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

52521

Vol. 62, No. 195

Wednesday, October 8, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Pinkham Timber Sales and Associated

Activities; Kootenai National Forest,

Lincoln County, Montana

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service,

will prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) to disclose the

environmental effects of timber harvest,

prescribed fire, road closures, road

rehabilitation, and construction of

temporary and specified roads in the

Pinkham Creek drainage. The Pinkham

Creek drainage is located approximately

5 air miles southwest of Eureka,

Montana.

The proposed actions to harvest and

reforest timber stands, construct,

reconstruct and rehabilitate roads,

prescribe burning, and restrict roads are

being considered together because they

represent either connected or

cumulative actions as defined by the

Council on Environmental Quality (40

CFR 1508.25). The purposes of the

project are to restore ecological

processes in order to achieve

sustainable conditions, reduce the risk

of large-scale, severe wildlife in an

urban/wildland interface area, and

provide for human needs and desires.

The EIS will tier to the Kootenai

National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan and Final EIS of

September, 1987, which provides

overall guidance for forest management

of the area. All activities associated with

the proposal will be designed to

maintain high quality wildlife, fisheries,

and watershed objectives.

DATES: Written comments and

suggestions should be received by

December 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The Responsible Official is

Robert Schrenk, Forest Supervisor,

Kootenai National Forest. Written

comments and suggestions concerning

the scope of the analysis may be sent to:

Robert Thompson, District Ranger,

Rexford Ranger District, 1299 Highway

93 North, Eureka, Montana 59917.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Terry Chute, Planning Coordinator,

Rexford Ranger District, Phone: (406)

296–2536.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

decision area contains approximately

65,100 acres within the Kootenai

National Forest in Lincoln County,

Montana. All of the proposed projects

would occur on National Forest lands in

the Pinkham Creek drainage near

Eureka, Montana. The legal location of

the decision area is as follows: all or

portions of Township 36 North, Range

28 West; Township 36 North, Range 27

West; Township 35 North, Range 28

West; Township 35 North, Range 27

West; Township 34 North, Range 28

West; Township 34 North, Range 27

West; Township 33 North, Range 28

West; Township 33 North, Range 27

West; Principal Montana Meridian.

All proposed activities are outside the

boundaries of any inventoried roadless

area or any areas considered for

inclusion to the National Wilderness

System as recommended by the

Kootenai National Forest Plan or by any

past or present legislative wilderness

proposals.

The Forest Service proposes to

commercially thin and prescribed burn

about 5,050 acres; regeneration harvest

and prescribe burn about 1,425 acres;

salvage harvest about 290 acres; and

slash and prescribe burn (with no

associated harvest) about 1,750 acres

over the next 10 years. An estimated

harvest volume of approximately 59,530

hundred cubic feet of commercial

timber products would be produced. An

estimated 1.1 mile of specified road

construction would be needed to access

timber harvest areas. An estimated 38

miles of road reconstruction would also

be needed to improve drainage and

safety on roads needed to access timber

harvest areas. An unspecified amount of

road no longer in use would be

rehabilitated by various methods which

include recontouring, ripping and

seeding, rehabilitated by various

methods which include recontouring,

ripping and seeding, rehabilitation of

stream crossings, and installment of

barriers resulting in abandonment.

Three management strategies have

been developed in response to the

following conditions:

1. Reduce the risk of catastrophic fire

by treating areas of high or

accumulating fuel concentrations. The

treatments proposed under this strategy

include commercial timber harvest,

slashing and prescribed burning. Timber

harvest would include salvage,

commercial thinning and regeneration

methods. Methods used would depend

on the composition of stands proposed

for treatment and available options for

achieving desired conditions and

trends.

2. Minimize the risk of epidemic bark

beetle attack by developing desirable

tree species composition and reducing

stand density. This strategy is related to

Strategy 1, as epidemic bark beetle

activity causes tree mortality that can

greatly increase fuel accumulations. The

treatments proposed under this strategy

include commercial thinning, slashing

and prescribed burning.

3. Minimize the effect of high levels of

root rot by regenerating areas of high

root rot activity to less susceptible tree

species. This strategy is related to

Strategies 1 and 2 as root rot weakens

and predisposes trees to bark beetle

attack. The subsequent increase in tree

mortality can greatly increase fuel

accumulations. The treatment proposed

with this strategy would use

regeneration harvest methods to

reestablish stands of tree species less

susceptible to root rot. In the Decision

Area, Douglas-fir is the tree species that

is most susceptible to root rot. Western

larch and western white pine are less

susceptible, and are well suited to the

portions of the Decision Area affected

by root rot.

The Kootenai National Forest Land

and Resource Management Plan

provides overall management objectives

in individual delineated management

areas (MA’s). The proposed projects

encompass five predominant MA’s; 6,

10, 11, 12 and 15. Briefly described, MA

6 is managed to provide for

opportunities for developed recreation

activities. MA 10 is managed to

maintain or enhance the winter range

habitat effectiveness for big game

species. MA 11 is managed to maintain

or enhance the winter range habitat

effectiveness for big game species and

produce a programmed yield of timber.

