[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 175 (Monday, September 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-22383]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 12, 1994]


                                                   VOL. 59, NO. 175

                                         Monday, September 12, 1994

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

 

Environmental Impact Statement, Port Houghton/Cape Fanshaw Timber 
Sale(s), Tongass National Forest, Stikine and Chatham Areas, Petersburg 
and Sitka, AK

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Stikine and Chatham Areas of the USDA Forest Service 
propose to harvest 123 million board feet (MMBF) of timber volume (net 
sawlog) from the Port Houghton/Cape Fanshaw area of the Tongass 
National Forest, and to construct 84.2 miles of road and one log 
transfer facility (LTF). The timber would be harvested from 94 units 
covering 5,860 acres. The harvest units were selected from a unit pool 
of 186 units containing a total of 225 MMBF of timber volume (net 
sawlog) over 10,904 acres. The roads associated with the proposed 
action were selected from a road pool of 174 miles for the entire 
project area. The proposed action would offer timber in one or more 
sales. (A map of the unit pool, the proposed action, and roads is 
available from the address provided.)
    The project area includes Value Comparison Units (VCUs) 79 through 
89 on the Mainland in southeast Alaska, encompassing approximately 
193,000 acres. VCUs 80-89 have been allocated by the Tongass Land 
Management Plan to Land Use Designation (LUD) IV, emphasizing primarily 
commodity or market resources. VCU 79 has been allocated to LUD III, 
emphasizing a variety of uses, both commodity and amenity, to provide 
the greatest combination of benefits.
    The purpose of this project is to provide 110 to 125 MMBF 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 make timber available for 
harvest and improve timber productivity in the Port Houghton/Cape 
Fanshaw Project area while also providing a combination of recreation, 
fish, water, and wildlife for the resource uses of society now and into 
the future. This decision will be made by Abigail R. Kimbell, Forest 
Supervisor of the Stikine Area.
    If timber is made available for harvest, the Forest Supervisor will 
also decide (a) the volume of timber to make available, (b) the 
location and design of the timber harvest units and log transfer 
facilities, (c) the location and design of associated mainline and 
local road corridors, and (d) appropriate mitigation measures for all 
alternatives in the project area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Public scoping will begin in September 1994 and will 
continue over the life of the analysis. The Draft EIS is scheduled for 
publication in June 1995 and the Final EIS in January 1996. Written 
comments concerning this proposed action should be received within 30 
days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Federal Register, 
estimated to be September 16th.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Port Houghton/Cape Fanshaw analysis is being conducted by 
Parametrix, Inc. under contract to the Stikine and Chatham Areas of the 
Tongass National Forest. Questions and written comments and suggestions 
concerning the analysis should be sent to Pamela Gunther, Team Leader, 
Parametrix Inc., 5808 Lake Washington Blvd N.E., Kirkland, WA 98033, 
phone (206) 822-8880, fax (206) 889-8808.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A public scoping letter will be sent to all 
persons indicating an interest in the project by responding to the 
Stikine Area Project Schedule or Chatham Area Schedule of Proposed 
Actions, or who otherwise notify the Stikine or Chatham Areas that they 
are interested in the Port Houghton/Cape Fanshaw Timber Harvest 
project. Public scoping meetings will be scheduled during the last week 
in September in the communities of Wrangell, Kake, Petersburg, Juneau, 
and Hobart Bay.
    The EIS will evaluate a number of timber harvest alternatives 
ranging from a no-action alternative to harvesting 110 to 125 MMBF of 
timber. Action-alternatives are likely to vary according to volume of 
timber (110-125 MMBF), the amount and location of roads, the number and 
location of log transfer facilities, the number and location of harvest 
units, and the silvicultural methods applied to each unit. Each action 
alternative will be designed by selecting units and roads from the unit 
pool and road pool, and each alternative will fulfill the purpose and 
need for the project and will respond to at least one of the 
significant issues.
    Preliminary issues include:
    1. Soils: Portions of the project area are mapped as rough 
mountainous land characterized by steep rocky slopes, icefields, and 
glaciers. High soil hazard classes also occur in the project area. How 
will the alternatives be designed to protect the area from landslides? 
What effect would each alternative have on the soil resources?
    2. Fisheries/Watershed: Harvest operations could affect water 
quality, sedimentation, and fish passage. Mass-wasting of sediments 
from cut-and-fill slopes can deliver sediment to streams. Harvest 
adjacent to streams without fish may increase water temperature in 
waters what would ultimately drain to Class I and Class II streams. How 
will fish streams be protected from direct and indirect impacts caused 
by harvesting timber and building roads? What effect would each 
alternative have on fisheries and watershed?
    3. Wildlife: Several goshawks and their nests have been located in 
the project area. Mountain goats inhabit the rocky mountain terrain. 
Marbled murrelets are well distributed in the project area and use the 
Sandborn Canal and Port Houghton Salt Chuck for foraging. How will 
these and other wildlife be protected? How will travel corridors among 
high-intensity use areas be preserved? What effect will each 
alternative have on wildlife?
    4. Subsistence: A preliminary review of subsistence use in the Port 
Houghton/Cape Fanshaw project area has identified eight subsistence 
resources (deer, harbor seals, salmon, fin fish, waterfowl, marine 
invertebrates, mountain goat, and mammal trapping) by three different 
communities (Petersburg, Wrangell, and Kake). How will these resources 
be protected either from loss of the resource or overuse due to 
increased accessibility that may occur from road construction? To what 
extend will each alternative affect subsistence resources and use 
within the project area?
    5. Recreation: Recreation sites at the project area occur as 
natural, unmodified environments with little evidence of human 
activity. Most of these sites occur along shoreline areas and include 
boating, camping, hunting, and fishing. What affect would the change 
from primitive to semi-primitive roaded recreational opportunity have 
on existing and future uses? How will the alternatives address future 
recreational uses while preserving the type of opportunities used 
historically?
    6. Cultural Resources: A total of 47 cultural sites have been 
documented at the Port Houghton project area through field 
investigations conducted this summer. One site consists of well 
preserved artifacts that date as early as 10,000 years old. How will 
these resources be protected from timber harvest, road construction, 
and potential vandalism? What effect would each alternative have on the 
cultural resources in the project area?
    7. Visual Resources: Timber management activities will alter the 
appearance and perceived visual quality of the project area and 
vicinity. What type of mitigation measures will be developed to reduce 
impacts to the visual quality of the area? What effect will the 
alternatives have on the visual quality?

