[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 164 (Tuesday, August 25, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45220-45222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22736]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Upper Charley Subwatershed Ecosystem Restoration Projects 
Umatilla National Forest, Garfield County, Washington

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) on a proposed action to implement ecosystem restoration 
projects, designed to promote healthy watershed conditions, within the 
Upper Charley subwatershed. The project area is located on the Pomeroy 
Ranger District approximately 10 air miles southeast of Pomeroy, 
Washington.
    Proposed project activities consist of in-channel fish habitat 
projects, hydrologic stability projects (road obliteration, road re-
alignment/reconstruction), wildlife enhancement projects, range 
improvements, noxious weed treatments, recreation opportunities, 
landscape prescribed fire, and restoration of forest stand structure/
composition using a variety of silvicultural treatments including 
commercial timber harvest. The proposed action is designed to reduce 
risks to ecosystem sustainability, prevent further degradation of 
forest health, reduce risks of catastrophic wildfire, improve or 
maintain aquatic and terrestrial habitat, manage access to protect 
wildlife, and provide some economic return to local economies.
    The EIS will tier to the 1990 Land and Resource Management Plan 
FEIS for the Umatilla National Forest, which provides overall guidance 
for forest management of the area.

DATES: Written comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be 
received on or before September 24, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments and suggestions to the Responsible 
Official, Monte Fujishin, District Ranger, Pomeroy Ranger District, 71 
West Main Street, Pomeroy Washington, 99347.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall Walker, Project Team Leader, 
Pomeroy Ranger District. Phone: (509) 843-1891.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The decision area contains approximately 
7,650 acres within the Umatilla National Forest in Garfield County, 
Washington. It is within the boundary of the Upper Charley subwatershed 
of the Asotin watershed. The legal description of the decision area is 
as follows: Sections 11-14, 22-28, and 33-36 Township 9 North, Range 42 
East; and Sections 8, 17-20 and 30 Township 9 North, Range 43 East, and 
Sections 3 and 4 Township 8 North, Range 42 East, W.M. surveyed. All 
proposed activities are outside the boundaries of any roadless or 
wilderness areas.
    Fish habitat projects include in-channel restoration, pond 
construction, and stabilization of streambanks. Proposed hydrologic 
stability projects include 14.04 miles of road obliteration, 13 miles 
of road realignment/reconstruction, and revegetation of cut and fill 
slopes. Snag creation, construction of cisterns for non-big game 
species and prescribed burning for elk habitat are proposed to enhance 
wildlife habitat. Noxious weed treatments to help restore biodiversity 
and productivity of native plant species are also included in the 
proposed action. A variety of silvicultural methods would treat 
approximately 4,492 acres within the area. Approximately 4.3 miles of 
temporary road construction is proposed to access timber harvest areas 
(all temporary roads would be obliterated following completion of sale 
activities), and approximately 7.71 miles of existing non-system roads 
would be added to the transportation system for future project use. 
This proposal also includes prescribed burning within harvest units 
(3,554 acres) and outside of harvest units (2,000 acres) to reduce the 
potential for future wildfires, prepare sites for regeneration, enhance 
wildlife habitat and maintain forest health by bringing fuel levels 
closer to their historic levels.
    An estimated 18.2 million board feet of timber would be 
commercially harvested on approximately 3,554 acres. Proposed 
silvicultural treatments are briefly described as follows:
    Precommercial Thinned: Saplings would be thinned to a tree per acre 
variable spacing to promote growth and provide a sustainable species 
composition. This treatment is proposed on 938 acres.
    Thin from Below: Thinning of stand to recommended stocking level 
(listed by residual square feet of basal area per acre). This would be 
accomplished by leaving the largest and healthiest trees on each 
microsite. This treatment is proposed on 885 acres.
    Uneven-aged Management: Stand densities would be reduced to 60-100 
square feet of basal area per acres by removing the least vigorous 
trees greater than 7 inches DBH. This treatment is proposed on 2,176 
acres.
    Shelterwood Group Selection: Windfirm trees favoring western larch 
and ponderosa pine would be retained as groups and individuals. 
Openings from one-half to four acres would occur in areas of insect and 
disease pockets and low vigor fir thickets. This treatment is proposed 
on 493 acres.
    For all harvest treatments existing snags and large down wood would 
be left on site. Ponderosa pine and western larch would be the 
preferred species for leave trees. All trees greater than 21 inches DBH 
would be left in the ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir biophysical groups 
(both are below their historic range of variability). Thinning of 
saplings would occur after harvest.
    The proposed action will tier to the FEIS and Umatilla Forest Plan, 
as amended, which provides goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines 
for the various activities and land allocations on the forest. In the 
project/analysis area there are eight designated management areas 
(MAs): A6, A9, C1, C3, C3A, C4, C5 and E2. Management area A6-Developed 
Recreation is managed to provide recreation opportunities that are 
dependent on the

