Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Notices 43693

include change in: the type of diesel

engines used, the type of pipe used to

transport materials and the depth

buried, the use of seepage collection

features, the design intensity for storm

diversions and ponds, the busing of

employees, the closing of roads and

additional monitoring.

The public will be informed of the

availability of the SDEIS by a notice of

availability in the Federal Register,

news releases and mailings of those on

the mailing list. The anticipated date of

release of the SDEIS for comment is

Fall, 1997.

DATES: Specific comments concerning

the scope of the analysis should be

submitted by September 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The responsible official is

Robert Schrenk, Forest Supervisor,

Kootenai National Forest. Written

comments and suggestions concerning

the re-analysis and the proposed SDEIS

should be sent to the responsible official

at 506 U.S. Highway 2 West, Libby, MT

59923.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Paul Kaiser, Project Coordinator,

Kootenai National Forest. Phone: (406)

293–6211.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A new

alternative (V) was developed to address

the new information received and

concerns raised since release of the

DEIS on October 6, 1995.

Original Proposed Action

ASARCO’s proposal, which was

submitted in 1987, includes

constructing a 10,000 ton per day mine

and mill complex to develop their

stratiform copper/silver ore deposit

which is located under the Cabinet

Mountains Wilderness. The ore would

be accessed via tunnels starting outside

and downslope from the wilderness

boundary. ASARCO estimates an ore

reserve of 136 million tons and mine

recovery rate of 65 percent. ASARCO

projects the estimated mine life (from

beginning through reclamation) to be 32

years. The mine is estimated to employ

305–355 people. Parts of the project

would be on National Forest System

land with the remainder on private

land. Facilities would include a tailings

impoundment approximately 250′ high

and 324 acres in size, a new access road,

utility corridor, water lines, wells, mill

site, water treatment site, and rail

loadout facility. An exploration adit is

proposed to further define the ore body.

Two parallel adits (horizontal access

passages) would be drilled, one would

be used for the ore conveyor and the

other for mine access. Two ventilation

adits are proposed, one to have its

surface opening within the wilderness

and the other would use the proposed

exploration adit outside the wilderness.

Excess mine water is proposed to be

discharged to the Clark Fork River after

being treated to State water quality

standards.

New Alternative

The new alternative (Alt. V) proposal

includes activities on approximately

483 acres. Alternative V has been

developed which includes the surface

deposition of tailings as a paste, and a

water treatment system using a semipassive bioreact0r and a reverse osmosis

process. The concentrate from the mill

would be pumped to an enclosed rail

loadout facility. There are also changes

in mitigations for the project which

include change in: the type of diesel

engines used, the type of pipe used to

transport materials and the depth

buried, the use of seepage collection

features, the design intensity for storm

diversions and ponds, the busing of

employees, the closing of roads and

additional monitoring.

Reviewer Obligations

The Forest Service believes it is

important to give reviewers notice at

this early stage because 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 supplement to 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

supplemental statement.

Comments may also address the

adequacy of the supplemental to 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: July 31, 1997.

Robert L. Schrenk,

Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest.

[FR Doc. 97–20897 Filed 8–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Cholmondeley Environmental Impact

Statement

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, will prepare

an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) to provide timber for the

Ketchikan Area timber sale program.

The Record of Decision will disclose

how the Forest Service has decided to

provide harvest units, roads, and

associated timber harvesting facilities.

The proposed action is to harvest up to

an estimated 37 million board feet

(mmbf) of timber on an estimated 1,700

acres. A range of alternatives will be

developed and will include a no-action

alternative. The proposed timber harvest

is located within Tongass Forest Plan

Management Areas K18 and K19, Value

Comparison Units 614, 615, 616, 617,

674, 675 and 676 on Prince of Wales

Island, Alaska, on the Craig Ranger

District of the Ketchikan Area of the

Tongass National Forest.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope

of this project should be received by

September 30, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Please send written

comments to Forest Supervisor’s Office;

Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan

Area; Attn: Cholmondeley EIS; Federal

Building, Ketchikan, AK 99901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions about the proposal and EIS

should be directed to Dale Kanen,

District Ranger, Craig Ranger District,

Tongass National Forest, P.O. Box 500,

Craig, AK 99921 telephone (907) 826–

3271 or Norm Matson, Planning

Biologist, Federal Building, Ketchikan,

AK 99901 telephone (907) 228–6273.
43694 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Notices

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public

participation will be an integral

component of the study process and

will be especially important at several

points during the analysis. The first is

during the scoping process. The Forest

Service will be seeking information,

comments, and assistance from Federal,

State, local agencies, individuals and

organizations that may be interested in,

or affected by, the proposed activities.

