10008 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Notices

but that are not raised until the

completion of the final EIS, may be

waived or dismissed by the court. City

of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2nd 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 on the draft EIS, so

that substantive comments and

objections are made available to the

Forest Service at a time when they can

be meaningfully considered and

respond to them in the final EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns of the proposed action,

comments on the draft EIS should be as

specific as possible. It is also helpful if

comments refer to specific pages or

chapters of the draft statement.

Comments may address the adequacy of

the draft EIS, or the merits of the

alternatives formulated and discussed in

the statement. Reviewers may wish to

refer to the Council on Environmental

Quality Regulations for implementing

the procedural provisions of the

National Environmental Policy Act in

40 CFR 1503.3, in addressing these

points.

Permits/Authorizations: The proposed

action will require one or more sitespecific amendments to the Bitterroot

Forest Plan. Rodd Richardson, Forest

Supervisor, Bitterroot National Forest, is

the responsible official for the Plan

amendments.

Responsible Official: Rodd

Richdardson, Forest Supervisor,

Bitterroot National Forest, is the

responsible official. In making the

decision, the responsible official will

consider the comments; responses;

disclosure of environmental

consequences; and applicable law,

regulations, and policies. The

responsible official will state the

rationale for the chosen alternative in

the Record of Decision.

Dated: February 2, 2001.

Rodd Richardson,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 01–3592 Filed 2–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Bar T Bar and Anderson Springs

Allotment Management Plan EIS

Southwestern Region, Arizona,

Coconino County, Coconino National

Forest

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The Coconino National Forest

is planning to prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement on a proposal to issue

term grazing permits and develop

allotment management plans for the

next 10 years for the Bar T Bar and

Anderson Springs Allotments, an area

encompassing approximately 229,562

acres of National Forest System lands on

the Blue Ridge and Mormon Lake

Ranger Districts of the Coconino

National Forest, Coconino County,

Arizona. The purpose of the proposal is

to analyze the effects of livestock

grazing, coordinate livestock

management with other resource needs,

decrease canopy densities in pinyonjuniper and ponderosa pine vegetation

types in historical grasslands, improve

habitat conditions for pronghorn

antelope, increase cool season plants,

and to revise the allotment management

plans (AMP’s) for the Bar T Bar and

Anderson Springs Allotments.

DATES: Comments in response to this

Notice of Intent concerning the scope of

the analysis should be received in

writing on or before March 15, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

USDA Forest Service, Coconino

National Forest, Larry Sears, District

Ranger, Mogollon Rim Center, HC 31,

Box 212, Happy Jack, AZ 86024.

Electronic mail may be sent to

ehumphrey@fs.fed.us. See the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for

additional information about electronic

mailing.

Responsible Official: Jim Golden, the

Forest Supervisor of the Coconino

National Forest, Supervisor’s Office,

2323 E. Greenlaw Lane, Flagstaff AZ

86004, will decide what actions are

most appropriate for Bar T Bar and

Anderson Springs Allotment

Management Plan EIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth

Humphrey, Project Leader, (520) 477–

2255.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forest

Service proposes to revise the allotment

management plans on the Bar T Bar and

Anderson Springs Allotments on the

Blue Ridge and Mormon Lake Ranger

Districts.

The environmental analysis process

for these allotments was initiated on

January 4, 1999. The Diablo Trust, an

incorporated non-profit land

management collaborative team in the

Flagstaff, Arizona area, developed the

proposed action. The proposed action

was adopted by the Forest Service to be

taken through the National

Environmental Policy Act procedures.

An Interdisciplinary Team of Forest

Service resource specialists was selected

based on proposed management

practices, current uses, and anticipated

concerns with management of these

allotments.

The proposed action proposes to issue

term grazing permits on the Bar T Bar

and Anderson Springs Allotments.

Permitted livestock numbers would be

18,050 Head Months on the Bar T Bar

Allotment and 6,036 Head Month’s on

the Anderson Springs Allotment. This

plan focuses on the use of plant

recovery and timing of grazing and rest

to achieve goals, rather than setting

utilization limits. Planned livestock

grazing would be used to meet

management objectives and to provide

for maximum flexibility to meet

resource needs. Collaboration between

the Forest Service, the Diablo Trust, the

permittees, Arizona State Lands

Department, Arizona Game and Fish

Department, and Coconino County is

emphasized in meeting desired

conditions for the area. The livestock

grazing strategy on the Bar T Bar

Allotment would use a combination of

rest rotation and deferred rotation

grazing with a season of use from

approximately May through October

each year. The livestock grazing strategy

on the Anderson Springs Allotment

would be a combination of deferred restrotation and time-controlled grazing

from approximately June through

October each year.