PERMITS: To proceed with the timber harvest as proposed, various 
permits must be obtained from other agencies. Applications for these 
permits would take place after the Final EIS is filed with the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and not sooner than 30 days 
following publication of this decision in the Petersburg Pilot 
newspaper, published in Petersburg, Alaska.
    Both the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have been 
requested to participate as cooperating agencies in preparation of the 
EIS. The agencies and their responsibilities are as follows: U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers has the responsibility for approval of discharge of 
dredged or fill materials into the waters of the United States (Section 
404 of the Clean Water Act), and approval of construction of structures 
or work in navigable waters of the United States (Section 10 of the 
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899); EPA has responsibility for the 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Review (Section 402 of 
the Clean Water Act). Other agencies which will participate are as 
follows: State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources has 
responsibility for authorization for occupancy and use of tidelands and 
submerged lands; State of Alaska, Department of Environmental 
Conservation has responsibility for the Solid Waste Disposal Permit 
(Section 402 of Clean Water Act) and the Certificate of Reasonable 
Assurance (Section 404 of Clean Water Act); U.S. Coast Guard has 
responsibility for Coast Guard Bridge Permits (in accordance with the 
General Bridge Act of 1946) required for all structures constructed 
within the tidal influence zone.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Interested parties are invited to comment. The comment 
period on the Draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental 
Protection Agency Notice of Availability appears in the Federal 
Register.
    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 Environment 
Policy Act in 40 CFR 1503.3 while addressing these points.
    The responsible official for the decision is Abigail R. Kimbell, 
Forest Supervisor of the Stikine Area, Tongass National Forest, Alaska 
Region, Petersburg, Alaska.

    Dated: September 2, 1994.
Abigail R. Kimbell,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 94-22383 Filed 9-9-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M