[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6906-6907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-3604]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 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.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2002 / 
Notices  

[[Page 6906]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


White Pass Ski Area Expansion, Okanogan-Wenatchee and Gifford 
Pinchot National Forests, Yakima and Lewis Counties, 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 
site-specific proposal to modify the present special use permit of the 
White Pass Company, current 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 Cowlitz Valley Ranger District 
of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. The Naches Ranger District of 
the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests administers the current White 
Pass Company permit. 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 and 
Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans 
(1990), as amended by the Northwest Forest Pan (1994), which provide 
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.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions to Sonny J. O'Neal, 
Forest Supervisor, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests, 215 Melody 
Lane, Wenatchee, Washington 98801, Attn: White Pass Ski Area Expansion.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions and comments about this EIS 
should be directed to Randall Shepard, District Ranger, Naches Ranger 
District, 10061 Highway 12, Naches, WA 98937; Phone 509-653-2205.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests are 
initiating this action in response to an ongoing request by the White 
Pass Company to expand their current ski area permit boundary.
    This is White Pass Company's third request to expand the skiing 
opportunities at White Pass. The first proposal was submitted after 
passage of the Washington Wilderness Act of 1984, which withdrew the 
area in question from Wilderness for the express purpose of study for 
its ski development potential. 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.
    In 1998, the analysis for a second, smaller scale proposal for 
expansion was documented in an Environmental Impact Statement and a 
Record of Decision authorizing the expansion was issued. In a 
subsequent lawsuit, the U.S. District Court, Western District of 
Washington, rules against the Forest Service on two grounds and the ROD 
was again withdrawn.
    This current proposal has been developed following (1) a review and 
understanding of the issues raised during the previous EIS attempt; (2) 
the review of current and updated environmental standards such as the 
amended Northwest Forest Plan direction, Aquatic Conservation Strategy, 
and the Interim Direction for Roadless Area Protection; (3) recent 
discussions with interested groups regarding the proposed action and 
alternatives; and (4) the continued search for an expansion location 
that best fits into the social, cultural, environmental and skier 
needs.
    A range of alternatives will be considered, including a No Action 
Alternative. Other alternatives will be developed in response to issues 
received during scoping. Preliminary issues that have been identified 
include the potential effects on the following: Inventoried roadless 
area, riparian areas, Pacific Crest Trail, backcountry winter 
recreation opportunities, scenery, heritage resources, wildlife 
habitat, air quality, socioeconomics, and the cumulative effects of the 
proposed action on existing uses within the current permit area.
    Continued 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, Tribes, and other organizations and individuals 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 issues 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. 
Comments received in response to this notice, 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 Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. 
Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that

[[Page 6907]]

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 within a 
specified number of days.
    The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for review in June 2002. 
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. At that 
time, copies of the draft EIS will be distributed to interested and 
affected agencies, organizations, Tribes, and members of the public for 
their review and comment. It is very important that those interested in 
the management of the Okanogan-Wenatchee and Gifford Pinchot National 
Forests participate at that time.
    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 
a draft EIS 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. 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 specified 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 no later than September 
2002. 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, Okanogan-Wenatchee National 
Forests, and Claire Lavendel, Forest Supervisor, Gilfford Pinchot 
National Forest, are the responsible officials. As the responsible 
officials, they 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: January 25, 2002.
Sonny J. O'Neal,
Forest Supervisor, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests.
[FR Doc. 02-3604 Filed 2-13-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M