[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42083-42084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19844]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
 or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
 and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
 delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
 statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
 appearing in this section.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 1999 / 
Notices  

[[Page 42083]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Conehead-Summit Resource Management Project, Mt. Hood National 
Forest, Clackamas and Wasco Counties, Oregon

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service will prepare and consider an 
environmental impact (EIS) on a Proposed Action to manage second-growth 
forest stands by thinning and regeneration harvest. The proposal also 
calls for the construction and reconstruction of temporary roads as 
well as thinning in the upland portion of riparian reserves. The 
projects are within the Stone Creek drainage of the Oak Grove Fork of 
the Clackamas River watershed, and the Warm Springs watershed. The 
``Conehead'' portion of the planning area is in T. 7 S., and R. 8 & 
8\1/2\E. Willamette Meridian. It is west of the Warm Springs Indian 
Reservation near West Pinhead Butte. The ``Summit'' portion of the 
planning area is in T. 6 S., and R. 8 E. Willamette Meridian. It is 
south east of Rock Butte and north east of Peavine Butte. The areas are 
approximately 60 air miles south east of Portland, Oregon. These 
proposals are tentatively planned for implementation in fiscal years 
2000 and 2001. The Mt. Hood National Forest invites written comments 
and suggestions on the scope of the analysis in addition to those 
comments already received as a result of local public participation 
activities. The agency will also give notice of the full environmental 
analysis and decision-making process so that interested and affected 
people are made aware as to how they may participate and contribute to 
the final decision. Presently, there are no plans for a scoping 
meeting.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope and implementation of the analysis 
should be received in writing by August 30, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments and suggestions concerning the 
management of this area to Chris Pazzula, Acting District Ranger, 
Clackamas River Ranger District, Mt. Hood National Forest, 595 NW 
Industrial Way, Estacada, Oregon 97023. E-mail address: clackriv/
[email protected]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions about the proposed 
action and the scope of analysis to Jim Roden, Clackamas River Ranger 
District, phone 503-630-8722.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This project will be consistent with the Mt. 
Hood National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by 
the Northwest Forest Plan. The Watershed Analysis for the Oak Grove 
Fork has been completed and the Watershed Analysis for the Warm Springs 
River has not yet been completed. The Land Allocations include C1--
Timber Emphasis, B3--Roaded Recreation, and Riparian Reserve. The 
elevation ranges from 4000 to 4400 feet and encompasses second-growth 
stands which were established after wildfires. The trees are lodgepole 
pine and mixed conifers 80 to 130 years old.

    The project area contains stands with declining health and growth 
and are experiencing high mortality. Action is needed to move these 
stands closer to the desired future conditions specified in higher 
level plans including the Mt. Hood Forest Plan, the Northwest Forest 
Plan and Watershed Analysis. There is the opportunity to enhance forest 
health and to provide wood products to meet the social and economic 
needs described in the Northwest Forest Plan. There is also the 
opportunity to enhance habitat for Canada lynx, to enhance the 
productivity of Big Huckeleberry, to enhance riparian conditions, and 
to meet objectives for recreation.
    The proposed action includes approximately 1015 acres of thinning 
(15 acres of which is in the Riparian Reserve) and approximately 370 
acres of regeneration harvesting. Unit shapes, sizes, and post harvest 
treatments would be designed to take advantage of opportunities 
available to enhance the resources described in the previous paragraph. 
The proposed action also calls for the construction of 3.35 miles of 
temporary roads and the reconstruction of existing roads.
    One issue identified is that temporary road construction and 
harvest could change the areas undeveloped character by further 
modifying the area so that management activities are more obvious. 
There have been few roads built in this area in the past because of the 
fire history of this area and the small size of the trees. Another 
issue identified concerns the effect of thinning in Riparian Reserves 
which may pose a short-term risk to water quality and fish habitat, if 
sediment is delivered to streams. A third issue identified concerns the 
effect of creating openings to enhance huckleberry and lynx habitats.
    The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments and 
assistance from Federal, State, local agencies, tribes, and other 
individuals or organizations who may be interested in, or affected by 
the proposed action. This information will be used to determine the 
issues significant to the development and analysis of alternatives, to 
determine the appropriate range of alternative ways of implementing the 
proposed action, and to guide the analysis of effects.
    The scoping process will include the following:
     Identification of potential issues;
     Identification of issues to be analyzed in depth;
     Elimination of insignificant issues or those which have 
been covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis;
     Exploration of alternative ways to implement the proposed 
actions based on the issues identified during the scoping process; and
     Determination of environmental effects of the proposed 
action and alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 
and connected actions).
    A range of alternatives will be considered including the No Action 
alternative. As issues are identified, other potential alternatives 
will be developed.
    Comments received in response to this notice, including names and 
addresses of those who comment, will

[[Page 42084]]

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. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be 
aware that, under the 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 a 
specified number of days.
    The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by 
October, 1999. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from 
the date EPA publishes the notice of availability of the draft EIS in 
the Federal Register.
    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, a reviewer of 
a draft EIS 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 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 
objectives are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it 
can meaningfully consider them 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 statement. Comments may also 
address the adequacy of the draft EIS 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 is scheduled to be completed in December, 1999. In 
the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to substantive 
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 the 
decision regarding this proposal. The responsible official is the 
Forest Supervisor, Gary L. Larsen. As responsible official, he will 
document the Conehead-Summit Resource Management Project decision and 
rationale in a Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to 
Forest Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR part 215).

    Dated: July 26, 1999.
Gary L. Larsen,
Forest Supervisor, Mt. Hood National Forest.
[FR Doc. 99-19844 Filed 8-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M