[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35903-35904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17467]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 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.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1998 / 
Notices  

[[Page 35903]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management


Whitetail-Pipestone Recreation Management Strategy; Site-specific 
Deerlodge Forest Plan Amendment; Butte and Jefferson Ranger Districts; 
Silver Bow and Jefferson Counties, Montana

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA and Bureau of Land Management, USDI.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Forest Service and BLM will prepare an environmental 
impact statement (EIS) to create a recreation management strategy for 
the Whitetail-Pipestone area and amend site-specifically the Deerlodge 
Forest Plan and the Headwaters Resource Management Plan to include 
further recreation direction. The Forest Service and the BLM will be 
joint lead agencies for this EIS (40 CFR 1501.5). The purpose is to 
determine what network of roads and trails will best provide a variety 
of recreation opportunities while protecting resources from soil 
erosion, spread of noxious weeds, and disturbance of wildlife habitats 
and heritage resources.

DATES: Initial comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be 
received in writing no later than July 19, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Deborah L.R. Austin, Forest 
Supervisor, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, 1820 Meadowlark, 
Butte, MT, 59701.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jocelyn Dodge, Environmental Analysis 
Team Leader, Butte Ranger District, 1820 Meadowlark, Butte, MT, 59701, 
or phone: (406)494-2147, Eric Tolf, Jefferson Ranger District, 3 
Whitetail Road, Whitehall MT, 59759, or phone (406)287-3223 or Darrell 
McDaniel, BLM, 106 North Parkmont, Butte, MT, 59701, or phone (406)-
494-5059.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forest Service and BLM propose to create 
a recreation management strategy for federal lands in the Whitetail-
Pipestone Area. Five sub-units would be managed with an area 
restriction with non-motorized and/or motorized travel allowed on 
various designated roads and trails. Different sub-units would 
emphasize different recreation opportunities. The proposed strategy 
also includes construction of trailhead and camping facilities and an 
interpretive site, and allows for future trail construction to meet 
resource and recreation objectives. This proposal would result in non-
significant amendments to the Deerlodge Forest Plan and the Headwaters 
Resource Management Plan.
    The analysis area lies between Butte, Boulder, and Whitehall, 
Montana. It includes all National Forest and Bureau of Land Management 
lands within an area defined by Interstate 15 from Butte to Boulder, 
Whitetail Road from Boulder to Whitehall (including Hadley Park), and 
Montana Highway 2 from Whitehall to Butte. The project area totals 
276,234 acres including private lands.
    The Forest Service and BLM land management plans include goals to 
provide areas for quality motorized and non-motorized recreation and to 
provide a wide variety of suitable recreation experiences. Since these 
plans were adopted about ten years ago, monitoring shows large 
increases in use and changes in type of recreation activities. A 
recreation management strategy for the area must address changes in 
recreation activities in the last 10 years, address current and 
anticipated travel demands on public land, and manage recreation use 
while protecting resources, including historic and prehistoric sites.
    Potential issues identified are the effects of the proposal on 
watershed function, recreation, road and trail safety, fish and 
wildlife, heritage resources, and roadless character.
    Public participation is important to the analysis. Part of the goal 
of public involvement is to identify additional issues and to refine 
the general, tentative issues identified above. People may visit with 
Forest Service and BLM officials at any time during the analysis and 
prior to the decision. Two periods are specifically designated for 
comments on the analysis: (1) During the scoping process and (2) during 
the draft EIS comment period.
    During the scoping process, the Forest Service and BLM are seeking 
information and comments from Federal, State, and local agencies and 
other individuals or organizations who may be interested in or affected 
by the proposed action. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
will be consulted concerning effects to threatened and endangered 
species. The agencies invite written comments and suggestions on this 
action, particularly in terms of identification of issues and 
alternative development.
    Analysis of this proposed action began in an environmental 
assessment (EA). Public involvement for the EA started in July, 1995. 
Since then, the public has participated in formulating issues and 
developing alternatives through responding to large mailings and 
attending periodic public meetings and field trips.
    In addition to the proposed action, a range of alternatives has 
been developed in response to issues identified during scoping. One of 
these is the ``no action'' alternative, in which no changes would be 
made to current travel management direction for the analysis area. A 
second alternative identified proposes to reduce secondary road 
densities from the present condition by 50 to 90 percent, while 
maintaining general forest access for traditional non-motorized 
recreation. Class I primary motorized road access would remain the same 
as the existing condition. A third alternative proposes to increase the 
number of trails, trailheads, campgrounds, view points, and tables, and 
identify historic points more than identified in the proposed action. 
The Forest Service and BLM will analyze and document the direct, 
indirect, and cumulative effects of all alternatives.
    The Forest Service and BLM will continue to involve the public and 
will inform interested and affected parties as to how they may 
participate and contribute to the final decision. Another formal 
opportunity for response will be provided following completion of a 
draft EIS.
    The draft EIS should be available for review in October, 1998. The 
final EIS

[[Page 35904]]

is scheduled for completion in March, 1999.
    The comment period on the draft EIS will be 90 days from the date 
the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of 
availability in the Federal Register.
    The Forest Service and BLM believe it is important to give 
reviewers notice at this early stage 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 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 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, 803F.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 those interested in this proposed action 
participate by the close of the 90-day comment period so substantive 
comments and objections are made available to the forest Service and 
BLM at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to 
them in the final environmental impact statement.
    To assist the Forest Service and BLM 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 Quality Regulations for implementing 
the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 
40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
    The Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Supervisor and the Headwaters 
Resource Area Manager are the responsible officials who will make the 
decision. They will decide on this proposal after considering comments 
and responses, environmental consequences discussed in the Final EIS, 
and applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The decision and 
reasons for the decision will be documented in a Record of Decision.

    Dated: June 4, 1998.
Thomas W. Heintz,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.

    Dated: June 5, 1998.
Merle Good,
Area Manager, Headwaters Resource Area.
[FR Doc. 98-17467 Filed 6-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M