[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1588-1590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-487]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Tower Fire Rehabilitation Projects, Umatilla National Forest, 
Grant & Umatilla Counties, Oregon

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement on a proposal to rehabilitate lands and resources burned in 
1996 by the Tower Fire. The project area is located on the North Fork 
John Day Ranger District and lies approximately 12 miles southeast of 
Ukiah, Oregon, within the North Fork John Day River Sub-basin.
    Projects would be designed at the landscape level to replant forest 
and riparian vegetation (including the use of herbicides in some upland 
areas to control vegetation which would compete with new seedlings); 
stabilize slopes exposed by the fire; enhance wildlife habitat; reduce 
recreational disturbance of moderate and severely burned sites; 
reconstruct, repair, or decommission degraded roads and stream 
crossings; restore and protect stream habitat; reduce hazards along 
open roads, OHV trails, and a campground; restore forest stand 
structure and composition through precommercial or commercial thinning; 
reduce fuel loading to create conditions which would allow the use of 
prescribed fire; subsoil known areas of soil compaction; and salvage 
valuable timber that was damaged or killed by the fire. The proposed 
projects will be in compliance with the 1990 Umatilla National Forest 
Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended, which 
provides the overall guidance for management of this area.
    The agency invites written comments and suggestions on the scope of 
the analysis. In addition, the agency will give notice of the full 
environmental analysis once it nears completion so that interested and 
affected people may participate and contribute to a final decision.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing by February 26, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments and suggestions concerning the 
management of this area to Craig Smith-Dixon, North Fork John Day 
District Ranger, PO Box 158, Ukiah, OR 97880.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about the proposed project 
and scope of analysis should be directed to Tim Davis, Tower Projects 
Team Leader, North Fork John Day Ranger District. Phone: (541) 427-
5341.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Tower Fire burned approximately 50,800 
acres, 46,300 of which occur on the Umatilla National Forest. The 
decision area for the Tower Fire Rehabilitation Projects includes all 
46,300 acres. It includes portions of the Cable Creek, Bridge/Pine 
North Fork John Day, Big, and Hidaway watersheds of the North Fork John 
Day River Sub-basin. The area also includes all of the South Fork-Tower 
Roadless Area (16,300 acres) and is bounded on the south by the North 
Fork John Day Wilderness.
    Originally, five separate analyses were proposed for salvage and 
restoration projects with the Tower Fire area. These were: Hairy Hazard 
Tree CE, Tower Fire Salvage EA, Big Tower Salvage and Revegetation 
Project, EA, South Tower Fire Recovery Projects EA, and Cable Fire 
Recovery Project EA. In January 1998, the Big Tower Fire Recovery 
Projects Decision Notice and Environmental Assessment was challenged in 
court. The Federal District Court upheld the project decision and the 
three salvage sales associated with the Big Tower Salvage and 
Revegetation Project were sold and awarded. The court was petitioned 
for a stay of implementation but the stay was denied. The District 
Court's decision was then appealed and the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals overturned the decision, instructing the Forest Service to 
conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any further 
projects within the entire Tower Fire. All activities on the three 
timber sales associated with the Big Tower Salvage and Revegetation 
Project as well as the Hairy Hazard Tree Sale (which was to remove 
hazard trees along open roads) were stopped. At the time of the halt 
order, 19 million board feet of the 26 million board feet of timber 
sold had been cut and removed from three of the four timber sales. This 
notice of intent initiates the analysis for the required EIS covering 
the remainder of the Big Tower Salvage and Revegetation projects and 
all other fire recovery projects proposed within the burn. Since the 
fall of 1996, many restoration activities have been initiated, 
including tree planting, erosion seeding, road stabilization, and 
salvage of fire-killed trees. Completion of the EIS and associated 
decisions will allow these and other watershed restoration projects to 
be implemented.
    The purpose of the Forest Service proposal is to rehabilitate 
portions of the burn to facilitate reaching the desired future 
condition for the area and recover economic value of timber where such 
salvage is compatible with protection of damaged resources. Proposed 
projects would involve: Reforestation of areas which sustained high 
tree mortality (including ecologically important stands of western 
white pine); revegetation of burned riparian areas; reconstruction of 
roads open to the public and repair of roads closed to the public but 
still required for administrative use; decommissioning of degraded 
roads; repair or replacement of road culverts to improve fish passage; 
reconstruction of stream crossings which are considered at risk due to 
fire-

[[Page 1589]]

