, this may

mean that National Forest management

may compensate for trends on other

lands by providing habitat that is scarce

regionally.

Old Growth—Old growth forests are

characterized in part by older trees,

trees with cavities, and sizeable coarse

woody material on the forest floor, and

provide ecosystem conditions necessary

for some species. Old growth forests

provide aesthetic values prized by many

people, and in some cases may

contribute to the overall quality of the

forest condition and productivity. For

example, since they typically contain

many snags which provide habitat for

insect eating birds, old growth forest

may play a role in checking the spread

of forest pests. The two 1986 Forest

Plans defined old growth in different

ways, had different standards and

guidelines, and did not contain specific

direction on location. Today, little true

old growth (remnants of original forest)

remains on either forest. The revised

Forest Plan will provide common

definition and specific direction for the

amount, type, distribution, location and

management of old growth. Some

alternatives may provide for old growth

forest within a network of natural areas

to provide older vegetative communities

of forested and non-forested types

through time in a setting where human

influence is minimized on the

Chequamegon and Nicolet National

Forests.

Fragmented Habitats—Fragmentation,

when applied to land management,

results when a large and contiguous

ecosystem is converted to a network of

small patches isolated from each other

by areas of a different ecosystem

condition. Activities such as road

building, logging and agriculture can

contribute to fragmentation. In

escsystem that were formerly openlands

or savannah, widespread planting of

jack pine by the Civilian Conservation

Corp created fragmentation in these

ecosystems. At a landscape scale, the

cumulative effects of small-scale

projects are a reduction in patch size,

increased distance between isolated

patches, and an increase in the amount

of edge habitat. Increased edge habitat

affects species requiring large patches,

(including forest species as well as

open-land species) and can interrupt

species dispersal. Using an ecological

classification system, we will decide on

the amount, location and management

of areas where large forest patches

within the landscape will be

maintained, and we will also maintain

a continuum of other patch sizes.

Mimicking the natural disturbances of

fire, wind, and water in some areas will

also help avoid fragmentation of the

landscape.

Habitat Linkages—This aspect refers

to linking blocks of habitat by corridors

that allow or encourage movement

between them and may increase the

effective size of total habitat for some

species. In some cases, linkages allow

spread of exotic species and undesirable

predators, insects or diseases, so both

positive and negative effects and

characteristic patterns of linkages

among historic ecosystems must be

considered. The revised Plan will

specify what habitats should be linked

to provide for movement of plants and

animals and to increase the effective

size of habitats that are now separated

in space. It will also state how much

area is needed to link habitats with

suitable types of management in the

various corridors.

Ecosystem restoration—This aspect

describes management direction that

would restore and maintain the

structure, function, and composition of

native terrestrial and aquatic

ecosystems. This will involve managing

to maintain species and communities at

risk, to promote old growth or old forest,

to reduce fragmentation, and to restore

ecosystems that are under-represented

within the regional landscape.

Ecosystem restoration may use

management activities that mimic

natural disturbance regimes such as fire

in barrens ecosystems. The revised Plan

will specify the amount, location, and

management for ecosystems that require

restoration work.

Management Indicator Species—

Management indicator species (MIS) are

selected to serve as indicators of change

to the conditions of the habitats they

occupy and to accurately predict the

effects of forest management practices.

Most of the MIS species selected in the

1986 Plans were highly mobile animals

which made discerning changes in

populations of species more difficult.

Also, many of the MIS species were

habitats generalists and did not serve as

the best indicators of change to habitats.

The revised Plan will utilize MIS that

better serve as ecological indicators by

having narrower niches, showing

sensitivity to change and allowing more

accurate monitoring. New indicators of

ecological sustainability may include

some keystone species, floral or faunal

communities, foraging guilds of

animals, landscape patterns, and

ecological processess like regeneration

or nutrient cycling.

Scientific Roundtable on Biological

Diversity—In response to appeals of

Forest Plans for the chequamegon and

Nicolet National Forests, the Chief of

the Forest Service directed these Forests

to establish a ‘‘committee of scientific

experts’’ to address biological diversity

issues. Many of the recommendations of

this group of scientists will be evaluated

for possible inclusion into the revised

Plans as forestwide standards and

guidelines or management area

prescriptions.

Economic, Social and Biological

Considerations—Northern Wisconsin

forests, including the Chequamegon and

Nicolet National Forests, have provided

people and communities a way of life

for thousands of years. Changing

national forest management to address

such complex conditions as biological

diversity raises concern by those who

feel directly affected. Potential

outcomes of Plan revision could include

limits on motorized access and alternate

prescriptions for harvesting timber in

unique areas, possibly impacting area

economies. Managing the Forests as

ecosystems while producing forest

products and conserving diversity may

also improve the quality of the overall

forest condition. Biological, social and

economic effects, trade-offs and benefits

will be addressed during Plan revision.

