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

54037

Vol. 62, No. 201

Friday, October 17, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Clancy-Unionville Vegetative

Treatment/Travel Management Plan

EIS; Helena National Forest, BLM

Headwaters Resource Area, Lewis &

Clark and Jefferson Counties, Montana

AGENCIES: Forest Service, USDA and

Bureau of Land Management, USDI.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare

Environmental Impact Statement and

BLM Resource Management Plan (RMP)

Amendment.

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service

and USDI, Bureau of Land Management

are gathering information and preparing

an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) for a planning effort involving

vegetative treatments and motorize

travel management actions. This EIS

will analyze the impacts of utilizing

prescribed fire on grassland vegetation

types and a combination of prescribed

fire and tree removal within the forested

vegetation. It will also evaluate the

effects of alternative strategies for

managing motorized travel uses

throughout the affected area. Alternative

travel management actions will address

spatial, temporal and vehicle type

allocations. Travel planning will also

guide the long-term management of new

roads needed to access the vegetation

treatment areas. The project area is

located immediately south of Helena,

Montana, and totals 40,000 acres of

public lands (including 5,000 acres of

BLM lands).

The Forest Service and Bureau of

Land Management propose to treat

approximately 5750 acres of grassland

and forested vegetation through

prescribed burning and tree removal. On

the National Forest, approximately 2800

acres would be treated with prescribed

burning and 2200 acres of timber would

be harvested. On the Bureau of Land

Management lands approximately 750

acres would be harvested of which 250

acres would be treated further with

prescribed burning.

Timber would be sold and removed

using commercial thinning, selection,

shelterwood, seedtree and clearcut

harvest systems. Approximately 17.4

miles of new temporary road

construction is needed to access

treatment areas. Following treatment all

but 1 mile of the temporary roads would

be recontoured and physically closed.

New road construction would occur in

the Grizzly Gulch, Go Devil Creek,

Whiteman Gulch, Little Buffalo Gulch,

Jackson Creek, Lump Gulch and Quartz

Creek vicinities.

The travel management proposal is to

establish a ‘‘Restricted Area’’

designation for the entire area that

would limit public motorized travel to

designated routes. The use of some

roads and trails would also be restricted

to specific seasons and/or certain

vehicle classes. Snowmobile users

would be able to travel off routes in

some portions of the area.

The proposal is designed to help

achieve the goals and objectives of the

1986 Helena National Forest Plan and

move selected areas towards the desired

conditions identified from the Forest

Plan. These needs are supported by the

findings of the Divide Landscape

Analysis (September 1996). This

proposal would fulfill the vegetative

management direction of the BLM

Headwaters RMP and create some

changes regarding travel management

direction, ultimately requiring an

amendment.

More specifically, the proposal has

the following purpose:

• to create a more diverse forest with

a wide variety of trees of varying ages,

species and sizes.

• to minimize the threat of large

scale, catastrophic wildfire by reducing

the amount of forest vegetation (trees,

shrubs and grasses) and litter on the

forest floor. Vegetation treatments

would be done in concert with the

existing qualities of the urban/rural

setting, while protecting the area’s

scenic and recreational amenities.

• to insure a variety of different plant

and animal habitats which would meet

the needs of the area’s plant and animal

species.

• to manage the area with designated

roads and trails that serve the needs of

a wide variety of public users, both

motorized and non-motorized, while

still protecting other resource values of

the landscape.

• to produce an array of forest wood

products (i.e. saw timber, post and pole

material, firewood, Christmas trees)

while still maintaining a sustainable

forest.

• to improve water quality through

sediment reduction measures and an

up-dated travel management plan.

DATE: Comments concerning the scope

of the analysis should be received in

writing on or before November 17, 1997.

The draft EIS is scheduled for public

release and comment in the spring of

1998.

ADDRESSES: The responsible officials are

Tom Clifford, Forest Supervisor, Helena

National Forest, Supervisor’s Office,

2880 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT. 59601.

Phone: (406) 449–5201, and James R.

