I-90 Land Exchange, Wenatchee National Forest, Kittitas County, Washington; Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, King and Pierce Counties, Washington; and Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Cowlitz, Lewis, and Skamania Counties, Washington

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

I-90 Land Exchange, Wenatchee National Forest, Kittitas County,

Washington; Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, King and Pierce

Counties, Washington; and Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Cowlitz,

Lewis, and Skamania Counties, Washington

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, will prepare an environmental impact

statement (EIS) to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives for a

land exchange that involves approximately 43,000 acres of Plum Creek

Timber Company, Limited Partnership land and 41,000 acres of National

Forest System land. The values of the lands exchanged must be equal.

The alternatives will be developed with the emphasis on social,

economic and ecological values. It is believed that the integrity of

these

[[Page 22907]]

values will be improved by reducing fragmentation that is created by

the current ownership pattern. This proposal is scheduled for

completion no later than October 1998.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope and implementation of this

proposal must be received by June 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions and comments about this EIS should be directed to Floyd

Rogalski, Project Planner, Cle Elum Ranger District, 803 West Second

Street, Cle Elum, Washington 98922; phone 509-674-4411, ext. 315.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forest Service is initiating this action

in response to a request by Plum Creek to exchange lands that will

provide public benefits while improving management opportunities. Lands

with high wildlife, aquatic and recreation values are proposed to be

exchanged for lands more suitable to timber management. Also being

considered is the opportunity to consolidate lands into more easily

managed contiguous blocks.

Issues that have been identified to date include: (1) The impact of

providing contiguous blocks of National Forest land on a landscape

where much of the land is fragmented by a ``checkerboard'' pattern of

ownership; (2) spectrum of recreational opportunities, regardless of

ownership, continue to exist; (3) the impact on the economies of the

affected counties; (4) the impact to cultural and historic sites; and

(5) tribal concerns.

The decision to be made is what lands, if any, should be exchanged

as part of this proposal. The proposed action is to analyze whether to

exchange approximately 41,000 acres of National Forest System land for

43,000 acres of Plum Creek land, adjusted for equal value as required

by law. Other alternatives will be developed during the scoping process

for the environmental impact statement.

All alternatives will need to respond to the specific condition of

providing benefits equal to or better than the current condition.

Alternatives being considered at this time include: (1) No Action and

(2) Exchanging lands as identified in the proposed action.

Public participation will be especially important at several points

during the analysis. The Forest Service will be seeking information,

comments, and assistance from the Federal, State, and local agencies,

and other individuals or organizations who may be interested in or

affected by the proposed action. 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 and identifying 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.

Public meetings will be held in both eastern and western Washington,

Notice of meeting dates and locations will be published in the

newspapers of record. Wenatchee National Forest--The Wenatchee World

and The Yakima Herald-Republic; Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest--

Seattle Post-Intelligencer; and Gifford Pinchot National Forest--

Columbian.

At this time, the scoping meetings are planned to be held in April

and May 1997. The scheduled meeting dates are as follows: April 30, Hal

Holmes Center, Ellensburg, Washington, 6-9 p.m.; May 1, Holiday Inn,

Issaquah, Washington, 6-9 p.m.; May 7, Randle Ranger Station, Randle,

Washington, 6-9 p.m.; and May 8, Mt. St. Helens Visitor Center, Castle

Rock, Washington, 6-9 p.m.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by

December, 1997. 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, and members of the

public for their review and comment.

It is very important that those interested in the management of the

Gifford Pinchot, Mr. Baker-Snoqualmie, and Wenatchee National Forests

participate at that time. The Forest Service believes it is important

to give reviewers notice at this early stage 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 contentions. 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, 803f. 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 in October 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.

Judith E. Levin, Acting Director of Recreation, Lands and Mineral

Resources, Pacific Northwest Region is the responsible official. As the

responsible official she will document the decision and reasons for the

decision in the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to

Forest Service appeal regulations (36 CFR Part 215).

Dated: April 21, 1997.

Judith E. Levin,

Acting Director of Recreation, Lands, and Mineral Resources.

[FR Doc. 97-10825 Filed 4-25-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M