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

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