Owings, Butte District Manager, Bureau

of Land Management, 106 N. Parkmont,

Butte, MT. 59701, Phone (406) 494–

5059.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Denis A. Hart, Helena District Ranger,

Helena Ranger District, 2001 Poplar

Helena, MT. 59601. Phone: (406) 449–

5490; or Merle Good, Headwaters

Resource Area Manager, P.O. Box 3388,

Butte, MT. 59702. Phone: (406) 494–

5059; or Fan Mainwaring,

Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Helena

Ranger District, 2001 Poplar, Helena,

MT. 59601.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

prescribed burning, timber harvest, and

temporary road construction would

occur on National Forest and Bureau of

Land Management lands in portions of

Grizzly Gulch, Go Devil Creek,

Whiteman Gulch, Little Buffalo Creek,

Jackson Creek, Lump Gulch and Quartz

Creek drainages of the Helena Ranger

District of the Helena National Forest

and Headwaters Resource Area of the

Bureau of Land Management. Included

in the area being analyzed is all or

portions of T.10N., R.4W., Sections 34–

35; T.9N., R.4W., Sections 1–5, 8–12,

20–23, 26–29; T9N., R3W., Sections 29–

33; T8N., R3W., Sections 12–14, 25–27,

35–36; T8N., R4W., Sections 7–8, 17–20,

29–30, Montana Principle Meridian.

The areas of proposed tree removal

and prescribed burning are within
54038 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 200 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Notices

Management Areas T–1, T–4, T–5, L–1,

R–1, W–1 and M–1 described in the

Helena Forest Plan. The Forest Plan

direction states that:

—T–1 Lands available and suitable for

timber production. Although these areas

consist primarily of suitable forest

lands, there are inclusions on non-forest

and non-productive forest lands.

—T–4 Productive timberland within

sensitive viewing area of many major

travel routes, use areas and water

bodies. Most of the area is suitable forest

land, but there may be inclusions of

non-forest or non-productive forest

land.

—T–5 Suitable timberlands

interspersed with natural openings,

generally with existing livestock

allotments.

—L–1 Generally nonforested forage

producing areas where forage

production is optimized and timber

harvest and prescribed fire may be used

as tools for this purpose, but not for

timber management sake.

—R–1 These management areas

consist of large blocks—greater than

3,000 acres—of undeveloped land

suited for dispersed recreation. These

areas provide opportunities for semiprimitive, non-motorized recreation and

are characterized predominantly by

natural or natural appearing

environment where there is a high

probability of isolation from man’s

activities.

—W–1 This management area consists

of a variety of wildlife habitat ranging

from important big game summer range

to big game winter range.

—M–1 Non-forest and forested land

where timber management and range or

wildlife habitat improvements are

currently uneconomical or

environmentally infeasible.

The affected area of this EIS includes

portions of Management Units (MUs) 8,

23 and 24 as described in the BLM

Headwaters RMP of 1984. These MUs

were identified as having high forest

land values with a high priority for

management. This vegetative treatment

analysis will meet the RMP directive to

complete a Compartment Management

Plan in this area. The RMP designated

MUs 8 and 24 as open to motorized

travel and available for permitted

motorized event consideration. MU 23

is classified as restricted to motorized

travel and closed to motorized events.

The travel management proposal

complies with the RMP direction for

MU 23 and is inconsistent with the

direction for MUs 8 and 24. Therefore,

Plan Amendment procedures will be

followed in this EIS planning effort.

The decisions to be made, based on

this environmental analysis, are:

1. Whether or not to treat the forested

and nonforested vegetation at this time,

and if so, what areas to treat, and what

treatment methods would be employed.

2. What roads, trails, and areas need

to be closed or restricted to ensure

resource protection and what roads,

trails and areas should remain open for

motorized users.

If it is decided to implement the

proposal, activities may begin as early

as 1998 and take up to 3 years to

implement.