The scoping process will include: (1)

Identification of potential issues; (2)

identification of issues to be analyzed in

depth; and (3) elimination of

insignificant issues or those which have

been covered by a previous

environmental review. Written scoping

comments are being solicited through a

scoping package that will be sent to the

project mailing list. For the Forest

Service to best use the scoping input,

comments should be received by

September 30, 1997. Tentative issues

identified for analysis in the EIS include

the potential effects of the project on

and the relationship of the project to:

Subsistence resources, old-growth

ecosystem management and the

maintenance of habitat for viable

populations of wildlife and plant

species, timber supply, scenery and

recreational resources, anadromous and

resident fish habitat, soil and water

resources, wetlands, cultural resources

and others.

Based on results of scoping and the

resource capabilities within the project

area, alternatives including a ‘‘no

action’’ alternative will be developed for

the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (Draft EIS). The Draft EIS is

projected to be filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

in April 1998. Subsistence hearings, as

provided for in Title VIII, Section 810 of

the Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act (ANILCA), are

planned during the comment period on

the Draft EIS. The Final EIS is

anticipated by April 1999.

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

Environmental objections that could

have been raised at the draft

environmental impact statement stage

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 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 of the proposed action,

comments during scoping and

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.

Comments received in response to

this solicitation, including names and

addresses of those who comment, will

be considered part of the public record

on this proposed action and will be

available for public inspection.

Comments submitted anonymously will

be accepted and considered; however,

those who submit anonymous

comments will not have standing to

appeal the subsequent decision under

36 CFR Parts 215 or 217. Additionally,

pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person

may request the agency to withhold a

submission from the public record by

showing how the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA) permits such

confidentiality. Requesters should be

aware that, under FOIA, confidentiality

may be granted in only very limited

circumstances, such as to protect trade

secrets. The Forest Service will inform

the requester of the agency’s decision

regarding the request for confidentiality,

and where the request is denied, the

agency will return the submission and

notify the requester that the comments

may be resubmitted with or without

name and address within 7 days.

Permits: Permits required for

implementation include the following:

1. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

—Approval of discharge of dredged or

fill material into the waters of the

United States under Section 404 of

the Clean Water Act;

—Approval of the construction of

structures or work in navigable waters

of the United States under Section 10

of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899;

2. Environmental Protection Agency

—National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (402) Permit;

—Review Spill Prevention Control and

Countermeasures Plan;

3. State of Alaska, Department of

Natural Resources

—Tideland Permit and Lease or

Easement;

4. State of Alaska, Department of

Environmental Conservation

—Solid Waste Disposal Permit;

—Certification of Compliance with

Alaska Water Quality Standards (401

Certification)

Responsible Official: Bradley E.

Powell, Forest Supervisor, Ketchikan

Area, Tongass National Forest, Federal

Building, Ketchikan, Alaska 99901, is

the responsible official. The responsible

official will consider the comments,

response, disclosure of environmental

consequences, and applicable laws,

regulations, and policies in making the

decision and stating the rationale in the

Record of Decision.

Dated: July 25, 1997.

Bradley E. Powell,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 97–21657 Filed 8–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Eastern Washington Cascades

Provincial Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of field tour.

SUMMARY: The Eastern Washington

Cascades Provincial Advisory

Committee will meet on September 24,

1997, at the Wenatchee National Forest

Supervisors Office, 215 Melody Lane,

Wenatchee, Washington. The Provincial

Advisory Committee members will meet

at the Supervisors Office at 9:00 a.m.,

then proceed to the field tour in the

Leavenworth Ranger District (Beehive

and Mission Creek areas). The tour will

end at 4:00 p.m. This field tour will

focus on dry forest management

projects. All Eastern Washington