Yellowstone Pipeline Missoula to Thompson Falls Reroute, Lolo National Forest; Mineral, Missoula, and Sanders Counties, MT

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