induced high flows; removal or repair of degraded stock ponds; 
restoration of large wood to deficient stream channels; construction of 
grade control structures where gullys have been identified on streams; 
seeding and fertilization where wildlife forage has been limited by the 
fire; breaking tops out of scattered fire-killed trees to enhance snag 
habitat; fencing of degraded meadows, springs, and stockponds to 
promote natural recovery and improve wetland habitat; relocation of the 
Roundaway 4-Wheeler trail to a safer, more stable site; removal of 
hazardous trees along open roads, OHV trails, several trailheads, and a 
campground; stabilization of highly erodible slopes and a small 
landslide on Hidaway Creek by seeding or transplanting shrubs; 
subsoiling areas compacted by previous timber harvest practices to 
reduce overland flows; application of prescribed fire over a five year 
period to enhance forage and shrub composition; salvage harvest of 
5,100 acres resulting in recovery of approximately 21 MMbf of valuable 
fire-killed timber (including timber already sold but enjoined by the 
court order); thin overstocked stands (up to 1,000 acres (3.2 MMbf) of 
which would be of merchantable size) to improve tree vigor, adjust 
stand structure to reduce threat of future crown fire, and mimic 
historic specifies compositions; control competing vegetation within 
reforestation areas using herbicides to assure seedling survival; 
define and harden dispersed campsites and install informational signing 
to control recreational disturbance of burned areas; and create a fuel 
break between the South Fork-Tower Roadless Area and the North Fork 
John Day Wilderness to expand options for natural fires in both areas. 
Only three planting and the above-mentioned fuelbreak would occur 
within the South Fork-Tower Roadless Area, no harvest or other 
restoration projects are proposed within this area.
    Forage enhancement seeding would occur on sites that are devoid of 
herbaceous cover or with limited amounts of vegetation. The seeding 
mixture would consist of native seed and/or non-persistent annuals, be 
certified weed free, and would not exceed 20 pounds per acre. 
Application would be accomplished aerially with selected areas seeded 
by hand. Aerial broadcast fertilization of 100 pounds per acre would 
also be conducted. The fertilizer mix would consist of 27-12-0 plus 12% 
pelletized sulfur. No fertilizer would be applied in or adjacent to 
Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA's).
    Proposed timber salvage and commercial thinning units would be 
harvested using tractor, harvester/forwarder, skyline, and helicopter 
logging systems. Access for salvage and commercial thinning would 
require reconstruction of about 6 miles of existing roads and 
construction of approximately 10 miles of temporary roads. The 
temporary roads would be closed and obliterated after completion of 
project activities. Activities that would occur concurrently or in 
association with timber harvest include subsoiling to mitigate soil 
compaction, waterbarring, erosion control seeding of skid trails and 
landings to restore soil productivity, burning of some slash, and 
trapping or barriers to prevent animal damage to seedlings.
    Planting of tree seedlings both within and outside harvest units 
would involve control of vegetation which could compete aggressively 
enough to kill the seedlings. Control would be achieved across 
approximately 11,000 planted acres by the ground application of 
herbicides. The objective of such treatment is to ensure that 70% or 
more of the planted seedlings will still be alive after three growing 
seasons. With an average of 222 planted seedlings per acre, this means 
that herbicides would be applied to 13% of a reforestation unit--87% of 
the land area within the unit would not receive herbicides. No 
herbicide application would occur within RACFISH Riparian Habitat 
Conservation Areas. Herbicides would be applied once during the five-
year tree establishment period. Herbicides would be used as a 
correction treatment when other methods are ineffective or would 
increase project costs unreasonably. For areas that are not expected to 
exceed a competing vegetation threshold, an 18 inch hand scalp would be 
used as a site preparation method when the seedlings are planted but no 
herbicide would be applied.
    Public participation will be especially important at several points 
during the analysis, beginning with the scoping process (40 CFR 
1501.7). Some scoping has already been conducted through the five 
initial analyses mentioned earlier. Information received during this 
scoping will be incorporated into the analysis for the Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS). Additional scoping will include listing of this 
EIS in the Winter 1999 issue of the Umatilla National Forest's Schedule 
of Proposed Activities; letters to agencies, organizations, and 
individuals who have already indicated their interest in such 
activities; and news releases in the East Oregonian and other local 
newspapers. No public meetings have been planned at this time; they 
will be scheduled later as needed. This notice is to encourage members 
of the public, interested organizations, federal, state and county 
agencies, and local tribal governments to take part in planning this 
project. They are encouraged to visit with Forest Service officials at 
any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. Any information 
received 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).

    Preliminary issues include: Effects of the proposed fuelbreak on 
the roadless character of the South Fork-Tower Roadless Area; 
cumulative effects of past and proposed activities together with 
effects from the fire; effects of proposed activities on soils exposed 
by the fire; effects of proposed activities on water quality and the 
anadromous and resident fisheries resource; ability of proposed 
activities to restore historic vegetation composition, structures, and 
patterns; effects of proposed herbicide use, and economic viability of 
salvage.
    A full range of alternatives will be considered, including a ``no-
action'' alternative in which none of the activities proposed above 
would be implemented. Based on the issues gathered through scoping, the 
action alternatives will vary in (1) the number, type and location of 
rehabilitation projects, (2) use of herbicides or mechanical methods to 
control competing vegetation in areas to be planted, (3) the 
silvicultural and post-harvest treatments prescribed, (4) the amount 
and location of harvest and thinning, and (5) the amount of time needed 
to move the area toward its desired condition. Tentative action 
alternatives are: The proposed action, a modified proposed action with 
no use of herbicides, an alternative which would not remove or reduce 
the current number of live trees within the burn, and an alternative 
that excludes any harvest or temporary road construction.
    The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available to the public for review by 
April, 1999. At that time, the EPA will publish a Notice of 
Availability of the Draft EIS in the

[[Page 1590]]

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 July, 1999. In the 
final EIS, the Forest Service will 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 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 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 provision of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 
CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points).
    The Forest Service is the lead agency. Jeff Blackwood, Forest 
Supervisor, is the Responsible Official. As the Responsible Official, 
he will decide which, if any, of 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: December 30, 1998.
Jeff D. Blackwood,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 99-487 Filed 1-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M