[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33317-33318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16222]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Moira 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 provide timber for the
Ketchikan Area timber sale program. The Record of Decision will
disclose how the Forest Service has decided to provide harvest units,
roads, and associated timber harvesting facilities. The proposed action
is to harvest up to an estimated 435 million board feet (mmbf) of
timber on an estimated 3,000 acres in several timber sales. A range of
alternatives responsive to significant issues will be developed and
will include a no-action alternative. The proposed timber harvest is
located within Tongass Forest Plan Value Comparison Units 683, 691,
692, 693, and 694 on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska, on the Craig
Ranger District of the Ketchikan Area of the Tongass National Forest.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of this project should be received
by July 30, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Please send written comments to Forest Supervisor's Office;
Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan Area; Attn: Moira EIS; Federal
Building, Ketchikan, AK 99901.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about the proposal and EIS
should be directed to Dale Kanen, District Ranger, Craig Ranger
District, Tongass National Forest, P.O. Box 500, Craig, AK 99921;
telephone (907) 826-3271 or Norm Matson, Planning Biologist, Federal
Building, Ketchikan, AK 99901; telephone (907) 228-6273.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public participation will be an integral
component of the study process and will be especially important at
several points during the analysis. The first is during the scoping
process. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and
assistance from Federal, State, local agencies, individuals and
organizations that may interested in, or affected by, the proposed
activities. The scoping process will include: (1) identification of
potential issues; (2) identification of issues to be analyzed in depth;
and (3) elimination of insignificant issues or those which have been
covered by a previous environmental review. Written scoping comments
are being solicited through a scoping package that will be sent to the
project mailing list. For the Forest Service to best use the scoping
input, comments should be received by July 30, 1998. Tentative issues
identified for analysis in the EIS include the potential effects of the
project on and the relationship of the project to: Subsistence
resources, old-growth ecosystem management and the maintenance of
habitat for viable populations of wildlife and plant species, timber
supply, scenery and recreational resources, anadromous and resident
fish habitat, soil and water resources, wetlands, cultural resources
and others.
Based on results of scoping and the resource capabilities within
the project area, alternatives including a ``no action'' alternative
will be developed for the Draft Environmental Impact
[[Page 33318]]
Statement (Draft EIS). The Draft EIS is projected to be filed with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in May 1999. Subsistence
hearings, as provided for in Title VIII, Section 810 of the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), are planned during
the comment period on the Draft EIS. The Final EIS is anticipated by
April 2000.
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). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the
draft environmental impact statement stage 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 of the proposed action, comments during scoping and
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.
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 or
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.
Requesters 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 within 7 days.
Permits: permits required for implementation include the following:
1. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
--Approval of discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters
of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
--Approval of the construction of structures or work in navigable
waters of the United States under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899;
2. Environmental Protection Agency
--National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (402) Permit;
--Review Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan;
3. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources
--Tideland Permit and Lease or Easement;
4. State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation
--Solid Waste Disposal Permit;
--Certification of Compliance with Alaska Water Quality Standard
(401 Certification)
Responsible Official
Bradley E. Powell, Forest Supervisor, Ketchikan Area, Tongass
National Forest, Federal Building, Ketchikan, Alaska 99901, is the
responsible official. The responsible official will consider the
comments, response, disclosure of environmental consequences, and
applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making the decision and
stating the rationale in the Record of Decision.
Dated: June 9, 1998.
Bradley E. Powell,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 98-16222 Filed 6-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