Topic: Special Land Allocation

Public interest in the allocations of

lands to specific purposes makes special

land allocation a revision topic. Many

people value these areas and feel that

more of Wisconsin’s National Forests

should be assigned to special allocations

in order to address such issues as

conserving biological diversity,

providing primitive recreational

opportunities, providing scientific

research or baseline monitoring,

protecting unique features and

resources, and providing noncommodity values and uses. Many other

people oppose assigning more areas to

special allocations and want to reduce

the current quantity of such allocations.

They are concerned such areas could

limit or reduce recreation use, access, or

traditional economic returns to local

communities from timber harvesting

and tourism.

Some preliminary issues for which

decisions will be made:
33090 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Notices

Wilderness—The 1984 Wisconsin

Wilderness Act requires the Forest

Service to revisit the Wilderness option

when the Forest Plans are revised. The

Forest Service must decide if any

additional areas should be

recommended for designation as

Wilderness by Congress.

Research Natural Areas—Research

Natural Areas (RNA’s) are part of a

national network of ecological areas

designated in perpetuity for research

and education and/or to maintain

biological diversity. Research Natural

Areas will be designated on National

Forest land based on criteria such as

whether a representative or unique

vegetative condition or potential

condition can contribute to the RNA

needs for Region 9, the presence of rare

elements, and the value for scientific

research. The revised Plan may

designate previously identified

Candidate RNA’s or change them to

another land use designation. Other

areas will be evaluated to determine

their suitability as RNA’s or Candidate

RNA’s.

Special Management Areas—These

areas are unique because of their

recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife,

botanic, or heritage (cultural)

characteristics. The revised Plan will

determine if the existing Candidate

Special Management Areas should be

designated and will determine the

suitability of additional areas as Special

Management Areas.

Economic, Social and Biological

Considerations—Allocating lands for

specific purposes will remove land from

other uses, such as commodity

production, but will also provide new

uses such as backcountry experiences,

gathering special/miscellaneous forest

products, and area for scientific research

and monitoring. This decision requires

a difficult balance between human

values, social needs, and the biological

needs of an area or species. Some

people are concerned that such

allocations could reduce traditional

recreation uses, access, and economic

returns to local communities. Potential

benefits and trade-offs for local tourism

and timber economies will be addressed

through the role the Chequamegon and

Nicolet serve in providing special land

areas in northern Wisconsin.

Topic: Timber Production

The production of timber products

and how that relates to the management

of other resources is an important

revision topic. Commodity products

from the National Forests provide raw

materials important to local industries—

industries that affect the economic and

social fabric of the local communities.

How the Forests are managed to

produce those commodities greatly

affects other aspects of National Forest

management such as biological

diversity, available recreation

experiences, and game and non-game

animal habitats. In some cases, timber

production and vegetation management

are conducted to accomplish objectives

for wildlife, recreation or visual quality.

While most of the issues considered in

the revision effort are interrelated, the

issues of timber production and

vegetation management directly affects

almost all other issues.

Some preliminary issues for which

decisions will be made:

Subregional Scale-Biological Diversity

and Efficiencies—Interpreting an

analysis of conditions in the Lake States

area suggests that the National Forests

may have a role in compensating for

conditions and trends elsewhere in the

area. Because of this, it may be

determined that there is a specific and

unique opportunity for the National

Forests to provide habitat that is scarce

or declining elsewhere. These

opportunities may lead to a change in

focus from some of the cover types

prescribed in the current Forest Plans

(1986) toward an emphasis on scarcer

types. Further, economic analyses may

indicate that there are efficiencies in

featuring certain types in specific

locations.

Allocation of Forest Cover Types—

The existing Forest Plans allocate

portions of the two Forests to various

management area prescriptions. These

prescriptions, among other things,

describe the type of harvesting that will

predominate in each management area.

The spatial locations of these

prescriptions will be reconsidered

during the revision, as will some of the

aspects of the prescriptions themselves.

One important objective of the revision

will be to better match the management

prescriptions with the capabilities of the

land and with the demands for products

while considering biological diversity.

