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

42739

Vol. 62, No. 153

Friday, August 8, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Lower Eldorado Ecosystem

Management Project, Clearwater

National Forest, Clearwater County,

Idaho

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will

prepare an environmental impact

statement (EIS) to disclose the

environmental effects of proposed

timber harvest which would remove

approximately 18.7 million board feet of

timber from 2,146 acres and build 6.2

miles of new roads. To improve

watershed conditions, the proposal

would also close up to 30 miles of roads

in the area which are no longer needed.

The area is located on the Pierce

District of the Clearwater National

Forest, Townships 33, 34, and 35 North,

Ranges 6 and 7 East, Boise Meridian.

The purpose of the proposal and

subsequent effects analysis is to meet

the intent of the Clearwater Forest Plan,

using an ecosystem management

approach for the 13,995 acre analysis

area. Management Areas (MA) within

the analysis area include: MA–E1,

emphasizing growth and yield of timber;

MA–C4, emphasizing big game winter

range and timber production; MA–M1,

emphasizing research natural areas;

MA–M2, emphasizing riparian

management; and MA–A6, emphasizing

historic travel routes.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope

of the analysis should be received in

writing by September 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Douglas Gober, District Ranger, Rt. 2,

Box 191, Kamiah, ID 83536.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lois Hill, EIS Project Team Leader, (208)

935–2513.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

response to the public demand for

sustainable forest management, the

Forest Service has developed an

ecologically based, integrated resource

approach to the management of National

Forest lands. ‘‘Ecosystem Management’’

means recognizing the complexity and

interdependencies of resources within

ecosystems, so the effects of

management actions can be predicted

and monitored after activities occur.

A landscape level vegetation

assessment was conducted in 1996. The

results indicate that the present species

and age class distributions in this area

would not have occurred under natural

conditions. Large numbers of small trees

are present, due to over fifty years of

wildfire suppression. Crowded stands

are susceptible to root rot pathogens,

bark beetles, defoliators, and dwarf

mistletoe. The loss of western white

pine through blister rust, along with fire

suppression, has led to a percentage of

grand fir in many stands which is much

higher than that which occurred

historically. The 1996 assessment also

indicated that late mature stands are

lacking in this area, and often occur in

smaller patches than would have

occurred naturally. Natural patch sizes

in this area ranged up to 20,000 acres.

The proposed action is designed to

restore terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem

health, and to provide benefits to people

within the capabilities of the ecosystem.

Vegetation treatments to reintroduce

western white pine would be

considered. Prescribed regeneration and

intermediate harvest would improve

forest composition and function.

Commercial and precommercial

thinning would improve species

composition, moving toward a mix more

consistent with historical conditions.

Intermediate treatments in over-stocked,

stressed sites would target grand fir,

while maintaining desirable seral

species such as western white pine,

ponderosa pine, and western larch.

Silvicultural management practices

would be analyzed for their potential to

keep old stands longer. Dead and dying

timber in the area would be salvaged.

The proposal includes timber harvest

of varying intensities, from

rehabilitation only (slashing

nonmerchantable dead trees and

replanting) to clearcuts with reserve

trees. Harvest practices may not follow

traditional unit configurations or

prescriptions. The natural changes in

tree densities, natural history, and

health of the landscape will dictate how

areas would be treated. Biological

corridors and riparian areas in the

natural landscape would be considered,

as well as human imposed landscapes

and restrictions such as visual quality

corridors, cultural sites, and recreation

areas. Harvest prescriptions may be

scattered, span large areas, or overlap.

Because some streams in the area are

not meeting desired instream conditions

for cobble embeddedness, erosion

sources in the watershed would be

corrected by closing and stabilizing

roads that are no longer needed. Culvert

replacements, riparian planting,

instream rock and woody debris

clusters, channel constriction structures,

log drop structures. and sediment traps

would be proposed to improve fish

habitat conditions or accessibility. The

proposal would also include riparian

planting to improve stream shading and

woody debris availability.

Views from the Lewis and Clark trail,

which runs through a portion of the

analysis area, would be protected

through site specific silvicultural

prescriptions.

The decision to be made is what, if

anything, should be done to address the

following issues in the Lower Eldorado

Project Area: (a) Treating vegetation to

respond to concerns about overly dense

stands; (b) increasing patch sizes to

more closely resemble landscape

patterns that occurred historically,

while retaining as much of the late

successional component as possible; (c)

preserving scenic quality near the Lewis

and Clark trail for the long term; (d)

managing the road system to improve

watershed conditions while maintaining

an adequate long term transportation

system in the area; and (e) increasing

timber productivity and contributing to

the Forest’s sustained yield of timber

products.

Preliminary alternatives to the

proposed action have been developed in

response to issues raised during internal

scoping. They include: (a) An

alternative which would propose no

timber harvest adjacent to the Lewis and

Clark Trail; (b) an alternative which

would minimize new road construction;

and (c) an alternative which would

reduce overabundant immature and

mature stands in the Lolo drainage;
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