[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 160 (Friday, August 19, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-20392]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 19, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service

 

Environment Impact Statement, Shamrock Timber Sale(s), Tongass 
National Forest, AK

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will issue a supplemental Draft EIS for the 
Shamrock Timber Sale(s). The supplement will include an additional road 
and unit, minor road changes, designation of retention areas, a new 
Forest Service list of sensitive species, a change in subsistence 
findings, and a change in the range of timber volume in the Proposed 
Action and Purpose and Need. This revised Notice of Intent (NOI) 
updates and replaces the December 1991 Notice.
    The proposed action changes from 10-40 to 10-52 million board feet 
of commercial timber within the Shamrock area, and as before, to 
construct the associated road system. The timber would be sold in one 
or more timber sales beginning in September 1995.
    The study area includes Value Comparison Units 436, 438, and 429 on 
Kupreanof Island in southeast Alaska. This area, encompassing 
approximately 108,000 acres, has been allocated by the Tongass Land 
Management Plan to Land Use Designation IV, in which management 
emphasis is primarily on commodity or market resources.
    The original NOI was published on page 66428 of the 12/23/91 
Federal Register. Notice of the draft EIS was published on page 45338 
of the 10/27/93 issue, and the comment period of the Draft EIS was 
extended on page 59033 of the 11/5/93 issue.
    The purpose of this project is to provide 10-52 million board feet 
of timber for harvest according to direction described in the Tongass 
Land Management Plan, to meet the Federal obligation to make timber 
volume available for harvest by timber operators, and to improve the 
timber productivity of the project area by harvesting mature stands of 
timber and replacing them with faster growing stands of second-growth 
timber.
    The decision to be made is whether to harvest 10-52 million board 
feet of timber from the Shamrock Study Area, and if so, in which 
locations and under what conditions. This decision will be made by 
Abigail R. Kimbell, the Stikine Area Forest Supervisor.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Public scoping began in April 1992 and has been ongoing 
since that time. Interested publics are invited to comment. The comment 
period on the supplemental Draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the 
Environmental Protection Agency's notice of availability appears in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Shamrock analysis is being conducted by EA Engineering, Science and 
Technology under contract to the Petersburg Ranger District. Questions 
and comments can be directed to Ron Bockelman, EA Engineering, Science 
and Technology, 8520 154th Avenue NE., Redmond, WA 98052, phone (206) 
869-2194.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A public scoping letter was sent to all 
persons who indicated an interest in the project by responding to the 
Stikine Area Project Schedule, or who otherwise notified the Stikine 
Area that they were interested in the Shamrock Timber Sale(s).
    Alternatives include the no-action alternative and four action 
alternatives that would harvest form 20-52 million board feet of timber 
from 1,066-2,592 acres and construct 22-40 miles of specified road. 
Yarding systems would include shovel, highlead, skyline, and 
helicopter.
    The following issues have been identified:
    1. Transportation: What effect will road construction and 
subsequent maintenance following harvest have on access to and within 
the Shamrock Area?
    2a. Timber Resources: How will long-term forest health and 
productivity be affected by harvesting and the specific harvest 
treatments in the Shamrock area?
    2b. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants (TES); Wetlands: 
Will harvesting and road construction result in adverse impact to any 
populations of TES plants? What are the expected losses of wetland area 
and functional value under each harvest alternative?
    3. Wildlife: What effects will timber harvest and related 
activities have on wildlife habitat?
    4. Fish: What effects will timber harvest and road construction 
have on habitats used by trout and salmon?
    5. Biodiversity: How will timber harvesting associated with the 
Shamrock area affect the biodiversity and old growth structure of 
Kupreanof Island?
    6. Watershed: Will timber harvesting adversely affect the 
hydrologic balance and water quality of streams in the Shamrock area?
    7. Floodplains: Will harvest activities and road construction in 
the Shamrock area affect the conveyance of floodwater or result in an 
increase in potential flood damage?
    8. Soils: To what degree will soil erosion and sedimentation 
increase as a result of harvest activities and the construction of 
roads in the Shamrock area?
    9. Minerals: Will timber harvest and road building in the Shamrock 
area affect mining activities?
    10. Air Quality: Are there potential air quality impacts due to 
burning, road construction, or harvest activities?
    11. Subsistence: To what extent will each alternative affect 
subsistence resources and use within the study area?
    12. Cultural Resources: Would cultural resources, particularly 
Native American sites, be impacted by harvesting in the Shamrock area?
    13a. Recreation Opportunities: What effects will the proposed sale 
or sales in this area have on recreational opportunities?
    13b. Wild and Scenic Rivers: What effects will each alternative 
have on streams eligible or suitable for Wild and Scenic River 
designation?
    14. Visual Resources: To what extent will each alternative 
influence the landscape character of the analysis area, and to what 
extent will harvest designs be mitigated to protect visual quality?
    15. Economics: To what extent will action alternatives within the 
Shamrock area include timber sale(s) that are profitable and meet 
economic criteria for timber harvest in the Tongass National Forest?
    The supplemental Draft EIS is scheduled for publication in December 
1994 and the Final EIS in September 1995.
    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 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, 
533 [1978]). Also, environmental objections that could have been raised 
at the Draft EIS stage may be waived if not raised until after the 
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. 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 45 day comment period so 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 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 
helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft 
environmental impact 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 in 40 CFR 1503.3 while addressing these points.
    The responsible official for the decision is the Abigail R. 
Kimbell, Forest Supervisor, Stikine Area of the Tongass National 
Forest, Alaska Region, Petersburg, Alaska.

    Dated: August 10, 1994.
Abigail R. Kimbell,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 94-20392 Filed 8-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M