[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 236 (Thursday, December 9, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68985-68987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31882]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Silvies Canyon Watershed Restoration Project, Malheur National 
Forest, Grant and Harney Counties, Oregon

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, will prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) an a proposal to improve the ecosystem health within a 
portion of the 81,000 acre Silvies Canyon Watershed. The proposed 
restoration activities will be in compliance with the

[[Page 68986]]

1990 Malheur National Forest Land and Management Plan (Forest Plan), as 
amended, which provides overall guidance for management of this area. 
Proposed restoration activities are located on the Burns and Bear 
Valley Ranger Districts within the Silvies Canyon Watershed. The 
watershed is located about 20 air miles north of Burns, OR. 
Implementation of proposed restoration activities are scheduled to 
begin in late fiscal year 2000. The Malheur National Forest invites 
written comments and suggestions on the scope of the analysis. The 
agency will give notice of the full environmental analysis and decision 
making process on the proposal so interested and affected members of 
the public may participate and contribute in the final decision.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing by January 3, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments and sugestions concerning the 
management of this area to James M. Keniston, Burns District Ranger, HC 
74, Box 12870, Hines, OR 97738.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about the proposed project 
and scope of analysis should be directed to Joan Suther, NEPA 
Coordinator, Burns Ranger District, HC 74, Box 12870, Hines, OR 97738; 
phone 541-573-4300.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Silvies Canyon Watershed is comprised of 
about 81,000 acres within seven subwatersheds, of which about 65,000 
acres are within the Malheur National Forest Boundary. Of this acreage, 
about 1,962 acres are privately owned and about 1,069 acres are 
administered by the USDI, Bureau of Land Management. About 31,527 acres 
(51%) are in Management Area 1--General Forest; about 15,022 acres 
(24%) are in Management Area 4--Big Game Winter Range Maintenance; 
about 8,111 acres (13%) are in Management Area 10--Semi-Primitive Non-
Motorized; about 809 acres (1+%) are in Management Area 13--Old Growth; 
about 1,702 acres (3%) are within Management Area 14--Visual Corridors; 
and about 4,938 acres (8%) are within RHCAs. The 8,000+ acres in 
Management Area 10--Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized are associated with 
the Myrtle-Silvies Roadless Area. This roadless area contains elk 
winter range, perennial streams, hiking and equestrian trails, a jeep 
trail along the Silvies River, and is included in cattle grazing 
allotments. The southern \1/3\ of the planning area is dominated by 
shrublands, juniper, and ponderosa pine; the middle portion is 
ponderosa pine and mixed conifer; and the northern section is dominated 
by mixed conifer and lodgepole pine.
    The purpose and need for activities is to:
     Improve the health, vigor, and resiliency of vegetation to 
insects, disease, wildfire, and other disturbances, to move closely 
resemble historical conditions;
     Reduce road related impacts, specifically negative impacts 
to water quality, fish habitat, and wildlife habitat; and
     Improve riparian conditions in reaches of streams that do 
not presently meet riparian management objectives (RMOs).
    The proposed action includes a variety of activities to meet the 
three purpose and need statements.
    (1) Proposed restoration activities that would improve vegetation 
so it is more resilient to insects, disease, wildfire, and other 
disturbances include:
     Harvesting commercial timber to control tree stocking and 
manage species composition to favor trees most suited for specific 
sites on about 12,500 acres within 35 units. This would include about 
7,500 acres of commercial thinning, primarily in ponderosa pine stands; 
and about 5,000 acres of intermediate commercial treatment, focused on 
understory thinning of mixed conifer sites; no clearcuts are proposed, 
and no trees over 21'' dbh would be harvested;
     Landscape scale burning (about 42,000 acres within 9 
burning areas) in all vegetation types to reduce excess fuel 
accumulations and stocking levels to reduce potential severity of 
future wildfires;
     Reducing fuels and stocking through other methods 
including firewood and post and pole cutting, juniper felling (cut and 
leave on site), piling, and pre-commercial thinning on about 11,300 
acres within 35 units; and
     Managing existing noxious weed sites through manual, 
mechanical, and chemical methods, and reducing the potential for 
additional sites becoming established.
    (2) Specific actions to reduce road related impacts to water 
quality, fish habitat and wildlife habitat would include:
     Closing or decommissioning an estimated 120 miles of 280 
roads no longer necessary for resource management, especially roads 
within sensitive areas such as riparian habitat conservation areas 
(RHCAs);
     Seasonal closures of an estimated 80 miles of 100 roads if 
needed for future resource management and not causing unacceptable 
impacts to watershed health when open; and
     Implementing such instream activities as installing or 
replacing existing culverts with culverts designed for fish passage.
    (3) Actions that would improve riparian conditions in areas not 
meeting RMOs include:
     Planting riparian vegetation and protecting it from 
livestock and wildlife foraging;
     Adding large wood to stream reaches deficient in cover or 
pool habitat (possibly using helicopters and other equipment);
     Restoring flood plain function where flow regime is 
degraded by past activities;
     Reintroducing fire to RHCAs to meet RMOs;
     Managing forest vegetation through commercial or pre-
commercial thinning within RHCAs to meet RMOs;
     Treating aspen stands to stimulate regeneration; and
     Fencing riparian areas that cannot be managed or enhanced 
by other methods.
    The Silvies Canyon Watershed Restoration Project will focus 
vegetative restoration activities in the following subwatersheds: 
Myrtle Park, Sage Hen Creek, Stancliffe Creek, and Burnt Mountain, with 
fewer activities anticipated in Boulder Creek/Fawn Creek, Myrtle Creek, 
and Red Hill.
    Preliminary issues identified include effects to threatened, 
endangered, proposed, sensitive, and management indicator species; 
RHCAs; water quality; forest stand conditions (as related to stand 
composition and tree densities, increased insect populations, and fuel 
levels); roadless areas; road densities, decommissioning roads, and 
access; and forest wood (timber) products.
    The scoping process will include: (1) Identifying potential issues; 
(2) identifying issues to be analyzed in depth; (3) eliminating non-
significant issues or those which have been covered by a previous 
environmental analysis; (4) exploring additional alternatives; and (5) 
identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed action and 
alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and 
connected actions).
    A full range of alternatives to the proposed action will be 
considered, including a no action alternative and an alternative 
focused on restoration without the use of commercial timber harvest. 
The no action alternative will serve as a baseline for comparison of 
alternatives. Additional alternatives will be developed to address 
significant issues identified during the scoping and public involvement 
process. Emerging issues may modify action alternatives in