Vegetation Management Standards

and Guidelines—Within each

management area and over the Forests

as a whole, the Forest Plans provide

direction for vegetation management

practices through standards and

guidelines. Some of these may be

modified and others may be added or

deleted during the revision. For

example, experience during

implementation of the Plans has shown

that guidelines for treating limbs and

tree tops left after logging may need to

be changed to accomplish visual quality

goals more efficiently. Under some

alternatives considered, additional

standards and guidelines may need to

be developed for vegetation

management adjacent to riparian areas

and areas unique to conserving

biological diversity. These guidelines

could shield the unique areas from

negative effects of wildlife predation or

increased levels of light and wind.

Timber Harvest Levels—Under law,

forest plans include an estimate of the

allowable sale quantity (ASQ) for each

national forest. This volume is a ceiling,

or maximum level of timber sale outputs

that can be achieved during a decade of

implementing a forest plan. The ASQ

for the Nicolet National Forest under the

current Plan was estimated to be about

970 million board feet (MMBF) for the

first decade. In practice, this has not

been achieved for a variety of reasons:

the extent and severity of tree mortality

and growth reduction due to drought,

insects and disease were not adequately

understood or incorporated into the

growth and yield models; the actual

amount of land suitable for timber

production is less than originally

thought; and the effects of some land

allocations and practices were not fully

anticipated. Under the revised Plan, the

ASQ will be determined more

accurately, taking into account the

factors listed and using a variety of

techniques.

Economic, Social and Biological

Considerations—Following the decline

of the early logging era, Forest Service

management focused on rehabilitating

the northern Wisconsin forests. Timber

production was high in response to

increasing demands. Many local

communities came to rely on steady or

growing supplies of national forest

resources. Recent decades have brought

major changes in public expectations

and values related to the national

forests. Concerns about ecosystem

condition, biological diversity, and the

economic benefits of tourism now join

long-held interests in timber and fish

and wildlife. Changes in management

direction for the Chequamegon and

Nicolet National Forests may affect the

types, quantities, and source locations

of timber products from the Forests.

Area communities are concerned about

losing timber-related jobs and related

economic impacts if timber production

declines. However, managing the

Forests as intact ecosystems over the

long term may eventually result in

improved timber growth, higher value

products, and increased revenue from

tourism. Potential effects, such as these,

will be addressed through Plan revision.

E. What Will Not Be Addressed or

Changed in the Revised Plan

Although many decisions relate to

managing a National Forest, some
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Notices 33091

decisions, such as treaties, laws, rights,

and regulations, are beyond the scope of

what can be decided in a Forest Plan.

Other decisions deal with implementing

projects or enforcing regulations. These

are also beyond what can be decided in

a Forest Plan.

Another category includes decisions

that can be decided in a Forest Plan, but

do not need to be re-visited at this time.

The revision of an existing Forest Plan

should concentrate only on those parts

of the Plan that truly need changing.

Decisions made in the initial Forest Plan

that work well will be carried over into

the revised Plan with few, if any,

changes.

The following is a list of items that we

will not be deciding in the revised

Forest Plan:

Existing Rights

American Indian Treaty Rights—

American Indian communities bring

long histories of traditional use to the

Forests similar to their uses on tribal

lands. Tribal members rely upon fish,

wildlife and plants for religious,

ceremonial, medicinal, subsistence and

economic purposes. It is to maintain

this lifeway that various treaties

between the United States and a number

of Indian Tribes located near the

Chequamegon and Nicolet National

Forests guarantee the Tribes’ right to

hunt, fish and gather in those Forests. In

addition, historically and presently, the

conservation of the natural resources

subject to the treaty rights is a necessary

and integral part of tribal culture and

sovereignty. In revising the Forest Plan,

the Forest Service will honor the treaty

obligations toward those Tribes that

retain hunting, fishing, and gathering

rights on Chequamegon and Nicolet

National Forest lands. These rights are

part of existing law. Their existence and

nature are beyond the scope of the

Forest Plan and are not a decision to be

made in the Revised Forest Plan. As part

of its overall efforts to ensure that it

honors these rights and its

responsibilities toward nearby Indian

Tribes, the Forest Service routinely will

consult and exchange information with

those Tribes on a government-togovernment basis throughout the Forest

Plan revision process to develop goals,

standards, and guidelines needed to

ensure the exercise of these treaty rights.

Rights of Private Property—The

revised Plan only makes decisions that

apply to National Forest System lands.

The Revised Plan will make no

decisions regarding management or use

of privately owned lands or reserved

and outstanding mineral estates.

Rights of Other Ownership—The

revised Plan will make no decisions

regarding state, county, industrial, or

other federal (such as National

Lakeshore, or National Wildlife Refuge)

forest lands.

Rights of Existing Permittees and

Easement Holders—Many people and

businesses hold special use permits and

easements for various permitted uses

within the Chequamegon and Nicolet

National Forests. These include permits

such as: recreation summer homes,

special-use roads, and utility corridors.

