[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