MA 12 is managed to maintain or
52522 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 1997 / Notices

enhance non-winter big game habitat

and produce a programmed yield of

timber. MA 15 focuses upon timber

production using various silvicultural

practices while providing for other

resource values such as soils, air, water,

wildlife, recreation, and forage for

domestic livestock. Timber harvest and

prescribed burning is proposed in all

MA’s. This proposal includes

replicating historic disturbance patterns.

Fourteen forest openings greater than 40

acres in size would be created, ranging

in size from 44 to 373 acres. A 60 day

public review and approval of the

Regional Forester for exceeding the 40

acre limitation for regeneration harvest

would be required prior to the signing

of the Record of Decision. The 60-day

scoping period initiated with this Notice

of Intent will serve as the public review

period for openings over 40 acres.

The Proposed Action would include

two amendments to the Kootenai Forest

Plan. A programmatic amendment to the

Forest Plan for managing open road

density at a level above the MA 12

standard may be necessary. A projectspecific amendment for harvesting in

big game movement corridors in MA 12

may also be necessary.

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.

Concerns: Several areas of concern

were identified by the public as well as

Forest Service personnel during

preliminary assessment. These concerns

are briefly described below:

• The Pinkham area is home to many

people who care deeply about, and have

multi-generational ties to the area.

Public land in the valley is seen as an

asset for recreation and people’s quality

of life.

• Clear-cutting: Many people said

there has been too much clear-cutting in

the area in the past, and they are ugly.

Future harvest should be done

selectively, leaving the large trees. On

the other hand, some said that clear-cuts

provide important habitat for deer, elk

and grouse, and that clear-cutting

should continue.

• Prescribed burning: People do not

like the appearance. Many believe that

trees that are burned up or killed could

have provided firewood or wood

products. A few said they understood

the need for burning in some cases, but

had reservations. Smoke in the valley

from prescribed burning was also

mentioned.

• Roads and road access: Comments

varied. Many thought there were too

many road closures, while others felt

that more roads should be closed. Many

people felt that there were enough or too

many roads in the area, and that no new

roads were needed. Several people

identified the need to increase control of

knapweed, which occurs along some

roads in the area.

• Public use and recreation: There is

a common sentiment that public

recreational use has increased over the

past several years. Hunting and

snowmobiling were specifically

mentioned as uses that have increased.

Many people said that additional

developed recreation sites were not

desired or needed. Some desire

increased maintenance of trails,

especially historic pack trails. Others

mentioned the decreasing availability of

firewood. Off-road vehicle use was said

to be increasing, which was not desired

due to noise and ground disturbance. A

majority of people said that maintaining

traditional recreational opportunities

was important.

• Wildlife: A variety of opinions and

observations about wildlife were

expressed. Some felt that populations of

deer, elk and moose were increasing,

while others said they were declining.

Some said that management of the area

should focus on recovery of threatened,

endangered and sensitive wildlife

species, while others believe that

‘‘multiple-use’’ management should

continue. One mentioned that

designated winter range is used almost

totally in summer and fall months.

• Livestock grazing: Many comments

were received expressing displeasure

and frustration with livestock grazing in

the area. Open-range cattle on private

land, in streams, and in roadways were

mentioned numerous times. Other

comments expressed the desire to

maintain or increase livestock grazing in

the area.

• Timber management: Many people

said that timber harvest is appropriate,

and expressed a preference for selective

harvests that retain both large and small

trees, are adequately cleaned up

following harvest, and provide

opportunities for small operators. The

appearance of recently logged areas is

important to many people. Several

stated that dead and dying trees should

be harvested before they lose their value

for timber products. Some people

expressed their belief that the area has

been over cut in the past and further

timber harvest is inappropriate. Others

said that timber should be managed as

it has been in the past, and that the

emphasis for the area should be for

maximum timber production.

• Water quality, riparian areas: The

need for water quality protection was

mentioned by several people. Some

thought the area near Pinkham Creek

should not be harvested, but should be

maintained for fishing and camping.

One person mentioned that the Forest

Service needed to pay more attention to

wet areas within harvest units. Concern

about effects to water quality from cattle

in streams was voiced.

• What people would like the

Pinkham Area to be like in the future:

Many people expressed a desire that the

area continue to provide the quality of

experiences and benefits to people that

it has over the past 90+ years. Many

people mentioned maintaining the

lower valley floor as a quality

residential area, while providing

opportunities for recreation, grazing and

timber harvest. A common sentiment

seemed to be that the area remain

‘‘unchanged’’—as remote as possible, a

good place to raise a family and make

a living. Others believe that the area

should be managed for reforestation,

wildlife habitat improvement, sensitive

and endangered species recovery, water

quality and fishery improvement. Still

others feel that recreation should be the

primary human use.