The revised Forest Plan will not re-visit

decisions on existing permits and

easements. As they are renewed, it may

be necessary to make changes in the

terms of permits and easements to

achieve consistency with revised

standards and guidelines.

Law, National Policy and Decisions Not

Within Forest Service Authority

Existing Wildernesses—The Rainbow

Lake and Porcupine Lake Wildernesses

on the Chequamegon National Forest

and the Blackjack Springs, Headwaters,

and Whisker Lake Wildernesses on the

Nicolet National Forest were established

by law. Considering these areas for nonWilderness management is beyond the

scope of the revised Forest Plan. Minor

changes in the standards and guidelines

for managing these areas may be

considered in the revised Plan.

Baiting for Deer and Bear—On March

20, 1995, the Forest Service adopted a

national policy on all baiting connected

with hunting which states that National

Forests will adopt state wildlife laws

and regulations affecting the taking of

resident game animals. Therefore, the

practice of baiting on National Forest

lands in Wisconsin will be the same as

the state regulations on baiting

elsewhere in Wisconsin. This policy

does allow for area closures when Plan

goals would direct protecting sensitive

areas.

Use of Motors on Lakes—The

authority for regulating the size and use

of motors on lakes within the

Chequamegon and Nicolet National

Forests rests with local governments,

unless superseded by Federal law (such

as Congressional designation of

Wilderness). Therefore, these

regulations are outside the scope of

decisions that can be made in a Forest

Plan.

Topics Where Little or No Change Is

Warranted

Minerals Management—Overall, the

existing policy on managing the Federal

minerals resource on these two National

Forests has been working well. Some

changes will likely be made to the

standards and guidelines to provide

consistency between the two Forests

and to provide a higher degree of

resource protection within our legal

jurisdiction.

Wild and Scenic River

Recommendations—The 1986 Forest

Plans identified parts of six rivers

flowing through Wisconsin National

Forests to be studied for inclusion in the

National Wild, Scenic and Recreational

Rivers system. An eligibility

determination has been made on these

rivers. Present Forest Plan direction

protects the qualities of the rivers until

these studies and recommendations for

Congressional action are complete. After

discussions with the Administration,

Congressional representatives, and local

river groups, it appears that now is not

the time for such legislative action since

making such a suitability determination

and recommendation to Congress

involves a detailed and expensive

process.

As a result, no further suitability

determination will be made in Plan

revision. However, because the

Chequamegon and Nicolet Forest Plans

differ in the management area

designation for these candidate rivers,

the revised plan will make the changes

necessary to provide consistent

direction for the river corridors.

Standards and guidelines will also be

changed to provide direction for

vegetation management consistent with

the river corridor objective and ROS

setting.

Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Forest

Roads—The use of street-legal offhighway vehicles (4 wheel drive trucks,

motorbikes) will continue to be allowed

on all National Forest roads except

those that are closed by signing, gating,

or other road closure device.

Snowmobile Use—The general policy

that snowmobiles can be operated on

designated trails and on unplowed

roads will not be revisited. Some

changes will be made to provide

consistency between the two Forests.

Visual Quality Objectives—Although

there have been some problems with the

way the 1986 Forest Plans manage for

visual and scenic quality on the

Chequamegon and Nicolet National

Forests, those problems center on the

size limits of harvest treatments in

visually sensitive areas. The visual

quality objectives (VQO) system appears

to be working reasonably well, with

visually sensitive areas generally being

adequately protected. Therefore, the

visual quality objectives system will

continue to be used in the revised Forest

Plan. However, the clearcut limits in the

VQO system will be reviewed and better

defined. Travel routes and water bodies

will be reviewed to determine if their

VQO classification is appropriate. Some
33092 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Notices

changes to standards and guidelines

may also need to be made to assure

consistency between the two National

Forests.

Developed Recreation Facilities—The

revised Forest Plan will not include

decisions on closing existing developed

recreational facilities (campgrounds,

picnic sites, boat launching ramps,

trailheads, swimming beaches) nor will

it propose that new facilities be built.

Existing sites will continue to be

operated as specified in the current

Forest Plans.

Exceptions to this will be made on a

case-by-case basis.

Research Natural Areas—The revised

Forest Plan will not revisit the

designation of existing Research Natural

Areas.

F. Alternatives in the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement

The Forest Service will develop

several revision alternatives in the DEIS.

These alternatives will consider

different ways to address the need to

change the current Plan based on the

major revision issues discussed above.

The alternatives will include ‘‘no

action’’ which is a continuation of

current direction contained in the 1986

Chequamegon and Nicolet Forest Plans.