Grassland restoration and

maintenance treatments are proposed on

63,730 acres in pinyon-juniper

woodland and ponderosa pine

vegetation types using a variety of

treatment methods. These treatments are

proposed to restore and maintain native

grasslands, increase plant cover and

litter, improve soil conditions, provide

for wildlife movements, and increase

plant diversity, especially in cool season

species. Approximately 61.6 miles of

new fencing, 19.8 miles of fence

removal, 3.74 miles of fence

reconstruction, and 8.95 miles of fence

replacement are proposed which would

split large pastures, provide for

improved livestock distribution, provide

for increased pasture rest, and increase

efficiency in livestock management.

Five new stock ponds are proposed, as

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Notices 10009

well as reconstriction of two existing

water developments. Existing fences

would be upgraded to wildlife

specifications. Approximately 19.0

miles of road maintenance and

reconstruction is proposed.

During the public comment period on

the Proposed Action, issues were raised

that resulted in the development of

additional alternatives to the Proposed

Action. The alternatives differ in the

type of grazing strategy used, utilization

levels, permitted numbers of livestock,

location and type of vegetation

treatments, amount and type of

structural improvements, and levels of

monitoring proposed. The alternatives

are briefly described below.

• No Action (Continue Current

Management)—The current livestock

grazing strategy and permitted numbers

would continue for the next ten years.

A new 10-year term grazing permit

would be issued for both allotments and

a new allotment management plan

would be written. No new actions

would be planned.

• No Grazing—No livestock grazing

would be allowed for the next 10-year

period. Term Grazing Permits would not

be issued for either allotment. No new

actions would be planned.

• Proposed Action—The actions

proposed above would be implemented.

• Rest Rotation Grazing Strategy with

Least Fencing—The current livestock

grazing strategy on the Anderson

Springs Allotment would be changed to

a rest-rotation system. Permitted

livestock numbers would be reduced on

both allotments and maximum

allowable utilization levels would be

reduced. No new fencing would be

constructed on the Anderson Springs

Allotment, and new fencing proposed

on the Bar T Bar Allotment would be

reduced to half that of the proposed

action. A riparian pasture would be

constructed around Soldier Annex Lake.

Five study plots would be constructed

to provide information about pronghorn

antelope habitat. No road maintenance

is proposed. Vegetation treatments

would be modified, with approximately

50,615 acres of grassland restoration and

maintenance proposed. Water

developments would remain the same

as proposed in the Proposed Action.

• Modified Proposed Action

(Remapping)—The proposed action

would be implemented as described

above, with the following exceptions.

Mapping changes resulted in a

reduction in the proposed vegetation

treatments to approximately 50,615

acres. A riparian pasture would be

constructed around Soldier Annex Lake.

Five pronghorn antelope study plots

would be constructed. The livestock

grazing strategy would be the same as

proposed in the Proposed Action, with

the same permitted livestock numbers.

A range of maximum utilization levels

would be set for both allotments.

Fences, water developments, and road

and trail maintenance would be the

same as in the Proposed Action.

Decision To Be Made

The Coconino National Forest

Supervisor is the Deciding Official for

this project. He will decide what actions

are most appropriate for managing the

Bar T Bar and Anderson Springs

Allotments for the next 10 years. The

Forest Supervisor may select any of the

management alternatives presented, or

may select a management alternative

that is different or includes portions of

these alternatives. If a livestock grazing

alternative is selected, the Forest

Supervisor’s decision will include the

maximum permitted number of

livestock for these allotments, the

grazing strategy to use, and the number

and type of range structural and nonstructural improvements. He will also

approve the monitoring plan and

authorize a 10-year Term Permit for

livestock grazing on this allotment.

Preliminary Issues

Issues identified previous scoping

efforts included effects of the proposed

action on habitat for pronghorn antelope

on Anderson Mesa, concern with

livestock numbers on both allotments,

the use of time-controlled grazing in

some areas on the Anderson Springs

Allotment, and the economics of

implementing the Proposed Action.

Public Involvement, Rationale, and

Public Meetings

In April 1999, a scoping letter

summarizing the proposed action was

sent out to a mailing list of

approximately 700 interested

individuals. This letter invited public

comment for a period of 30 days. The

Proposed Action was also made

available through the Diablo Trust’s

website and copies of the proposed

action and scoping letter were placed at

several locations in the Flagstaff area, as

well as at the Blue Ridge District Office

and Happy Jack Visitor Center.

Additional public comments were

received after the initial comment

period and have been accepted

throughout the analysis period. An open

house was held on April 21, 1999 to

familiarize the public with the Proposed

Action and to solicit public comments.

comments received during this scoping

period have already been incorporated

into the analysis.

While public participation in this

analysis is welcome at any time,

comments received within 30 days of

the publication of this notice will be

especially useful in the preparation of

the draft and final EIS.

Electronic Access and Filing Addresses

Comments may be sent by electronic

mail (e-mail) to ehumphrey@fs.fed.us.

Please reference the Bar T Bar and

Anderson Springs Allotment

Management Plan EIS on the subject

line. Please include your name and

physical mailing address with your

comments so documents pertaining to

this project may be mailed to you.