• Public involvement and scoping: In

October, 1993 a ‘‘Pinkham Project Area

Planning Report’’ was mailed to over

200 local landowners and residents, and

people that had expressed interest in

Forest Service activities in the area.

Advertisements were also placed in the

Daily Interlake, Kalispell, Montana and

the Tobacco Valley News, Eureka,

Montana, requesting public comment

and information concerning the

Pinkham Project Area. In addition, in

June, 1997 a letter was mailed to

approximately 230 individuals, groups

and other agencies comprising the

mailing list for the Pinkham Project

Area requesting written comments.

Taking into account the comments

received and information gathered

during preliminary analysis, it was

decided to prepare an EIS for the

Pinkham Timber Sales and Associated

Activities. Comments received prior to

this notice will be included in

developing issues and identifying

alternatives for the EIS.

This environmental analysis and

decision making process will enable

additional interested and affected

people to participate and contribute to

the final decision. The public is

encouraged to take part in the process

and is encouraged to visit with Forest

Service officials at any time during the

analysis and prior to the decision. The
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 1997 / Notices 52523

Forest Service will be seeking

information, comments, and assistance

from Federal, State, local agencies and

other individuals or organizations who

may be interested in or affected by the

proposed action. This input will be used

in preparation of the draft and final EIS.

The scoping process will include:

—Identifying preliminary issues.

—Identifying significant issues to be

analyzed in depth.

—Identifying alternatives to the

proposed action.

—Identifying potential environmental

effects of this project and alternatives

(i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative

effects and connected actions).

Estimated Dates for Filing: While

public participation in this analysis is

welcome at any time, comments

received within 60 days of the

publication of this notice will be

especially useful in the preparation of

the Draft EIS. The 60-day comment

period will fulfill the public review

requirement for creating openings over

40 acres in size. The Draft EIS is

expected to be filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

and to be available for public review by

March, 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

a minimum of 45 days from the date the

EPA publishes the Notice of Availability

in the Federal Register.

The Final EIS is scheduled to be

completed by June, 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.

Reviewers 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. versus 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 versus Hodel,

803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and

Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. versus 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 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 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 Schrenk,

Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National

Forest, is the Responsible Official.

Authority for preparation of the EIS has

been delegated to Robert Thompson,

District Ranger, Rexford Ranger District,

1299 Highway 93 North, Eureka,

Montana. The Responsible Official will

decide which, if any, of the proposed

projects will be implemented. The

decision and reasons for the decision

will be documented in the Record of

Decision. That decision will be subject

to Forest Service Appeal Regulations.

Dated: October 2, 1997.

Robert J. Thompson,

Acting Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 97–26624 Filed 10–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

BARRY GOLDWATER SCHOLARSHIP

AND EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION

FOUNDATION

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Proposed Collection;

Comment Request; Extension

AGENCY: Barry Goldwater Scholarship

and Excellence in Education

Foundation.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.), this notice annouces that

the Goldwater Scholarship Foundation

is planning to submit, for extension, the

following Information Collection

Request (ICR) to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB):

Goldwater Scholarship Payment

Request Form, OMB No. 3019–0001.

Before submitting the ICR to OMB for

review and approval for extension, The

Goldwater Foundation is soliciting

comments on the proposed ICR as

described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before December 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Gerald J.

Smith, President, Barry Goldwater

Scholarship and Excellence in

Education Foundation, 6225 Brandon

Avenue, Suite 315, Springfield, VA

22150–2519.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gerald J. Smith, (703) 756–6012; FAX:

(703) 756–6015; E-mail:

goldh2o@erols.com.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Affected Entities: Entities affected by

this action include approximately 400

Goldwater Scholars and their respective

Academic and Financial Aid Officers.

Title: Goldwater Foundation payment

Request Form.

Abstract: Public Law 99–166

authorizes The Goldwater Foundation to

conduct an annual nationwide

undergraduate scholarship competition

for students pursuing careers in

mathematics, the natural sciences and

engineering. This Information

Collection Form is used by the

Foundation to verify a Goldwater

Scholarship recipient’s academic

standing and to authorize the

disbursement of funds to the Scholar

each term.

The Foundation uses this form to

ensure that only authorized expenses

are requested and to avoid the

duplication of other scholarship funding

which is prohibited. Less frequent

collection of this information would not

allow the Foundation to verify a

Scholar’s academic and financial status

as required each term. Further, less

frequent collection would cause the

Foundation to expend funds sooner

than would be fiscally responsible,

since all funds are interest bearing until

expended. Under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44

U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal agencies

must obtain approval from the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for each

collection of information they conduct

or sponsor. ‘‘Collection of information’’

is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5

CFR 1320.3 and includes agency

requests or requirements that members

of the public submit reports, keep

records, or provide information to a

third party.