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

35903

Vol. 63, No. 126

Wednesday, July 1, 1998

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 WhitetailPipestone area and amend sitespecifically 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 nonmotorized 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
35904 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 / Notices

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, BeaverheadDeerlodge 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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Revised East Beaver and Miner’s

Creek Timber Sale and Prescribed

Burning Project, Targhee National

Forest, Clark County, Idaho

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Revised Notice of Intent to

prepare environmental impact

statement.

SUMMARY: This is a revised Notice of

Intent for the East Beaver Creek Timber

Sale and Prescribed Burning Project. A

Notice of Intent was originally

published on April 20, 1998 pages

19470 and 19471 of the Federal

Register. The project is being revised to

add the Miner’s Creek Timber Sale as

part of the environmental impact

statement. The project will now be

referred to as the East Beaver and

Miner’s Creek Timber Sale and

Prescribed Burning Project. The Forest

Supervisor of the Targhee National

Forest gives notice of the agency’s intent

to prepare an environmental impact

statement. The revised proposed action

would harvest 7.4 million feet of timber

from 2,145 acres and prescribe burn

2,220 acres with 518 acres of the

burning in the timber sale harvest units.

The remaining 1,702 acres of burning

would be in nonforest types. Two miles

of temporary roads would be built, 2.6

miles of existing roads reconstructed,

and 4.4 miles of new specified roads

would be constructed. Project area is

located approximately 15 miles

northeast of Dubois, Idaho. Alternatives

will include the proposed action, no

action, and any alternatives that

respond to significant issues generated

during the scoping process. A more

detailed description is available from

the Dubois Ranger District; see address

below.

DATES: Send written comments and

suggestions on the issues concerning the

proposed action by July 20, 1998.

Comments received in response to this

solicitation, including names and

addresses of those who comment, will

be considered part of the public record

on the proposed action and will be

available for public inspection.

Comments submitted anonymously will

be accepted and considered; however,

those who submit anonymous

comments will not have a standing to

appeal the subsequent decision under

39 CFR parts 215 or 217. Additionally,

pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person

may request the agency to withhold a

submission from the public record by

showing how the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA) permits such

confidentiality. Persons requesting such

confidentiality should be aware that,

under the FOIA, confidentiality may be

granted in only very limited

circumstances, such as to protect trade

secrets. The Forest Service will inform

the requester of the agency’s decision

regarding the request for confidentiality,

and where the request is denied, the

agency will return the submission and

notify the requester that the comments

may be resubmitted with or without

name and address within 15 days.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Clarence M. Murdock, District Ranger,

Dubois Ranger District, P.O. Box 46,

Dubois, ID 83423.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Councilman, Interdisciplinary

Team Leader, phone (208) 558–7301.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

revision to this project is being made to

include the Miner’s Creek Timber Sale.

An environmental assessment was

prepared for Miner’s Creek in 1995 and

the sale was sold in 1996. After sale, a

lawsuit was filed by two environmental

groups. The Forest Service’s decision to

log the sale was upheld at the local

Federal court level but this decision was

appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of

Appeals. The 9th Circuit Court reversed

the lower court’s decision and directed

the Forest Service to prepare an

environmental impact statement. The

Miner’s Creek Timber Sale and the East

Beaver Creek Timber Sale and

Prescribed Burning Project are within

the same watersheds, have similar

issues and could be implemented at the

same time. Therefore, it made sense to

combine the projects into a single

analysis.

The Targhee Revised Land

Management Plan was approved in

1997. One of the decisions in the

Revised Plan was to allow for the

production and utilization of wood fiber

from certain areas of the Forest. The

geographic area where the proposed

action would take place has primarily a

prescription of timber management with

emphasis on big game security (5.1.4b).