42740 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Notices

Public participation will be an

important part of the analysis. Internal

scoping began with the development of

the Pierce Ranger District Five Year Plan

in early January, 1997. External scoping

will begin with this notice. Public

meetings to announce this proposal,

including at least one field review of the

project area, will be scheduled between

July and September of 1997. Issues

which emerge from internal and

external scoping will be used to develop

additional alternatives to this proposal.

The lead agency for this project is the

U.S. Forest Service. The Forest Service

will cooperate with other Federal

agencies, as well as County, State, and

tribal governments who display an

interest in the project, and who require

assessment and concurrence.

The responsible official for decisions

regarding this analysis is James Caswell,

Clearwater National Forest Supervisor.

His address is 12730 Highway 12,

Orofino, ID 83544.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed

with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and available for public

review in January, 1998. At that time,

the EPA will publish a Notice of

Availability of the draft EIS in the

Federal Register. 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 final EIS is

scheduled to be completed by May,

1998.

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). 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 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

Regulations for implementing the

procedural provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 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,

whose who submit anonymous

comments will not have standing to

appeal the subsequent decision under

36 CFR part 215 or 217.

Dated: July 31, 1997.

James L. Caswell,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 97–20932 Filed 8–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Treasure Mountain Winter Sports Area

Conceptual Development Plan;

Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln

County, Montana

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service,

will prepare an environmental impact

statement (EIS) to develop the Treasure

Mountain Winter Sports Area which

includes management of a 1,700+/¥acre

tract of land of which approximately

242 acres would be devoted to alpine

ski trail development. The ski area

would have a vertical rise of 2,700 feet

with the potential to increase to 3,500

feet and would include a separate

beginner/teaching slope with its own

chairlift as well as trails and chairlifts

for novice, low intermediate,

intermediate, advanced intermediate

and expert skiers. The proposal includes

the construction of ski trails, chair lifts,

base lodge and facilities and parking

facilities. The base lodge will provide

the full range of skier services including

food service, rest rooms, lockers, rental,

retail and first aid. The proposal also

includes a forest plan amendment to

change Kootenai Forest land allocations

from MA8 (Proposed Wilderness), MA–

13 (Designated Old-growth), MA–14

(Grizzly Bear habitat) and MA–16

(Timber with viewing allocation) to

MA6 (Developed Recreation).

The proposed Treasure Mountain

Winter Sports Area is approximately

five miles west of US Highway 2 and

one mile south of Libby in Lincoln

County, Montana, ninety miles south of

the Canadian border and thirty miles

east of the Idaho border. The proposed

ski area is located adjacent to the

Cabinet Mountain Wilderness Area and

within the Municipal Watershed for the

town of Libby, Montana. Approximately

half of the proposed ski area is located

within the Inventoried Roadless Area

#671—Cabinet Face East. The decision

area is also occupied Grizzly Bear

habitat.

DATES: Written comments and

suggestions should be received on or

before September 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The Responsible Official is

Robert L. Schrenk, Forest Supervisor,

Kootenai National Forest. Written

comments and suggestions concerning

the scope of the analysis should be sent

to Lawrence A. Froberg, District Ranger,

Libby Ranger District, 12557 US Hwy 37

N, Libby, Montana, 59923.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Charnon, Project Coordinator, Libby

Ranger District. Phone: (406) 293–7773.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Historical Context

A preliminary proposal for the

Treasure Mountain Winter Sports Area

was presented to the Libby Ranger

District, U.S. Forest Service, Libby,

Montana, in September 1990. This was

followed by a request for land

designation change presented to the

U.S. Senate in 1991. An evaluation of

the proposed Treasure Mountain Winter

Sports Area was compiled in June 1992

followed by modifications to the

evaluation in 1994. In March 1995, the

Lincoln County Economic Development

Council was presented with a

Conceptual Development Plan and

Feasibility Study prepared by Barnhart

Malcolm, Inc. The evaluation of this

report was that the proposed Treasure

Mountain Winter Sports Area site has

superior physical attributes for regional

destination alpine ski potential

customers to generate cumulative

positive cash flow. Finally, in November
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Notices 42741

1995, the U.S. Department of Commerce

Economic Development Administration

awarded the Lincoln County Economic

Development Council a long-term

Economic Deterioration Adjustment

Strategy Grant to provide the final

information needed to determine the

feasibility of development of the

Treasure Mountain site.