[[Page 68987]]

number, location, and type of project activities.
    Comments received in response to this notice, including names and 
addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public 
record on this proposal and will be available to 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 and 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. 
However, they should be aware that, under FOIA, confidentiality may be 
granted in only 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. 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.
    Public meetings are anticipated to occur following issuance of the 
draft EIS. Public meetings will be announced in the Malheur National 
Forest's newspaper of record, the Blue Mountain Eagle, as well as the 
Burns Times Herald.
    The Forest Service is seeking information and comments from other 
Federal, State, and Local agencies; tribes; organizations; and 
individuals interested in or affected by the proposed action. Comments 
will be appreciated throughout the analysis process. Input will be used 
in preparation of the draft EIS. The draft EIS will be filed with the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and is anticipated to be 
available for public review in March 2000. The comment period on the 
draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA's Notice of 
Availability appears in the Federal Register. Those interested in the 
management of Malheur National Forest should participate at that time.
    The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers 
notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the 
environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft EISs 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 
completion of the final EIS, may be waived or dismissed by the courts. 
City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F. 2d 1016, 1002 (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 important that those 
interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-
day comment period so 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 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 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 the addressing these points).
    After the 45-day comment period ends on the draft EIS, comments 
will be analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in preparing the 
final EIS. The final EIS is scheduled to be completed in June 2000. In 
the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to substantive 
comments received during the public comment period. The Forest Service 
is the lead agency. The Forest Supervisor is the responsible official. 
The responsible official will consider comments, responses to comments, 
and environmental consequences discussed in the EIS, and applicable 
laws, regulations, and policies in making a decision regarding this 
project. The responsible official will document the Silvies Canyon 
Watershed Restoration decision and rationale for that decision in the 
Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to review under 
Forest Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR Part 215).

    Dated: December 1, 1999.
Bonnie Wood,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 99-31882 Filed 12-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M