13700 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2001 / Notices

• What issues or concerns about the

distribution of ORV baits by air and

ground should we analyze?

• What other issues or concerns about

the proposed action do you think we

should address?

• What alternatives to the proposed

action should we analyze?

• Do you have any information (i.e.,

scientific data or studies) that we should

consider in the analysis?

Information received will be

considered in an environmental

assessment (EA) prepared in accordance

with the National Environmental Policy

Act.

Issues and alternatives identified thus

far. Several issues have already been

identified as areas of concern for

consideration in the EA:

• Potential for adverse effects on

people that become exposed to the

vaccine or the baits.

• Potential for adverse effects on

nontarget wildlife species that might

consume the baits.

• Potential for adverse effects on pet

dogs or other domestic animals that

might consume the baits.

• Potential for aerially dropped baits

to strike and injure people or domestic

animals.

• Cost of the program in comparison

to perceived benefits.

• Humaneness of methods used to

collect wild animal specimens critical

for timely program evaluation.

Other issues may also be included in

the analysis and will be identified based

on comments obtained through

gathering information from the public

and other agencies. Several alternatives

that have been identified for

consideration are:

• No involvement by APHIS–WS in

rabies prevention or control.

• Implement the proposed action.

• Live capture of species being

targeted (e.g., raccoon, gray fox, coyotes)

followed by administration of rabies

vaccines by injection and release back

into the wild.

• Provide resources for ORV bait

distribution without collection of wild

animal specimens by APHIS–WS for

monitoring purposes.

Other alternatives may also be

included in the analysis based on

comments obtained through gathering

information from the public and other

agencies.

Availability of additional information.

Further information on rabies and ORV

may be obtained from CDC Internet

website (http://www.cdc.gov) and from

the vaccine manufacturer, Merial (http:/

/www.merial.com, e-mail:

raboral@merial.com). Further

information on the status of ORV

program planning efforts within the

involved individual States may be

available by contacting individual State

health departments. Links to individual

State health department Internet

websites are available on the CDC

Internet website. Information regarding

APHIS–WS rabies control activities may

be obtained by calling or writing the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

Done in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of

March 2001.

Bobby R. Acord,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 01–5590 Filed 3–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–U

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot

Project, Nez Perce National Forest,

Idaho County, ID

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare

environmental impact statement.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7)

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will

prepare an environmental impact

statement to disclose the environmental

impacts of implementing vegetation and

watershed restoration activities and

modification of the transportation

system within the Meadow Face

analysis area. Individuals interested in

actions of this nature are encouraged to

submit comments and become involved

in the planning process.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope

of the analysis should be received at the

address below on or before April 6,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Darcy Pederson, District Ranger, Route 2

Box 475, Grangeville, ID 83530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Heather Berg, Project Coordinator, (208)

983–1983.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot Project

area is located on the Nez Perce

National Forest in northern Idaho

within Idaho County. The project area

lies approximately 7 air miles southeast

of Grangeville Idaho. The project area

encompasses 27,000 acres and includes

Meadow, Wickiup and Ralph Smith

Creek watersheds, which drain directly

into the South Fork Clearwater River.

The Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot

Project was authorized under the 1999

Department of Interior Appropriations

Bill (Section 347). This legislation

authorized 28 pilot projects to test

contracting mechanisms that allow the

exchange of goods for services, retention

of receipts, and end-result rather than

prescriptive contract specifications. The

legislative intent includes meeting local

and rural community needs and

provided a clear expectation for the

pilot projects to be developed

cooperatively with local and affected

communities.

The proposed activities described

below were developed cooperatively

with a local citizens group called the

Stewards of the Nez Perce Forest. This

group worked with the Forest Service to

review the ecological conditions in the

analysis area as described in the South

Fork Clearwater River Landscape

Assessment (USFS, Nez Perce National

Forest, 1998) and Meadow Face

Ecosystem Assessment at the Watershed

Scale (USFS, Nez Perce National Forest,

1999) and make recommendations for

actions to address current undesirable

conditions while meeting the objectives

of the Nez Perce Forest Plan.

The actions proposed for

implementation include modifying

vegetation through timber harvest and

prescribed burning to achieve forest

conditions which more closely resemble

historic. The analysis area includes both

low elevation, dry, ponderosa pine and

mid-elevation, moist, fir vegetation

types. Due to fire suppression and other

past management activities the

vegetation is denser with increased

shrubs and small trees. These

conditions result in increased fire risk

and susceptibility to drought, insects

and disease. To address these

conditions, approximately 5700 acres of

harvest and 7300 acres of prescribed

burning is proposed.

