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

11148

Vol. 62, No. 47

Tuesday, March 11, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

White Pass Ski Area Expansion,

Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Lewis

County, Washington

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The Forest Service, USDA,

will prepare an environmental impact

statement (EIS) to analyze and disclose

the environmental impacts of a sitespecific proposal to modify the present

special use permit of the White Pass

Company, present operator of the White

Pass Ski Area. This modification would

authorize expansion into approximately

300 acres in Pigtail Basin, located

between the current permit area and

Hogback Basin, for the purpose of

providing additional skiing

opportunities. This action is proposed

in response to an application by the

White Pass Company to expand the

permit area on the Packwood Ranger

District of the Gifford Pinchot National

Forest. The White Pass Company

current permit is administered by the

Naches Ranger District of the Wenatchee

National Forest. The proposed action is

at White Pass, Washington,

approximately 50 miles west of the city

of Yakima. The purpose of the EIS will

be to develop and evaluate a range of

alternatives including a No Action

Alternative, and possible additional

alternatives to respond to issues

identified during the scoping process.

The proposed project will be in

compliance with the direction in the

Wenatchee National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan (March

1990), as amended by the Northwest

Forest Plan (April 1994), which

provides the overall guidance for

management of the area. The Agency

invites written comments on the scope

of this project. In addition, the agency

gives notice of this analysis so that

interested and affected people are aware

of how they may participate and

contribute to the final decision.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope

of this proposal must be received by

April 12, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

and suggestions to Sonny J. O’Neal,

Forest Supervisor, Wenatchee National

Forest, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee,

Washington 98801.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions and comments about this EIS

should be directed to Jim Pena, District

Ranger, Naches Ranger District, 10061

U.S. Highway 12, Naches, WA 98937;

Phone 509–653–2205.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Wenatchee National Forest is initiating

this action in response to a request filed

by the White Pass Company on January

7, 1997, to expand their current ski area

permit boundary.

This is White Pass Company’s second

attempt to expand the skiing

opportunities at White Pass. Their first

proposal was submitted after passage of

the Washington Wilderness Bill of 1984.

The Bill, while increasing Wilderness

lands within Washington by well over

one million acres, also realigned the

Wilderness boundary southwest of

White Pass in the expressed interest of

skiing potential in this area. White Pass

Company’s initial expansion proposal

encompassed 1,300 acres, which

included Hogback Basin and the

development of three chairlifts.

Subsequent litigation regarding the

Forest’s decision to authorize the

expansion in combination with

concerns regarding new wildlife

information led to withdrawal of that

decision by the Wenatchee National

Forest Supervisor in 1992.

This new proposal has been

developed following (1) the review and

understanding of the issues raised

during the first EIS attempt, (2) new

environmental standards such as the

Northwest Forest Plan and Aquatic

Conservation Strategy, (3) recent

discussions with interested groups

regarding the new proposed action and

(4) the continued search for an

expansion location that best fits into the

social, cultural, environmental and skier

needs categories.

A range of alternatives will be

considered, including a No Action

Alternative. Other alternatives will be

developed in response to issues

received during scoping. The major

issues that have been identified to date

include the following: Air quality,

cultural/historic/religious uses, scenery,

socioeconomics, wildlife habitat, and

the cumulative effects of the proposed

action with uses within the current

permit area.

Public participation will be especially

important at several points during the

analysis. The Forest Service will be

seeking information, comments, and

assistance from Federal, State, and local

agencies, and other individuals or

organizations who may be interested in

or affected by the proposed actions. This

information will be used in preparation

of the draft EIS. The scoping process

includes:

1. Identifying potential issues.

2. Identifying issues to be analyzed in

depth.

3. Eliminating insignificant issues or

those which have been covered by a

relevant previous environmental

process.

4. Exploring additional alternatives.

5. Identifying potential environmental

effects of the proposed action and

alternatives (i.e., direct, indirect and

cumulative effects and connected

actions.).