Proposed Action

LCEDC resubmitted the proposal for

the Treasure Mountain Winter Sports

Area to the Libby Ranger District, on

October 23, 1996. Based on this

proposal the decisions to be made are:

Should a Special Use Permit be authorized

for Treasure Mountain Winter Sports Area

and if so how and under what conditions,

What mitigation measures would be

required for protection of National Forest

resources, and

Are Forest Plan amendments necessary to

proceed with the Proposed Action within the

decision area. If so, what are they and are

they significant amendments?

The Kootenai National Forest Land

and Resource Management Plan

provides overall management objectives

in individual delineated management

areas (MA’s). The decision area is

allocated to MA–8 (Recreation

wilderness), MA–13 (Designated Oldgrowth), MA–14 (Grizzly Bear habitat)

and MA–16 (Timber with viewing

allocation).

Preliminary Issues

Several preliminary issues of concern

have been identified by the Forest

Service. These issues are briefly

described below:

• Potential impacts to grizzly bear

(the proposed ski area is within

designated grizzly bear habitat).

• Potential effects to the Libby

municipal watershed.

• Potential impacts on the Cabinet

Mountain Wilderness (adjacent to the

proposed ski area).

• Potential socio-economic effects

(market demand and need for the ski

resort).

Public Involvement and Scoping

Public participation is an important

part of the analysis, commencing with

the initial scoping process (40 CFR

1501.7), which will occur August 1997

to September 1997. In addition, the

public is encouraged to visit with Forest

Service officials at any time during the

analysis and prior to the decision. The

Forest Service will be seeking

information, comments, and assistance

from Federal, State, and local agencies

and other individuals or organizations

who may be interested in or affected by

the proposed action. The proposed

project will be presented at two Open

Houses at the Libby City Hall, 952 E.

Spruce, on August 14, 1997. The

presentations will be at 10:00 am and at

7:00 pm. Representatives from Lincoln

County Economic Development Council

(LCEDC) and the Kootenai National

Forest will be available at the open

houses to discuss the proposed project

and provide additional information.

Comments from the public and other

agencies will be used in preparation of

the Draft EIS. The scoping process will

be used to:

1. Identify potential issues.

2. Identify major issues to be analyzed

in depth.

3. Identify alternatives to the proposed

action.

4. Identify potential environmental

effects of the proposed action and

alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect, and

cumulative effects).

5. Determine potential cooperating

agencies and task assignments.

The Forest Service will consider a

range of alternatives. One of these will

be the ‘‘no action’’ alternative, in which

none of the proposed activities would

be implemented. Additional alternatives

will examine varying levels and

locations for the proposed activities to

achieve the proposal’s purposes, as well

as to respond to the issues and other

resource values.

The EIS will analyze the direct,

indirect, and cumulative environmental

effects of the alternatives. Past, present,

and projected activities on both private

and National Forest lands will be

considered. The EIS will disclose the

analysis of site-specific mitigation

measures and their effectiveness.

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 by January, 1998. 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 in the Federal Register.

The final EIS is scheduled to be

completed in September, 1998. 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.

Reviewer’s Obligations

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). Also,

environmental objections that could be

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 and

respond to them in the final EIS.

To be most helpful, comments on the

draft EIS should be as specific as

possible and may address the adequacy

of the statement or the merit of the

alternatives discussed. 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.

Responsible Official

Robert L. Schrenk, Forest Supervisor,

Kootenai National Forest, 506 US

Highway 2 West, Libby, MT 59923 is the

Responsible Official. As the Responsible

Official I will decide which, if any, of

the proposed projects will be

implemented. I will document the

decision and reasons for the decision in

the Record of Decision. That decision

will be subject to Forest Service Appeal

Regulations.

Dated: July 31, 1997.

Robert L. Schrenk,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 97–20898 Filed 8–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M