In addition to the vegetation

conditions described above, the analysis

area has non-native and noxious plant

species present. To address this

condition, approximately 230 acres of

herbicide application and native species

restoration is proposed.

As part of the Meadow Face proposal,

the transportation system of roads and

trails in the area would also be modified

to reduce adverse effects of the road

system on forest resources, particularly

soil and water. To address these

conditions, approximately 80 miles of

road decommissioning would occur.

Road decommissioning would return

these road segments to forest production

and they would no longer be available

as transportation routes.

Some streams in the analysis area

have been affected by the transportation

system, past vegetation manamagement

and grazing. These streams would be

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2001 / Notices 13701

restored by relocating the channels to

their natural course, addition of woody

debris and rock structures, and

revegetation. These activities would

occur in approximately 5 miles of

stream.

Following the cooperative project

development process, the proposed

actions were scoped with the public in

the summer of 2000 including a direct

mailing to over 400 individuals in

August and a field trip in September.

Approximately 20 letters were received

in response to the original scoping, and

27 individual attended the field trip.

Based on the comments received, the

following issues with the proposed

action been identified: (1) Effects to the

aquatic environment; (2) Effects to old

and mature forest and dependent

species; (3) Use of timber harvest,

prescribed burning and herbicides as

forest management tools and; (4) Effects

to motorized recreation opportunities.

To address the issues identified

above, alternatives to the proposed

action have been developed. These

alternatives propose varying levels of

activities from those previously

described. Some alternatives would

require amendment of the Nez Perce

Forest Plan to allow vegetation

management within delineated old

growth (Management Area 20). Some of

the harvest proposed would exceed 40

acres in size and would require

approval from the Regional Forester

(Northern Region). Some of the

activities associated with road repair

and decommissioning and stream

channel restoration would require

permits from the Corps of Engineers to

authorize work within a stream’s high

water mark.

The decisions to be made in response

to this analysis include (1) Are

vegetation management activities

needed and if so where, when and how

would they be implemented? (2) What

transportation system is necessary in the

analysis area and how will it be

managed? (3) How will the roads

identified as excess be returned to forest

production? (4) Are the stream channel

restoration activities necessary and if so

where, when and how would they be

implemented? (5) What mitigation is

needed to assure forest management

activities are consistent with the Nez

Perce Forest Plan and environmental

law? (6) Is an amendment to the Nez

Perce Forest Plan necessary to

implement the proposed actions? (7)

What implementation and effectiveness

monitoring is needed?

The responsible official for this

project is the Nez Perce Forest

Supervisor. Comments to this notice

should be sent to the address and

contacts identified above and should be

submitted within 30 days of publication

of this notice in the Federal Register. A

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) is expected to be available in April

2001 and a Final EIS in July 2001.

Should an action alternative be selected,

implementation would be initiated in

2002. Implementation of any or all of

the actions authorized with this

decision may occur utilizing the

stewardship contracting authorities

granted in Section 347 of the 1999

Interior Appropriations Bill.

The comment period on the draft

environmental impact statement will be

45 days from the date the

Environmental Protection Agency

publishes the notice of availability in

the Federal Register.

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 it is

meaningful and alerts an agency to the

reviewer’s position and contentions.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.

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

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

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.).

Dated: February 27, 2001.

Michael J. Cook,

Acting Forest Supervisor, Nez Perce National

Forest.

[FR Doc. 01–5593 Filed 3–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[Docket No. 960223046–1049–06; I.D.

011801D]

RIN 0648–ZA09

Financial Assistance for Research and

Development Projects to Strengthen

and Develop the U.S. Fishing Industry

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of solicitation for

applications.

SUMMARY: NMFS (hereinafter ‘‘we’’ or

‘‘us’’) issues this document to describe

how to apply for funding under the

Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K) Grant

Program and how we will determine

whether to fund a proposal.

Under the S-K Program, we provide

financial assistance for research and

development projects that address

various aspects of U.S. fisheries

(commercial or recreational), including,

but not limited to, harvesting,

processing, marketing, and associated

infrastructures.

DATES: We must receive your

application by the close of business May

7, 2001 in one of the offices listed in

section I.F. Applications Addresses of

this document. You must submit one

signed original and nine signed copies

of the completed application (including

supporting information). We will not

accept facsimile applications.

ADDRESSES: You can obtain an

application package from, and send

your completed application(s) to, the

NMFS Regional Administrator located

at any of the offices listed in section I.F.

Application Addresses of this

document. You may also obtain the

application package from the S-K Home

Page (see section I.G. Electronic Access

ADDRESSES). However, we cannot accept

completed applications electronically.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alicia L. Jarboe, S-K Program Manager,

(301) 713–2358.