[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 246 (Friday, December 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67302-67303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-32293]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Yellowstone Pipeline Missoula to Thompson Falls Reroute, Lolo
National Forest; Mineral, Missoula, and Sanders Counties, MT
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) for a proposal by the Yellowstone Pipeline Company to
build a new section of 10-inch or 12-inch petroleum products pipeline
between Missoula and Thompson Falls, Montana.
DATES: Initial comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be
received in writing no later than January 31, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Charles C. Wildes, Forest
Supervisor, Lolo National Forest, Building 24, Fort Missoula, Missoula,
MT 59804.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Egenhoff, Environmental
Coordinator, Lolo National Forest, as above, or phone: (406) 329-3833.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Yellowstone Pipe Line Company (YPL)
proposes to build a new pipeline section between Missoula and Thompson
Falls, Montana. The new pipe would be 10-inch or 12-inch nominal
diameter. YPL has submitted an application for a special-use permit for
the proposed pipeline to the Forest Service. YPL's application proposes
for study a primary corridor and two alternative corridors. The primary
corridor is about 75 miles long, following the Clark Fork Valley bottom
to Alberton, Montana, then along the Ninemile Divide ridges and
crossing the upper Ninemile Valley to Siegel Mountain, then along the
Clark Fork Valley bottom to Plains, Montana. The first alternative
corridor runs along the Clark Fork Valley bottom past St. Regis,
Montana, then along ridges north to Plains for about 90 miles. The
second alternative corridor is about 65 miles long, and is the same as
the primary corridor except that it follows the Ninemile Valley bottom
instead of the Ninemile Divide ridge. The proposed corridors could
require the use of 18 to 35 miles of National Forest System lands. The
Forest Service is the only Federal agency which manages lands within
the proposed corridors.
The purpose of this proposal is to reconnect an existing pipeline
which now has a section out of service. The Yellowstone Pipeline is a
common carrier delivering petroleum products from refineries in
Billings, Montana, to points west including Spokane, Washington. The
pipeline terminates in Moses Lake, Washington. The proposed new section
would replace an existing section through the Flathead Indian
Reservation. That section has been decommissioned following expiration
of an easement grant from the Bureau of Indian Affairs across trust
lands situated on the Flathead Indian Reservation. Petroleum products
are now transported west of Missoula by a variety of methods including
railroad, highway, and pipeline systems. The proposed reroute would
replace those current transportation methods with a fully functional
pipeline, which may have economic, environmental, and safety advantages
over the current transportation methods.
The decision to be made by the Forest Service is whether, and if
so, under what terms and conditions, to authorize the use of National
Forest System lands for constructing, operating, and maintaining a
hazardous liquids pipeline section between Missoula and Thompson Falls.
The Forest Service authority for this type of permit is Section 28 of
the Mineral Leasing Act.
The responsible official who will make decisions regarding National
Forest System lands based on this EIS is Charles C. Wildes, Forest
Supervisor, Lolo National Forest, Building 24, Fort Missoula, Missoula,
MT 59804. He 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.
The Forest Service is the lead Federal agency for preparing this
EIS. Several other agencies may have permitting or licensing authority
and may make separate decisions based on this EIS. The Forest Service
will cooperate with State and local agencies to prepare a single EIS to
meet as best as possible all agencies' permitting and consultation
needs. The Forest Service is developing a memorandum of understanding
to that effect with several agencies. The Montana Department of
Environmental Quality will be the lead State agency.
Other agencies which may have permit or license issuing authority
over the proposed pipeline include:
Federal Agencies: Bureau of Land Management, Army Corps of Engineers,
Federal Highway Administration, Federal Communications Commission;
State Agencies: Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Montana
Department of Natural Resources;
Local Agencies: Missoula County Commission, Sanders County Commission,
Mineral County Commission, Missoula Soil Conservation District, Eastern
Sanders County Conservation District, Mineral County Conservation
District.
Agencies or governments which may have consultation
responsibilities or special expertise in this matter include the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, UDOT
Research and Special Programs Administration Office of Pipeline Safety,
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation, Montana
Department of Transportation, Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and
Parks, Montana State Historic Preservation Office, Missoula County Weed
Control Board, Sanders County Weed Control Board, Mineral Country Weed
Control Board, Missoula City/County Office of Planning and Grants, and
Missoula City/County Health Department.
Preliminary issues and alternatives have not yet been compiled.
Issue identification and alternative development will be phases of the
public scoping process.
Before public scoping begins, the Forest Service intends to select
a third-party contractor to conduct scoping, analyze environmental
effects, and prepare the EIS. The contractor will perform to Forest
Service specifications, with funding from YPL. A schedule for public
meetings or hearings will be developed later.
Public scoping and public participation will involve at least four
phases: (1) Initial proposal review and comment, (2) preliminary issue
identification and alternative development review and comment, (3)
draft EIS review and comment, and (4) final EIS and Record of Decision
review and appeal period. During the scoping process, the Forest
Service is seeking
[[Page 67303]]
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. A scoping document will be prepared and mailed
to parties known to be interested in the proposed action. The agency
invites written comments and suggestions on this action, particularly
in terms of issues and alternatives. The Forest Service 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.
The draft EIS should be available for review in May, 1998. The
final EIS is scheduled for completion in September, 1998.
The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date
the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of
availability in the Federal Register.
The Forest Service believes it is important, at this early stage,
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 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, 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 those interested in this proposed action
participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so 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 prosed 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.
Dated: December 3, 1996.
Charles C. Wildes,
Forest Supervisor, Lolo National Forest.
[FR Doc. 96-32293 Filed 12-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