Estimated Dates for Filing

The Draft EIS is expected to be filed

with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and to be available for

public review in March 2001. 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. It is very important that

those interested in the management of

this area participate at that time.

The final EIS is scheduled to be

completed by July 2001. 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.

The Reviewers Obligation To Comment

The Forest Service believes it is

important to give reviewers notice at

this early stage 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 is

meaningful and alerts an agency to the

reviewer’s position and contentions.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also,

environmental objections that could be

raised at the draft environmental impact

statement stage but that are not raised

until after completion of the final

environmental impact statement may be

waived or dismissed by the courts.

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

10010 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Notices

are made available to the Forest Service

at a time when it can meaningfully

consider them and respond to them in

the final environmental impact

statement.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns on the proposed action,

comments on the draft environmental

impact statement should be as specific

as possible. It is also helpful if

comments refer to specific pages or

chapters of the draft statement.

Comments may also address the

adequacy of the draft environmental

impact statement or the merits of the

alternatives formulated and discussed in

the statement. Reviewers may wish to

refer to the Council on Environmental

Quality Regulations for implementing

the procedural provisions of the

national Environmental Policy Act at 40

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

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. 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 Council of 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 US 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.

Hodel, 9th Circuit, 1986) and Wisconsin

Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F.

Supp.1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). The

reason for this is to ensure that

substantive comments and objections

are made available to the Forest Service

at a time when it can meaningfully

consider them in the final

environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns on the proposed action,

comments on the draft environmental

impact statement should be as specific

as possible. It is also helpful if

comments refer to specific pages or

chapters of the draft statement.

Comments may also address the

adequacy of the draft environmental

impact statement or the merits of the

alternatives formulated and discussed in

the statement. Reviewers may wish to

refer to the Council on Environmental

Quality Regulations for implementing

the procedural provisions of the

National Environmental Policy Act at 40

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Dated: February 7, 2001.

Karyl Georgio,

Acting Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 01–3591 Filed 2–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket No. 67–2000]

Foreign-Trade Zone 115—Beaumont,

TX; Application for Expansion;

Amendment of Application—Sun Pipe

Line Facility

Notice is hereby given that the

application by the Foreign-Trade Zone

of Southeast Texas, Inc., grantee of

Foreign-Trade Zone 115, requesting

authority to expand its zone to include

a petroleum terminal in Nederland

(Jefferson County), Texas, (65 FR 77560,

12/12/00), has been amended to include

nine petroleum product storage tanks

within the tank farm area of the

proposed expansion site. The nine tanks

are currently part of Subzone 116B, Site

4 (Fina). This proposal would remove

them from Subzone 116B and include

them within Zone 115.

The application remains otherwise

unchanged.

The comment period is reopened

until February 21, 2001.

Dated: February 7, 2001.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–3639 Filed 2–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 8–2001]

Foreign-Trade Zone 122—Corpus

Christi, TX Application for Subzone

Status International Resistive

Company Plant (Resistors), Corpus

Christi, Texas

An application has been submitted to

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) by the Port of Corpus Christi

Authority, grantee of FTZ 122,

requesting special-purpose subzone

status for the electronic resistor

manufacturing plant of International

Resistive Company (IRC) (a subsidiary

of TT Group PLC, of the United

Kingdom), located in Corpus Christi,

Texas. The application was submitted

pursuant to the provisions of the

Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended

(19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the regulations

of the Board (15 CFR Part 400). It was

formally filed on February 6, 2001.

The IRC plant (8 acres/129,000 sq. ft./

320 employees) is located 4222 South

Staples Street, Corpus Christi, Texas.

The facility is used to produce

electronic resistors (HTSUS#

8533.29.0000, 8533.40.8000) for export

and the domestic market. The

production process involves design,

assembly, testing, and warehousing.

Components purchased from abroad

(representing 50 to 65% of overall

value) include: silicone adhesive,

resistor leads, and copper conductors

(duty rate range: 1–10%).

FTZ procedures would exempt IRC

from Customs duty payments on the

foreign components used in export

production (1% of shipments). On its

domestic sales, the company would be

able to choose the duty rate that applies

to finished resistors (duty free) for the

foreign inputs noted above. No local

inventory tax exemption is included as

a proposed benefit. The application

indicates that subzone status would

help improve the plant’s international

competitiveness.

In accordance with the Board’s

regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff

has been designated examiner to

investigate the application and report to

the Board.

Public comment on the application is

invited from interested parties.

Submissions (original and three copies)

shall be addressed to the Board’s

Executive Secretary at the address

below. The closing period for their

receipt is April 16, 2001. Rebuttal

comments in response to material

submitted during the foregoing period

may be submitted during the subsequent

15-day period (to April 30, 2001).

A copy of the application and the

accompanying exhibits will be available

for public inspection at each of the

following locations:

Office of the Port Director, U.S.

Customs Service-Corpus Christi, Room

305, 400 Mann Street, Corpus Christi,

TX 78401.

Office of the Executive Secretary,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Room 4008,

14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230–0002.