[[Page 45221]]

development of structural facilities for user convenience (no timber 
harvest is allowed). A9-Special Interest Area is managed to preserve 
and interpret areas of significant cultural, historical, geological, 
botanical, or other special characteristics for educational, scientific 
and public enjoyment purposes (no timber harvest allowed). C1-Dedicated 
Old Growth is managed to provide and protect sufficient suitable 
habitat for wildlife species dependent upon mature and/or overmature 
forest stands and promote a diversity of vegetative conditions for such 
species (no timber harvest allowed). C3-Big Game Winter Range is 
managed to provide high levels of potential habitat effectiveness and 
high quality forage for big game species (timber harvest is allowed). 
C3A-Sensitive Big Game Winter Range is managed to provide high levels 
of potential habitat effectiveness (timber harvest allowed only under 
catastrophic conditions). C4-Wildlife Habitat is managed to provide 
high levels of potential habitat effectiveness for big game and other 
wildlife species with emphasis on size and distribution of habitat 
components (timber harvest is allowed). C5-Riparian is managed to 
maintain or enhance water quality, and produce a high level of 
potential habitat capability for all species of fish and wildlife 
within the designated riparian habitat areas while providing for a high 
level of habitat effectiveness for big game (limited timber harvest is 
allowed). E2-Timber and Big Game is managed to emphasize production of 
wood fiber (timber), encourage forage production, and maintain a 
moderate level of big game and other wildlife habitat (timber harvest 
is allowed). Timber harvest for the proposed action would only take 
place in management areas C3 and E2.
    The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. One of 
these will be the ``no action'' alternative in which none of the 
proposed activities would be implemented. Additional alternatives will 
examine varying levels and locations for the proposed activities to 
achieve the proposal's purposes, as well as to respond to the issues 
and other resource values.
    Preliminary Issues: Tentatively, the preliminary issues identified 
are briefly described below:
    1. Wildlife Habitat--What effects would timber harvest and 
prescribed burning have on big game and non-game habitat?
    2. Ecosystem Sustainability--How would the proposed activities 
effect ecosystem sustainability and forest health?
    3. Air Quality--What effects would landscape prescribed burning 
have on air quality?
    4. Water Quality/Riparian Habitat--How would water quality, flow, 
temperature, timing and riparian habitat conditions be effected by the 
proposed activities?
    5. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) Species--What effect 
will the proposed activities have on TES species and what opportunities 
exist to improve habitat?
    6. Road Management--What opportunities exist to obliterate roads 
and reduce road density in the subwatershed?
    7. Noxious Weeds--What effects would the proposed activities have 
on noxious weed populations?
    This list will be verified, expanded, or modified based on public 
scoping and interdisciplinary review of this proposal.
    Public participation will be especially important at several points 
during the analysis, beginning with the scoping process (40 CFR 
1501.7). Initial scoping began with the project listing in the 1997 
Winter Edition of the Umatilla National Forest's Schedule of Proposed 
Actions. A public meeting will be scheduled for September, 1998 to 
discuss the project, other meetings will be scheduled as needed. This 
environmental analysis and decision making process will enable 
additional interested and affected people to participate and contribute 
to the final decision. The public is encouraged to take part in the 
process and is encouraged to visit with Forest Service officials at any 
time during the analysis and prior to the decision. The Forest Service 
will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from Federal, 
State, local agencies, and other individuals or organizations who may 
be interested in, or affected by the proposal. This input will be used 
in preparation of the Draft EIS. The scoping process includes:
    1. Identifying potential issues.
    2. Identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth.
    3. Identifying issues which have been covered by a relevant 
previous environmental analysis.
    4. Considering additional alternatives based on themes which will 
be derived from issues recognized during scoping activities.
    5. Identifying potential environmental effects of this project and 
alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and 
connected actions).
    The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available to the public for review by 
January, 1999. At that time, the EPA will publish a Notice of 
Availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register. The comment 
period on the Draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes 
the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. It is important 
that those interested in the management of the Umatilla National Forest 
participate at that time.
    The Final EIS is scheduled to be completed by May, 1999. In the 
Final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to comments and 
responses received during the comment period that pertain to the 
environmental consequences discussed in the Draft EIS and applicable 
laws, regulations, and policies considered in making a decision 
regarding the proposal.
    The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers 
notice, at this early stage, of several court rulings related to public 
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of 
Draft EIS's must structure their participation in the environmental 
review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts the 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 EIS stage but that are not 
raised until after completion of the final EIS 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 and respond to them in the Final EIS.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the Draft EIS should 
be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to 
specific pages or chapters of the Draft EIS. Comments may also address 
the adequacy of the Draft EIS or 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 Forest Service is the lead agency. Monte Fujishin, District 
Ranger, is the Responsible Official. As the Responsible Official, he 
will decide which, if any, of

[[Page 45222]]

the proposed projects will be implemented. He will document the 
decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision. That 
decision will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR 
part 215).

    Dated: August 17, 1998.
Monte Fujishin,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 98-22736 Filed 8-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M