[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6582-6583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3056]



[[Page 6582]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Upper Desolation Vegetation Recovery Projects Umatilla National 
Forest, Grant County, OR

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 vegetative recovery 
projects, designed to restore forest stand structure and composition, 
within the subwatersheds of the Desolation Creek Watershed and adjacent 
subwatersheds of surrounding watersheds which were affected by the Bull 
and Summit Fires of 1996. The project area is located on the North Fork 
John Day Ranger District, approximately 25 air miles southeast of 
Ukiah, Oregon.
    Proposed project activities consist of planting forest and riparian 
vegetation; fuels treatments to establish a more natural mosaic of fuel 
types across the landscape; hydrologic stability projects (road 
obliteration and road reconstruction); reduction of hazards along open 
roads; and restoration of forest stand structure and composition 
through precommercial thinning, commercial thinning, and salvage of 
timber damaged or killed in the fires. The proposed action is designed 
to prevent additional degradation of watershed and forest health, 
accelerate movement toward achieving Forest Plan goals and an 
ecologically sustainable and resilient system, and provide some 
economic return to local economies. The proposed projects will be in 
compliance with the 1990 Land and Resource Management Plan FEIS for the 
Umatilla National Forest, as amended, which provides overall guidance 
for management of this area.

DATE: Written comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be 
received on or before March 13, 2000.

ADDRESS: Send written comments and suggestions to the Responsible 
Official, Craig Smith-Dixon, North Fork John Day District Ranger, P.O. 
Box 158, Ukiah, OR 97880.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Davis, Project Team Leader, North 
Fork John Day Ranger District, Phone: (541) 427-3231.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The decision area contains approximately 
59,700 acres with the Umatilla National Forest in Grant County, Oregon. 
It includes subwatersheds that were affected by the Bull and Summit 
Fires of 1996. The Bull Fire burned approximately 8,300 acres, and the 
Summit Fire burned approximately 8,000 acres on the Umatilla National 
Forest. Affected subwatersheds include those in the upper part of the 
Desolation Creek Watershed, and those in the adjacent North Fork John 
Day River and Granite Creek Watersheds. The legal description of the 
decision area is as follows: T.7S. R.33 and 34E., T.8S. R.33 and 34E., 
T.9S. R.33 and 34E., and T.10S. R.34E., W.M. surveyed. All proposed 
activities are outside the boundaries of any roadless of wilderness 
areas.
    Originally, two separate analyses were proposed for salvage and 
restoration projects within the Bull and Summit Fire areas. These were: 
Bull Fire Restoration Project EA and the Olive Salvage CE. In January 
1998, the Big Tower Fire Recovery Projects Decision Notice and 
Environmental Assessment was challenged in court. This analysis was 
concerned with the salvage and restoration of the 1996 Tower Fire. The 
outcome of this litigation was that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of 
Appeals instructed the Forest Service to conduct an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) for any further projects within the Tower Fire 
area. Based on this ruling, the North Fork John Day Ranger District 
determined that an EIS would be the most appropriate environmental 
analysis to conduct for restoration efforts on the Bull and Summit 
Fires.
    Planting projects include reforestation in areas proposed for 
salvage harvest of fire damaged and killed timber, some areas proposed 
for fuels treatments, previously planted areas burned in the fires, and 
riparian areas affected by the fires. Fuels treatments could included 
broadcasting burning, piling and burning, jackpot burning, or 
mechanical slash treatments on harvested and precommercially thinned 
areas; as well as cutting, slashing, and burning stands of non-
merchantable lodgepole pine killed in the fires. Proposed hydrologic 
stability projects include 1.5 miles of road obliteration and 7.0 miles 
of road reconstruction. Roadside hazards would be removed from along 
approximately 3.0 miles of Forest Road 1010. Stand structure and 
composition treatments include approximately 1050 acres of salvage 
harvest, 490 acres of commercial thinning, and 330 acres of 
precommercial thinning. Approximately 1.1 miles of temporary road 
construction is proposed to access timber harvest areas (all temporary 
roads would be obliterated following completion of sale activities).
    An estimated 7.3 million board feet of timber would be commercially 
harvested, using ground based harvesting systems (tractor and 
harvested/forwarder). Proposed silvicultural treatments are as follows:
    Precommercial Thinning: Saplings (generally up to 7 inch dbh) would 
be thinned to a tree per acre variable spacing to promote growth and 
provide a more sustainable species composition.
    Commercial Thinning: Stand densities would be reduced to a residual 
square foot of basal area per acre based on recommended stocking levels 
appropriate for the plant association to restore a more ecologically 
sustainable structure and species composition. All stands would remain 
fully stocked upon completion of harvest activities.
    Salvage Harvest: Timber damaged or killed in the fires would be 
removed to facilitate reforestation of these areas and reduce the 
build-up of fuels. Harvested areas would be reforested with an 
ecologically sustainable species composition.
    Activities which 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 treatment of 
noxious weeds.
    Preliminary issues include: effects of proposed activities on water 
quality; effects of proposed activities on fish and habitat and aquatic 
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) species; effects of 
proposed activities on lynx; and ability of proposed activities to 
restore historic vegetation composition, structure, and pattern.
    The Forest Service will consider a full range of alternatives, 
including a ``no-action'' alternative in which none of the activities 
proposed above would be implemented. Based on the issues gathered 
through scooping, the action alternatives will vary in (1) the number, 
type and location of projects, (2) the silvicultural and post-harvest 
treatments prescribed, and (3) the amount and location of harvest and 
thinning. Tentative action alternatives are: the proposed action, a 
modified proposed action which only treats fire affected stands, and an 
alternative which excludes any commercial harvest.
    Public participation will be especially important at several points 
during the analysis, beginning with the scooping process (40 CFR 
1501.7). Initial scoping began with the project listing in the 2000 
Winter Edition of the Umatilla National Forest's Schedule of Proposed 
Activities. This environmental analysis and decision making process 
will enable additional interested and affected people to participate 
and contribute to

[[Page 6583]]

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 that 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 
April, 2000. 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 June, 2000. 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 environmental impact 
statement stage but that are not raised until 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 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 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. Craig Smith-Dixon, District 
Ranger, 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: February 1, 2000.
Craig Smith-Dixon,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 00-3056 Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M