The aforementioned communications are the only notices, letters, reports or statements (including the DEIS) which 

 have been received in this matter, despite our express and repeated requests that all such communications be 

 directed to my attention and to Ken Bryan, the ranch manager at Monroe Property's local ranch address. The Draft 

 Environmental Impact Statement suggests in chapter I at page 1 7 that concerns were expressed by two DNRC 

 lessees who requested the opportunity to purchase parcels with historic use by their ranches that would be 

 exchanged to Plum Creek. The DEIS states that "DNRC responded in letters to the affected parties. It was 

 explained that the affected parcels were being considered for exchange with Plum Creek and sale or exchange to 

 other parties could not be considered at this time. However, it was acknowledged that the status of these parcels 

 may change through negotiations with Plum Creek or other environmental review process" (DEIS §1.6.3, page 1- 

 17). We have no record of ever receiving such a letter. If this occurred, it obviously should have come on the heels 

 of receipt of our written response of November 30, 1999. Furthermore, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

 suggests that a "second news letter was released on February 1 , 2000" (DEIS §1.4.2, page 1-11). Apparently the 

 second news letter published a summary of the scoping process and a preliminary list of public comments received 

 to that date. Likewise, I have no record of ever receiving such a news letter nor does Ken Bryan or anyone 

 associated with Monroe Property Company. 



When I spoke with You Saturday morning, April 28, 2001, outside of my office building when you delivered a copy 

 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to me, I had imderstood that if Monroe Property Company made 

 timely comments, that those comments would be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and would 

 be 



(page 4) 



considered in the rendition of any decision notice . You indicated that you were going to confirm that arrangement 

 with your supervisor. When I spoke with you this morning, you indicated that you had checked with your 

 supervisor and that DNRC was willing to accept whatever comments we might make but that there was imcertainty 

 as to whether these comments would be accepted as the comments of a "lessee" or whether in fact they would be 

 accepted as legitimate and timely comments with regard to the Draft Envirormiental Impact Statement . 



Since you are not in a position to provide the assurance which I had understood would be forthcoming that these 

 comments will, in fact, be included and addressed in the fmal environmental impact statement, at the same time 

 being given due consideration in arriving at the decision notice, I must formally object, on behalf of Monroe 

 Property Company, to the process and procedures which have been followed by your Department regarding notice to 

 Monroe Property Company. Despite clear and unequivocal communication as to how matters were to be 

 communicated to Momoe Property Company, the lessee, for whatever reason your Department has obviously 

 ignored or otherwise failed to comply with those requests. The fact that the Department had and has the capacity to 

 comply with our requests is ratified by the procedure followed in giving the notice on May 25, 2000 regarding 

 license improvements and as reemphasized and reinforced by the procedure followed in the June 21, 2000 letter on 

 the same subject. It is our position that there has been a breach of the rules and regulations regarding due and proper 

 notice to Monroe Property Company in the circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and that the 

 failure to provide notice in the manner requested has the effect of depriving Monroe Property Company, as lessee 

 and therefore as a directly interested and affected party, the opportunity to meaningfiilly participate in the process, to 

 make its views known and to have them considered. The Department is not dealing with a member of the general 

 public in this instance. Monroe Property Company is a lessee and the rights which it currently enjoys pursuant to its 

 state lease may be placed in jeopardy by virtue of the action taken in the implementation of this exchange. The fact 

 that Monroe Property Company held the lease on the property in Section 18. T14N, R14W and the substance of that 

 lease is expressly acknowledged throughout the DEIS (see §3. 10.1, page 3-38 and §4.10.1, page 4-59). The DEIS 

 also acknowledges the direct contact made requesting a report of unrecorded improvements (see §3.10.1, page 1-38). 

 That the action of the State in implementing this exchange proposal creates jeopardy to Monroe Property Company 

 as a lessee is also confirmed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The following observation is made at 

 §1.6.3 of the DEIS (page 1-17, 18) to-wit: "Plum Creek has stated that they would not guarantee grazing to the 

 existing license/ leaseholders on lands acquired fi-om DNRC and would accept applications per their administrative 

 guidelines. Grazing rates on private lands are generally set by market conditions and the relative value of the land 

 for grazing." 



BCWMA Land Exchanges Final Environmental Impact Statement 31 



