Helicopter Landing Tours on the Juneau Icefields, Tongass National Forest, Chatham Area, Juneau Ranger District, Juneau, AK

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

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental

impacts of authorizing helicopter landing tours on icefields adjacent

to the city of Juneau, Alaska. The proposed action is to issue five

year special use permits (1995-1999) authorizing Coastal Helicopter,

Inc., ERA Helicopters, Inc. and Temsco Helicopter, Inc. to land on the

Juneau icefields at specified locations and conduct tours. The majority

of use would occur between May and September of each year. Tours would

originate at private heliports and helicopter flightpaths would transit

a variety of private and municipal lands prior to entering the National

Forest. The proposed action would increase authorized helicopter

landings tours on the Juneau icefields from 11,000 in 1994 to a maximum

of 22,000 in 1999.

The Forest Service is seeking information and comments from

Federal, State and local agencies as well as individuals and

organizations who may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed

action.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received

in writing by October 21, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments or requests for additional information

to John Favro, Recreation Staff Officer, Juneau Ranger District, 8465

Old Dairy Road, Juneau, Alaska 99801, (907) 586-8800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose and need for the proposed action

is to meet public demand for quality guided services which provide safe

access to remote locations on the Juneau Icefield. Meeting this demand

includes providing for visitor safety and an appropriate balance

between commercial guided recreation opportunities and non-commercial,

non-guided recreation opportunities without unacceptable impacts to

other forest users and resources.

Kenneth E. Mitchell, Juneau District Ranger, Tongass National

Forest, Chatham Area, is the deciding official. The decision to be made

is whether or not to issue special use permits for helicopter landing

tours as requested, and if permits are issued, decide the levels to be

authorized and the mitigation measures that will be required.

The no action and proposed action alternatives will be considered

in the EIS as well as other alternatives which address significant

issues and satisfy the purpose and need for the action. Alternatives

may consider limiting the number of landings, moving heliports, or

defining flight paths.

Preliminary issues that have been identified include helicopter

noise disturbance to residential areas, wildlife, and ground-based

recreation users; impacts to the local economy; and public demand for

helicopter landing tours.

In 1992, an environmental assessment analyzing the effects of these

tours was completed. A Finding of No Significant Impact was made. That

decision was reversed on appeal and remanded to the deciding official.

Comments from the 1992 EA were used to identify issues for this

EIS. Comments were also solicited between May 17 and June 27, 1994

through a news release and letters to the public. Federal, state and

local agencies, interested individuals and groups are invited to

participate in this analysis. Comments will be accepted throughout the

EIS process but, to be most useful, should be received by October 21,

1994.

Because most of the data collection and scoping was completed

during preparation of the 1992 EA and subsequent re-evaluation of the

original proposed action, the draft environmental impact statement

should be available for review by November 5, 1994. The final

environmental impact statement is scheduled to be completed by January

15, 1995.

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 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 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 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.

The Final EIS and Record of Decision is expected to be released in

January 1995. The Juneau District Ranger, Chatham Area. Tongass

National Forest will, as the responsible official for the EIS, make a

decision regarding this proposal considering the comments, responses,

and environmental consequences discussed in the Final EIS, and

applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The decision and supporting

reasons will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Dated: September 29, 1994.

Kenneth E. Mitchell,

District Manager.

[FR Doc. 94-26116 Filed 10-20-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M