Saltwater Shoreline-based Outfitter Guide Capacity Environmental Impact Statement

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Saltwater Shoreline-based Outfitter Guide Capacity Environmental

Impact Statement

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, will prepare

an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to authorize outfitter/guide

(O/G) activities within four Ranger Districts of the Tongass National

Forest for a period of five years. The analysis will consider saltwater

shoreline-based commercial recreation use on Admiralty Island National

Monument and Juneau, Hoonah and Sitka Ranger Districts. The decision to

prepare an EIS is a result of initial public involvement that began

with a scoping letter in October 1998. During 1998 and 1999 meetings

were held with six communities and three organizations within the

affected area. A letter summarizing the results of this public

involvement and requesting additional comments will be distributed

January 2000. The Record of Decision will disclose how the Forest

Service has decided to allocate saltwater shoreline-based recreation

capacity for O/G and noncommercial recreation uses. The Assistant

Forest Supervisor will also decide whether or not to amend the Tongass

Land and Resource Management Plan to allocate use levels for long-term

management of commercial outfitting and guiding.

The total recreation capacity of the study area has been determined

via an analysis of available shoreline capacity based on the Recreation

Opportunity Spectrum, Tongass Forest Plan standards and guidelines

dealing with encounters, and physical conditions such as anchorages,

shoreline facilities, and resource concerns. Proposed allocations are

based on a percentage of the total recreation carrying capacity of

individual Use Areas, or subunits within the Use Areas. Use Areas are

geographic areas that correspond to Guide Use Areas defined by the

Alaska Department of Fish and Game for the administration of guided

hunting. Under the Proposed Action, allocation of commercial guided use

during the summer season would range from 10 to 40 percent of the total

recreation carrying capacity and would depend on considerations such as

distance from communities, subsistence use and potential impacts to

resources. The Proposed Action would allocate up to 80 percent of this

commercial capacity to brown bear hunting guides during both spring and

fall hunts, and the remaining commercial capacity to other non-hunting

O/G's. A No Action Alternative and other alternatives which respond to

significant issues will be developed, analyzed and compared in the

Draft EIS.

DATE: To be most useful comments concerning the scope of this project

should be received by the end of February 2000.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments to: Alaska Regional Office,

Ecosystem Planning Attn.: Julie Schaefers, Shoreline-based O/G Capacity

EIS, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99802-1628.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Schaefers, Planning Team

Leader, Alaska Regional Office, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99802-1628,

telephone (907) 586-8796 or Marti Marshall, Recreation Specialist,

Tongass National Forest, 204 Siginaka Way, Sitka, AK 99835, telephone

(907) 747-4234.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During January and February of 2000 the

Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and assistance

from Federal, State and local agencies, tribal organizations,

individuals, and organizations that may be interested in, or affected

by the proposed activities. Comments received as a result of both the

earlier public involvement and the current scoping will be included in

this analysis. All comments will be analyzed to identify issues to be

considered in the Draft EIS. Issues currently identified for analysis

in the EIS include potential effects of the allocation to economic

opportunities, conflicts between commercial operations, displacement of

resident users, impacts to wildlife habitat, and the effect on

subsistence uses.

Based on the results of scooping, alternatives will be developed,

analyzed, and compared in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS will be filed

with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in September 2000.

Comments on the DEIS will be considered and responded to in the Final

EIS, to be completed by January 2001.

The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will

be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes

the notice of availability 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 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

environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until

after completion of the final environmental impact statement maybe

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 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 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 also helpful if comments refer to specific

pages or chapters of the draft 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

[[Page 2576]]

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.

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 and may be released under FOIA. Comments submitted

anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit

anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent

decision (36 CFR Parts 215 or 217).

Responsible Official: Fred Salinas, Assistant Forest Supervisor,

Tongass National Forest, 204 Siginaka Way, Sitka, Alaska 99835-7316, is

the responsible official. In making the decision, the responsible

official will consider the comments, responses, disclosure of

environmental consequences, and applicable laws, regulations, and

policies. The responsible official will state the rationale for the

chosen alternative and the Record of Decision.

Dated: January 4, 2000.

Fred S. Salinas,

Assistant Forest Supervisor.

[FR DOC. 00-1108 Filed1-14-00;8:45am]

[BILLING CODE 3410-11-M