[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