6. Determining potential cooperating

agencies and task assignments.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed

with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and to be available for

review by October 1997. At that time,

copies of the draft EIS will be

distributed to interested and affected

agencies, organization, and members of

the public for their review and

comment. The EPA will publish a notice

of availability of the draft EIS in the

Federal Register. The comment period

on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the

date the EPA notice appears in the

Federal Register. It is very important

that those interested in the management

of the Wenatchee and Gifford Pinchot

National Forests participate at that time.

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 EIS’s 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 connections.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Notices 11149

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also,

environmental objections that could be

raised at the draft EIS stage, but that are

not raised until after completion of the

final EIS 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 EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns on the proposed action,

comments on the draft EIS should be as

specific as possible. It is also helpful if

comments refer to specific pages or

chapters of the draft EIS. Comments

may also address the adequacy of the

draft EIS 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 final EIS is scheduled to be

completed by March 1998. In the final

EIS, the Forest Service is required to

respond to comments and responses

received during the comment period

that pertain to the environmental

consequences discussed in the draft EIS

and applicable laws, regulations and

policies considered in making the

decision regarding this proposal. Sonny

J. O’Neal, Forest Supervisor, Wenatchee

National Forest is the responsible

official. As the responsible official he

will document the decision and reasons

for the decision in the Record of

Decision. That decision will be subject

to Forest Service appeal regulation (36

CFR part 215).

Dated: May 4, 1997.

G. Elton Thomas,

Natural Resources Group Leader.

[FR Doc. 97–5958 Filed 3–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

Canyons Forest Health Project, Tahoe

National Forest, Sierra and Nevada

Counties, CA

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service will

prepare an environmental impact

statement for harvesting in densely

stocked timber stands exhibiting insectrelated mortality and reduced health.

The harvesting is proposed on

approximately 2,500 acres within an

8,000-acre analysis area. The salvage,

sanitation, and thinning of the stands is

proposed to improve the forest health

and remove some of the dead material

contributing to the fuel loading in the

area. Also being proposed are fuels

treatments, site preparation,

reforestation, timber stand

improvement, and road construction,

reconstruction, and decommissioning.

These actions were recently analyzed

and decided within a larger project

analysis area called the Worn Mill

Environmental Assessment/Biological

Evaluation (EA/BE) (September, 1996).

Only about half of the area analyzed

under the Worn Mill EA/BE document

was put under contract (Toucan Timber

Sale) in December 1996 prior to

expiration of the Rescissions Act, Pub.

L. 104–19. Since the decision on the

Worn Mill EA/BE has also subsequently

expired, the second half of the Worn

Mill analysis area that was identified as

needing forest health treatment will

now be re-analyzed under the Canyons

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The agency invites comments and

suggestions on the scope of the analysis.

In addition, the agency gives notice of

the full environmental analysis and

decision-making process that will occur

on the proposal so that interested and

affected people are aware of how they

may participate and contribute to the

final decision.

DATES: Comments concerning the

analysis should be received in writing

by April 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Caryn Huntt, Project Leader, Truckee

Ranger District, 10342 Highway 89 N,

Truckee, CA 96161.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Caryn Huntt, Project Leader, Natural

Resources Department, Truckee Ranger

District, (916) 587–3558.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A draft

environmental impact statement is

expected to be available for agency and

public review by April, 1997. A 45-day

comment period will follow the

publication of the notice of availability

of the draft EIS in the Federal Register.

Al comments will be analyzed and a

final EIS and accompanying record of

decision (ROD) will be issued. The final

EIS should be available by June, 1997.

Written comments from the public

should be submitted as indicated at the

beginning of this notice. Comments

would be most useful if sent by the date

specified and if they clearly address the

issues and alternatives related to the

proposed action.

The proposed action being considered

includes salvage, sanitation, and

thinning of the timber stands to address

forest health concerns east of Boca and

Stampede reservoirs and on the adjacent

flats and slopes near Truckee,

California.

Preliminary issues connected with the

proposal include forest health, water

quality, wildlife habitat, and wildfire/

fuels concerns.

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 45-

day 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.

The responsible official for this

environmental impact statement and

decision is John H. Skinner, Forest

Supervisor, Tahoe National Forest, 631