[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 90 (Friday, May 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25583-25585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-12071]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Tusayan Growth Environmental Impact Statement, Kaibab National
Forest, Coconino County, Arizona.
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Revised Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact
statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In the March 8, 1994, edition of the Federal Register, page
10781, the Forest Service published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare
an environmental impact statement (EIS) on a proposed land exchange in
the
[[Page 25584]]
Kaibab National Forest. This revised NOI is being published to give
notice that the scope of the alternatives being considered in the EIS
has broadened, and that the schedule for filing the draft and final EIS
has been changed.
DATES: Comments in response to this Notice of Intent concerning the
scope of the analysis should be received by June 13, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Written comments concerning this EIS should be sent to
Tusayan Growth EIS, Kaibab National Forest, 800 South Sixth Street,
Williams, Arizona 86046.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Regional Forester for the Southwestern Region,
Charles W. Cartwright, Jr., is the Responsible Official.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Questions about the EIS should be directed to
Dennis Lund, Forest Lands Staff Officer, or Tom Gillett, Forest Lands
Staff Assistant, (520) 635-8200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The March 1994 NOI featured the proposed
land exchange as a method for providing an expanded land base in the
Tusayan/Grand Canyon area to address needs related to the
transportation, housing, community facilities, and visitor services.
Five alternatives are being considered in the EIS that examine
different ways of accommodating area needs through the use or
acquisition of National Forest System (NFS) lands. The alternatives
include the ``no action'' alternative, several land exchange options in
which area needs would be met through the development of NFS lands
acquired through exchange, a Townsite Act alternative in which standard
community facilities would be constructed on NFS lands acquired through
the Townsite Act and on NFS lands under special use permit, and a
transportation/federal housing alternative that accommodates imminent
National Park Service needs for housing and transportation facilities.
A preferred alternative will not be identified in the draft EIS.
The decision to be made is: (1) Whether or not to use NFS land for
community expansion and additional visitor services and facilities,
including construction of a transportation staging area for Grand
Canyon National Park visitors; and (2) if NFS land is to be so used,
what method or combination of methods of acquiring access to NFS land
best meets the needs of the area.
The Forest Service is the lead agency in the preparation of the
EIS. The National Park Service, Coconino County, and Northern Arizona
Council of Governments are cooperating agencies.
Issues that have been identified through public scoping include the
socio-economic impacts to outlying communities that rely heavily on
tourism related to Grand Canyon National Park visitation, the
availability of water for development of the NFS lands, the impact on
proposed development on Grand Canyon water resources, impacts on the
management and visitation to Grand Canyon National Park, impacts on the
visitor experience, development plan assurances, and impacts to
National Forest resources and management including fire, recreation,
cultural, wildlife and threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.
Various federal, state and local regulatory permits, approvals and
licenses would be required under federal and state law beyond the
decision made in the EIS for the proposed development of the NFS land.
These requirements could include conditional use permits, building
permits, occupancy permits and resource protection permits and
licenses.
Extensive public participation, or scoping (40 CFR 1501.7), has
occurred during the preparation of the draft EIS. A series of nine
public meetings was held initially in the spring of 1994. Numerous
presentations have been made to chambers of commerce in the region,
American Indian Tribe representatives and various organizations. A
series of seven newsletters, each focusing on different aspects of the
EIS, have been prepared and distributed as part of the public
involvement process from March 1995 through November 1996.
The draft EIS is expected to be available for public review by late
May or June 1997 (the earlier NOI specified a target release date of
February 1995 for draft EIS and a projected release date of October
1995 for the final EIS). The comment period on the draft EIS will be 90
days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes a
notice of availability in the Federal Register.
The final EIS is expected to be completed by May or June 1998. In
the final EIS, the Forest Service will respond to comments received
during the comment period on the draft EIS. The Responsible Official
will decide which, if any, of the alternatives will be implemented. The
Responsible Official will document the decision and reasons for the
decision in the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to
Forest Service appeal regulations in 36 CFR 217.
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 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. versus 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 comment and objections are made available to the Forest
Service in 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.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names
and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the
public record on this 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
standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR Part 215.
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
[[Page 25585]]
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.
Dated: April 29, 1997.
Louis Volk, Jr.,
Acting Regional Forester.
[FR Doc. 97-12071 Filed 5-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M