This EIS will tier to the Helena Forest

Plan Final EIS of April 1986 and the

BLM Headwaters RMP of 1984 that

provide program goals, objectives and

standards and guidelines for conducting

management activites in this area. All

activities associated with the proposal

will be designed to maintain or enhance

the resource objectives identified in the

two plans. The Forest Service will also

strive to meet the objectives further

refined in the Divide Landscape

Analysis.

The Forest Service and the Bureau of

Land Management are seeking

information and comments from

Federal, State, local agencies and others

organizations or individuals who may

be interested in or affected by the

proposed action. The Forest Service and

the Bureau of Land Management invite

written comments and suggestions on

the issues for the proposal and the area

being analyzed. Information received

will be used in preparation of the Draft

EIS. Preparation of the EIS will include

the following steps:

1. Identification of potential issues.

2. Identification of issues to be

analyzed in depth.

3. Elimination of insignificant issues

or those that have been covered by a

relevant previous environmental

analysis.

4. Identification of additional

reasonable alternatives.

5. Identification of potential

environmental effects of the

alternatives.

Prescribed harvest treatments in this

proposal include: a) unevenaged

management techniques such as

individual tree selection and group

selection; b) intermediate treatments

such as commercial thinning; and c)

regeneration treatments include

seedtree, shelterwood, and clearout

harvest methods. Alternatives to this

proposal will include the ‘‘no action’’

alternative, in which none of the

proposed treatments would be

implemented. Other alternatives will

examine variations in the location,

amount and method of vegetative

management.

The preliminary issues identified are:

1. The effects of the vegetative

treatments on existing noxious weed

populations.

2. The effects of the vegetative

treatments and temporary road

construction on wildlife resources.

3. The effects of the vegetative

treatments on existing recreation use.

4. The effectiveness of the vegetative

treatment upon forest health and forest

fuel accumulations.

5. The effects on threatened,

endangered and sensitive plant and

animal species.

6. The effects on motorized and nonmotorized recreation use.

7. The economic trade-offs of

implementing this proposal.

8. The effects on cultural resources

within the project area.

9. The effects upon public safety and

adjacent private lands from log hauling

and prescribed burning.

The Forest Service and Bureau of

Land Management will analyze and

disclose in the DEIS and FEIS the

environmental effects of the proposed

action and a reasonable range of

alternatives. The DEIS and FEIS will

disclose the direct, indirect and

cumulative environmental effects of

each alternative and its associated site

specific mitigation measures.

Public participation is especially

important at several points of the

analysis. Interested parties may visit

with the Forest Service and Bureau of

Land Management officials at any time

during the analysis. However, two

periods of time are specifically

identified for the receipt of comments.

The first comment period is during the

scoping process when the public is

invited to give written comments to the

Forest Service and Bureau of Land

management. This period extends for 30

days from the date of publication of this

notice, in the Federal Register. The

second review period is during the 45

day review of the DEIS in and when the

public is invited to comment on the

DEIS.

The DEIS is expected to be filed with

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and available for public review in

March 1998. At that time, the EPA will

publish a notice of availability of the

DEIS in the Federal Register.

The comment period on the DEIS will

be 45 days from the date the notice of

availability is published in the Federal

Register.

At this early stage in the scoping

process, the Forest Service and the

Bureau of Land Management believe it

is important to give reviewers notice of

several court rulings related to public

participation in the environmental

review process. First, reviews of DEIS
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 200 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Notices 54039

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). Secondly, environmental

objections that could be raised at the

draft environmental impact statement

stage, but that are not raised until after

completion of the FEIS 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. 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 objects are made

available to the Forest Service and

Bureau of Land Management at a time

when they can meaningfully consider

them and respond to them in the FEIS.

To assist the Forest Service and

Bureau of Land Management in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns on the proposed action,

comments on the DEIS 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 DEIS 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.)

After the comment period ends on the

DEIS, the comments will be analyzed

and considered by the Forest Service

and Bureau of Land Management in

preparing the FEIS. The FEIS is

expected to be filed in July 1998.

Dated: October 6, 1997.

