[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 168 (Friday, August 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45790-45791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23000]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Intent; Environmental Impact Statement for the Crane 
and Rowan Mountain Timber Sales, Tongass National Forest, Stikine Area, 
Petersburg, AK

agency: Forest Service, USDA.

action: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

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

summary: This proposed action was announced on April 1, 1997 as two 
separate Environmental Assessments (EA), one each for the Crane and 
Rowan Mountain Timber Sales. The decision to prepare EAs for these 
projects was based upon, among other things, several prior extensive 
environmental analyses that have been conducted for similar projects. 
Individually they did not indicate a significant effect to the human 
environment. After considering the public input, we have decided to 
document the analysis of these two proposed timber sales in an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
    1. Purpose and scope of the decision. The purpose of the projects 
is to make available for harvest approximately 10-15 million board feet 
(MMBF) of timber from the Crane Timber Sale and approximately 9-12 MMBF 
from the Rowan Mountain Timber Sale. These projects will contribute 
sawlog and utility timber volume and related employment and income 
opportunities to the timber industry in Southeast Alaska and will help 
meet the goals and objectives of the Revised Tongass Land Management 
Plan.
    The geographic location of this proposed project is the north 
portion of Kuiu Island and includes value comparison units (VCU) 399, 
400, 402, and 421. The western portion of VCU 420 (west side of Port 
Camden) is also included. Timber harvesting and roading has occurred in 
all of the VCU's.
    The decision to be made is:
    (1) Whether or not timber harvest will occur in the Crane and Rowan 
Mountain project area;
    (2) How much timber will be harvested;
    (3) Location and design of harvest units;
    (4) Location and design of road construction and potential 
reconstruction; and
    (5) What mitigation measures and monitoring will be implemented.
    A reasonable range of alternatives will be developed, including a 
No Action alternative. No additional road building or timber harvest 
would occur under the No Action alternative.
    2. Scoping and public participation. Public scoping for these 
projects began on April 1, 1997. We mailed a scoping letter to 
interested groups, organizations, and members of the public 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 Crane and Rowan Mountain Timber Harvest 
Projects. This Notice of Intent constitutes an extension of this 
scoping process, which will end September 19th, 1997. At the time of 
this notice, a scoping letter is being mailed to interested groups, 
organizations, and members of the public explaining the transition from 
an Environmental Analysis to an Environmental Impact Statement Process.
    Scoping results from the April 1, 1997 mailing have reinforced the 
preliminary issues identified and did not suggest additional issues. 
The issues as noted in the April 1 mailing are listed below:
    1. Cultural Resources--How should timber management activities be 
designed to protect cultural resources?
    2. Economics--How should the project be designed to contribute to 
the economic health of Southeast Alaska?
    3. Fish--How should fish habitat be managed and what effect would 
timber harvest and related activities have on fish habitat?
    4. Recreation--How should recreation opportunities be protected or 
enhanced in the design of timber management activities?
    5. Soil--How should timber management activities be designed to 
protect the soil resource? What effects would activities have on soil 
productivity?
    6. Subsistence--How should timber management activities be designed 
to protect traditional subsistence uses? What effect would activities 
have on subsistence uses and users?
    7. Timber Management--How should the project be designed to provide 
for efficient and long-term timber management?
    8. Scenery--How should timber management activities be designed to 
protect areas of high scenic quality and what effect would activities 
have on the landscapes of Kuiu Island?
    9. Water Quality--How should timber management activities be 
designed to protect water quality? What effects would activities have 
on water quality?
    10. Wildlife Habitat--What effects would timber harvest and related 
activities have on wildlife habitat?

Dates: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing by September 19, 1997.

For Further Information Contact: Information relating to the supplement 
may be obtained by contacting Bob Gerdes, Interdisciplinary Team 
Leader, USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 309, Petersburg, AK 99833.

Expected Time for Completion: A draft EIS is projected for issuance 
approximately 2 months from the date of the Notice of Intent, or 
October 17, 1997.
    The Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision is 
expected to be released by March 30, 1998. The Responsible Official 
will make a decision regarding this proposal after considering public 
comments, and the environmental consequences displayed in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement, and applicable laws, regulations, and 
policies. The decision and supporting reason will be documented in the 
Record of Decision.

Public Comment: Interested parties are invited to comment. The comment 
period on the Draft EIS will be 45 days from the first day after 
publication of notice of availability in the Federal Register by the 
Environmental Protection Agency. 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 for comments to refer to specific 
pages or chapters 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 at 40 CFR 1503.3 while addressing these 
points.
    In addition, Federal court decisions have established that 
reviewer's of Draft EISs 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. versus NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978). 
Environmental objections that could

[[Page 45791]]

have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised until 
after completion of the Final EIS. City of Angonn versus Hodel, (9th 
Circuit, 1986) and Wisconsin Hertage's, Inc. versus Harris, 490 F. 
Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). The reason for this is to ensure 
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.
    Comments received in response to this solicitation, 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 Parts 215 and 
217. 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, under 
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.
    The responsible official for the decision in Patricia A. Grantham, 
Acting Forest Supervisor, Stikine Area, Tongass National Forest, Alaska 
Region, Petersburg, Alaska.

    Dated: August 15, 1997.
Patricia A. Grantham,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 97-23000 Filed 8-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M