Dated: June 20, 1996.

Robert T. Jacobs,

Regional Forester.

[FR Doc. 96–16285 Filed 6–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

Southwest Washington Provincial

Advisory Committee Meeting Notice

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Southwest Washington

Provincial Advisory Committee will

meet on July 11, 1996, at the Lewis

County Senior Center in Packwood,

Washington. The purpose of the meeting

is to determine Advisory Committee

vision and work priorities based on

subcommittee recommendations. The

meeting will begin at 1:30 p.m. and

continue until 5 p.m. The meeting will

resume at 6:30 p.m. and conclude at

8:30 p.m. Agenda items to be covered

include: (1) Subcommittee

recommendations on Advisory

Committee vision and work priorities,

(2) Information sharing on Cispus

Adaptive Management Area process, (3)

Update on Advisory Committee Charter

Renewals, (4) presentation on Forest

Plan Allocations and their relationship

to timber harvest levels, (5) Forest

monitoring committee update, and (6)

Public Open Forum.

All Southwest Washington Provincial

Advisory Committee meetings are open

to the public. Interested citizens are

encouraged to attend. This open forum

provides opportunity for the public to

bring issues, concerns, and discussion

topics to the Advisory Committee. The

open forum is scheduled as part of

agenda item (1) for this meeting.

Interested speakers will need to register

prior to the open forum period. The

committee welcomes the public’s

written comments on committee

business at any time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions regarding this meeting

to Sue Lampe, Public Affairs, at (360)

750–5091, or write Forest Headquarters

Office, Gifford Pinchot National Forest,

P.O. Box 8944, Vancouver, WA 98668–

8944.

Dated: June 19, 1996.

Robert L. Yoder,

Advisory Committee Staff Officer.

[FR Doc. 96–16238 Filed 6–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

National Resources Conservation

Service

West Carroll Watershed Project, West

Carroll Parish, Louisiana

AGENCY: Natural Resources

Conservation Service, Agriculture.

ACTION: Notice of Intention to Delete

Structural Measures and Close the

Project.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Watershed

Protection and Flood Prevention Act,

Public Law 83–566, and the Natural

Resources Conservation Service

Watershed Manual (390–V–NWSM, 2nd

ed. 12/92), the Natural Resources

Conservation Service gives notice of the

intent to delete proposed channel

improvements and close-out the West

Carroll Watershed Project in West

Carroll Parish, Louisiana, by

withdrawing further Federal assistance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald W. Gohmert, State

Conservationist, 3737 Government

Street, Alexandria, Louisiana 71302;

telephone number (318) 473–7751.

West Carroll Watershed, Louisiana

Notice of Intent to Withdraw Federal

Assistance

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

determination has been made by Paul

W. Johnson, Chief, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, that because of

significant environmental concerns that

have not been addressed by the local

sponsors, Federal funding will be

withdrawn from this project. The

sponsoring local organizations have not

concurred in this recommendation.

Information regarding this

determination may be obtained from

Donald W. Gohmert, State

Conservationist, at the above address

and telephone number.

No administrative action on

implementation of this proposed

withdrawal of funding will be taken

until 60 days after the date of this

publication in the Federal Register.

Dated: June 11, 1996.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 10.904, Watershed Protection

and Flood Prevention. Office of Management

and Budget Circular A–95 regarding state and

local clearinghouse review of Federal and

federally assisted programs and projects is

applicable.)

Donald W. Gohmert,

State Conservationist.

[FR Doc. 96–16206 Filed 6–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–16–M

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting

of the Alabama Advisory Committee

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to

the provisions of the rules and

regulations of the U.S. Commission on

Civil Rights, that a meeting of the

Alabama Advisory Committee to the

Commission will convene at 5:30 p.m.

and adjourn at 10:30 p.m. on Tuesday,

July 2, 1996, at the Paramount High

School, Highway 20, Boligee, Alabama.

The purpose of the meeting is to allow

Committee members to receive a

briefing on race relations issues in the

aftermath of church burnings.

Persons desiring additional

information, or planning a presentation

to the Committee, should contact

Melvin L. Jenkins, Director of the

Central Regional Office, 913–551–1400

(TDD 913–551–1414). Hearing-impaired

persons who will attend the meeting

and require the services of a sign

language interpreter should contact the

Regional Office at least five (5) working

days before the scheduled date of the

meeting.

The meeting will be conducted

pursuant to the provisions of the rules

and regulations of the Commission.

Dated at Washington, DC, June 20, 1996.

Carol-Lee Hurley,

Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

[FR Doc. 96–16305 Filed 6–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P