Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
The purpose of the LEIS is to provide comprehensive analysis of the proposed action and alternatives to the Secretaries of Interior and Army so findings and recommendations can be forwarded to Congress regarding the proposed land withdrawal. The study area for the environmental analysis is resource dependent. It includes Lewis and Clark County and Broadwater County for socioeconomic resources, MTARNG facilities for military mission, and the LHTA for biological and mineral resources.
The LEIS analyzes potential environmental effects of three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Action Alternatives 2 and 3 were developed as a result of the LEIS scoping process.
Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM's current right-of-way grant for military use of the LHTA by MTARNG would not be renewed. The current right-of-way grant expires in 2014.
This LEIS is a component of the legislative proposal package that BLM will submit to DOI and the Office of Management and Budget. After agency review and concurrence, the DOI will transmit the proposed legislation to Congress.
Issues considered in the LEIS include the following: (1) Continued ability of Graymont Western's Indian Creek Limestone Mine to extract and process ore within the LHTA; (2) allocation and management of grazing allotments; (3) public access to the LHTA; (4) noise and dust generated during training exercises, and by vehicular traffic; (5) impacts to Broadwater County due to possible termination of BLM payments in lieu of taxes if the withdrawal is granted; (6) potential impacts to wildlife in the Elkhorn Management Area; (7) consistency of land management policies after transfer of administrative responsibilities; (8) potential impacts to range management and cleanup activities; (9) owner access to, and use of, in-holdings; and (10) impacts to the local economy and MTARNG training under the no action alternative.
Potentially significant adverse impacts to socioeconomics are expected under Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative. There are no potentially significant adverse impacts expected under Alternatives 2 or 3.