Tom Clifford,

Forest Supervisor, Helena National Forest.

Dated: September 29, 1997.

James R. Owings,

Butte District Manager, Bureau of Land

management.

[FR Doc. 97–27542 Filed 10–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Squirrel Meadows-Grand Targhee

Resort Land Exchange; Targhee

National Forest, Teton County,

Wyoming

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service will prepare

an environmental impact statement

(EIS) to document the analysis and

disclose the environmental impacts of a

proposed land exchange with Booth

Creek, Inc., dba Grand Targhee Resort.

In this proposed exchange the

Targhee National Forest would trade

parcels of National Forest System Lands

totaling about 265 acres to Booth Creek,

Inc., for a private parcel totaling

approximately 330 acres. The National

Forest System lands to be conveyed are

located at the base of the Grand Targhee

Resort, 7 miles east of Alta, Wyoming.

The lands to be acquired are located at

Squirrel Meadows, 26 miles east of

Ashton, Idaho.

Values of the parcels will be

appraised following a process stipulated

for Federal land adjustments. In order

for the exchange to take place, the

appraised values of the lands must be

equal. Differences in appraised values

may be made up by reducing the acreage

of National Forest System lands offered

for exchange, or by including a cash

payment. The cash value may not

exceed 25 percent of the appraised

value of the Federal lands to be

conveyed.

DATES: Written comments concerning

the scope of the analysis described in

this notice should be received on or

before December 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Teton Basin Ranger District, Attn: Jack

Haddox, PO Box 777, Driggs, ID 83422.

The responsible official for this decision

is Robert W. Ross, Jr., Director,

Recreation and Lands, USDA Forest

Service, Intermountain Region, 324 25th

Street, Ogden, UT 84401.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions concerning the proposed

action and EIS should be directed to

Patty Bates, Teton Basin District Ranger,

Targhee National Forest, phone: (208)

354–2312.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Targhee National Forest is proposing to

exchange up to 265 acres of National

Forest System lands within the Grand

Targhee Resort permit area for 330 acres

of private land at Squirrel Meadows.

The final acreage will be decided

through an appraisal process pursuant

to the Uniform Federal Appraisal

Standards for land adjustments. Values

must be equal in order for the exchange

to proceed. If it becomes necessary to

equalize values the National Forest

System acreage may be reduced from

the proposed 265 acres. In the event the

values cannot be equalized by the

adjustment a cash equalization payment

of up to 25 percent of the appraised

value of the Federal lands may be made

by either party.

The decision to be made is whether to

proceed with the exchange as proposed;

modify the exchange; or withdraw from

the exchange. Public scoping will be

completed through letters, news releases

and public meetings. Dates have not yet

been set.

Preliminary issues identified are:

(1) Impacts from potential

development of the exchanged lands at

Grand Targhee on the base area and in

Teton Valley, Idaho.

(2) Impacts on wildlife in the area of

Grand Targhee from potential

development and increased use of the

area in general.

(3) Impacts on the Jedediah Smith

Wilderness from the potential increased

use and development of the grand

Targhee area.

(4) Creation of a private inholding

within the boundary of the Targhee

National Forest.

(5) The effects on grizzly bears (listed

as threatened under the Endangered

Species Act) and other threatened,

endangered and sensitive species from

the potential development of the

exchanged lands and potential

development of the lands if they are not

exchanged.

Other issues may be identified during

the scoping period. Written suggestions

and comments are invited on the issues

related to the proposal and the area

being analyzed. Information received

will be used in the preparation of the

Draft EIS and Final EIS. For most

effective use, comments should be

submitted to the Forest Service within

45 days from the date of publication of

this notice in the Federal Register.

The Forest Service is the lead agency.

The Forest Service estimates the draft

EIS will be filed in May, 1998, and the

final EIS will be filed in December,

1998.

The comment period on the draft

environmental impact statement will be

45 days from the date the

Environmental Protection Agency’s

notice of availability appears in the

Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes, at this

early stage, it is important to give