[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7495-7496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-3550]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Helena National Forest, Lewis & Clark County, MT; North Belts 
Travel Plan

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 
(EIS).

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

SUMMARY: The Helena National Forest is proposing a revision of the 
existing year-round travel management plan in the northern portion of 
the Big Belt Mountains and portions of the Dry Range on the Helena and 
Townsend Ranger Districts. This travel plan will include analysis on 
roads and trails regarding year-round and seasonal, open and closed 
motorized and non-motorized routes. In addition, potential travel 
corridors connecting roads and trails are being considered. This EIS 
will be prepared displaying the anticipated effects of the above 
activities to the resources and human uses of the analysis area. 
Closure methods will be identified and improvement projects to 
rehabilitate routes will be analyzed. The North Belts Travel Planning 
area includes about 190,000 acres from the Forest boundary north of the 
Gates of the Mountains Wilderness south to about the southern boundary 
of the Confederate Gulch drainage and portions of the Dry Range.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
by March 14, 2003. The draft EIS is expected April 2003 and the final 
EIS is expected April 2004.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments or for further information, mail 
correspondence to or call Beth Ihle--Team Leader, Townsend Ranger 
District, 415 S. Front, Townsend, MT 59644 (Phone 406-266-3425) or 
Chuck Neal--Travel Planner, 2880 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 59601 (Phone 
406-449-5201).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History of Previous Efforts

    Travel Plan efforts for the North Belts originally was initiated in 
1997, which included vegetation management and noxious weed treatments. 
A draft EIS called the North Belts Travel Plan/Magpie-confederate 
Vegetation Restoration Project was issued in March 1999. Alternatives 
were developed addressing travel plan issues from public input. In the 
summer of 2000, a major fire burned over 29,000 acres within the North 
Belts analysis area creating a substantial change. Due to this changed 
condition, travel plan efforts were to be separated from the vegetation 
and noxious weed components of the 1999 draft EIS. Restoration of the 
burned over area followed by a Forest-wide Roads Analysis Plan took 
priority over travel management plans. This renewed effort has taken 
into consideration the changed conditions and change in management 
direction in regard to travel planning and has also considered and 
incorporated public input from the previous attempts. Opportunity for 
additional comments is presented in this process.

Purpose and Need for Action

    The Helena National Forest has identified the need for the North 
Belts Travel Management Plan to address a variety of year-round 
motorized and non-motorized recreation uses as well as access for 
administrative and permitted uses and for private lands. These needs 
will be balanced while meeting needs for fish and wildlife habitats and 
soil and watershed health, and prevention of noxious weed spread as 
directed by the Helena Forest Plan.

Proposed Action

    Features of the proposed action include the following elements:
1. Open or closed periods for routes are simplified to the following:
    a. Yearlong open or closed,
    b. October 15--December 1: closed for big-game security, and
    c. December 2--May 15 open or closed for winter range.
    Other closures will be managed as unique situations occur and will 
utilize special orders or other methods to respond to them, e.g. spring 
thaw.
2. Open and closed routes and areas are proposed for snowmobiles area. 
However, in big-game winter range, snowmobiles will be allowed on 
designated routes only.
3. As part of the process, users may help identify ``corridors'' where 
future construction could connect existing routes and provide specific 
kinds of recreational opportunities.
4. Proposal includes new road construction (about 1.5 miles) and new 
non-motorized trail construction (about .25 miles). In addition, trail 
and road reconstruction, and development of trailheads and information 
kiosks would be included in the proposal.
5. Four route types are included:
    a. Roads open to vehicles meeting requirements of State laws,
    b. Motorized trails open to vehicles 50 inches wide or less,
    c. Non-motorized trails, and
    d. Snowmobile use.
6. Site-specific road rehabilitation projects such as culvert 
replacement, correcting drainage problems and localized road 
relocations are included.
7. Vehicle access within 300 ft. of an open, designated road is allowed 
primarily to access dispersed camping sites, but also for other uses as 
long as it does not result in resource damage such as rutting of soils, 
hill climbing, noxious weed infestations, fording of streams, crossing 
of meadows, etc.
8. In lynx habitat, the proposal does not result in a net increase in 
designated over the snow routes and snowmobile play areas.

Responsible Official

    Tom Clifford--Forest Supervisor, 2880 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 
59601.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    Whether or not to implement the proposed action or an alternative 
to the proposed action including the following decisions:
    [sbull] Which areas, roads, and trails are appropriate for what 
types of public motorized and non-motorized travel,
    [sbull] Which areas, roads, and trails should have seasonal 
restrictions to protect wildlife or other resources,
    [sbull] What types of closures and/or rehabilitation methods should 
be used on year-round closed routes,
    [sbull] What segments of new trail construction and new trailhead 
facilities are needed,
    [sbull] Which road maintenacne and repairs are needed to address 
watershed issues,
    [sbull] What type of access is needed to private ownership within 
the Forest boundary,

[[Page 7496]]

    [sbull] Which new connector travel corridors would be included for 
future site-specfic analysis, and
    [sbull] Whether or not Forest Plan amendment(s) would be required?

Scoping Process

    [sbull] Pre-scoping contacts--February 6, 2003.
    [sbull] Scoping package (mailing)--February 10, 2003.
    [sbull] NOI--February 14, 2003.
    [sbull] Post on website--February 14, 2003.
    [sbull] DEIS Public Meetings--May/June 2003.
    [sbull] DEIS Comment Period--April through September of 2003.
    [sbull] FEIS and ROD--April 2004.

Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides 
the development of the environmental impact statement. Comments are due 
by March 14, 2003.
    A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for 
comment. The comment period on the draft EIS is expected to be from 
mid-April through September of 2003. This date will be established when 
the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of 
availability in the Federal Register.
    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 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 Quality Regulations for implementing 
the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 
40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including 
the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part 
of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public 
inspection.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 
1909.15, section 21.)
    Dated: February 6, 2003.
Al Christophersen,
Deputy Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 03-3550 Filed 2-13-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P