[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 227 (Monday, November 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-29161]
[Federal Register: November 28, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Foss-Perkins Timber Sale and Vegetation Management Project,
Ochoco National Forest, Harney County, Oregon
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the USDA, Forest Service, will
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a timber sale and
vegetation management actions in the Foss-Perkins analysis area. The
Foss-Perkins analysis area is about 36 air miles northwest of the
Burns/Hines area. Drainages include Delintment, Dodson, and Short
Creeks. This proposal is tentatively planned for fiscal years 1995-96.
The Proposed Action for the analysis area includes; timber harvest,
road construction, tree thinning, prescribed burning, slash treatment,
and watershed improvement projects. The purpose and need for these
actions is to improve ecosystem health, reduce fire hazard, maintain
and improve water quality, and provide timber to the economy. The
Proposed Action will incorporate the direction in the Ochoco National
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the Regional
Forester's Eastside Forest Plans Amendment No. 1, May 20, 1994. The
Forest Plan provides the overall guidance for management of the area
and the proposed projects.
The Ochoco National Forest invites further written comments and
suggestions in addition to the comments already received on the scope
of the analysis. The agency will also give notice of the full
environmental analysis and decision-making process so that interested
and affected people have an opportunity to participate and contribute
to the final decision.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received
in writing by January 17, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments and suggestions concerning the
management of this area to Jim Keniston, District Ranger, Snow Mountain
Ranger District, HC 74 Box 12870, Hines, OR 97738.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Direct questions about the Proposed Action and EIS to Kathleen
Burleigh, Planning Staff and/or Jay Klink, Resource Planner, Snow
Mountain Ranger District, HC 74 Box 12870, Hines, Oregon 97738, phone
(503) 573-7292.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forest Service Proposed Action is to
treat 1500 acres of forested vegetation using group and individual tree
selection and commercial and precommercial thinning, harvest 7 to 9
million board feet of timber, construct 2 miles of road, reconstruct
roads, treat activity and natural fuels on 500 to 1000 acres, and
implement riparian, wildlife, and range improvement projects. The
Proposed Action is designed:
--To treat the most insect and disease infested stands in the analysis
area, to reduce the susceptibility of high risk timber stands to insect
and disease attack, and to prevent further infestation and accelerated
mortality rates.
--To provide timber to the economy.
--To meet the desired residue profiles for vegetation types in the
analysis area.
--To maintain and improve water quality to bring the area closer to the
desired future condition.
--To maintain and improve ecosystem health.
The Responsible Official must decide: how much timber to harvest,
if any, and where and how the harvest activities would take place; how
many miles of roads to construct and reconstruct, if any; how many
acres of fuels (activity and natural) to treat, if any, and where and
how the fuels treatment should take place; and what riparian, wildlife
and range improvement projects to implement, if any.
The proposed Action is intended to implement the Chief of the
Forest Service's direction to implement ecosystem management and to
provide recovery from the insects, disease, and fuel buildup within the
Foss-Perkins analysis area.
The Foss-Perkins project area borders the Silver Creek Roadless
Area. The project area is approximately 9000 acres in size. There is no
designated roadless area within the project area, however there is a
portion of the Silver Creek Research Natural Area within the project
boundary. Silver Creek is located \1/4\ to \1/2\ mile west of the
project area and was recently studied for determination of suitability
for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System. It was determined
that Silver Creek is not suitable for Wild and Scenic designation due
to poor riparian condition.
Alternatives will include a no action alternative, which involves
no harvest or road construction, and additional alternatives to respond
to issues generated during the scoping process. Some of these
additional alternatives will incorporate the Viable Ecosystem
Management Guide developed by the Ochoco National Forest which
addresses the historic range of variability of timber stands in this
region. The area also needs to be assessed for its roadless area
suitability and semi-primitive management potential. However, a
decision to amend the Forest Plan and designate any portions of the
area as roadless is outside the scope of this project.
Initial scoping for this project began in July of 1989. Issues
raised by the public during scoping will be used to develop
alternatives to the proposed action. Public participation will be
especially important at several points during the analysis. 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
actions. This information will be used in preparation of the draft EIS.
The scoping process includes:
1. Identifying potential issues.
2. Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth.
3. Eliminating insignificant issues or those which have been
covered by a relevant previous environmental process.
4. Exploring additional alternatives.
5. Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed
action and alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects
and connected actions).
6. Determining potential cooperating agencies and task assignments.
The District has identified the following issues. These are
internal issues the District has identified and would now like the
public to review them and add anymore they feel worthy of note.
Soil Compaction--Past activities have caused soil compaction. The
Proposed Action could cause additional soil compaction.
Roadless Area--The Proposed Action could impact roadless area
attributes.
Old-Growth Fragmentation--The Proposed Action could increase timber
stand fragmentation.
Forest Health--Timber stand health is declining due to fire
exclusion and drought. This has resulted in overstocked conditions,
increased insect and disease infestations, heavy forest fuel levels,
and an increase in dead and dying timber.
Water Quality--Vegetation treatment and grazing in and adjacent to
riparian zones may effect stream channel stability and water quality.
Habitat for red band trout and Malheur mottled sculpin may be affected
by vegetation treatment in and adjacent to riparian zones.
Big Game Cover--Timber harvest could adversely affect big game
habitat and populations in the analysis area.
Socioeconomic--Timber harvesting could enhance local and regional
economies by providing revenues and jobs.
Livestock Grazing--The Proposed Action could have an effect on the
number of livestock and the timing and location of where livestock
graze.
The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by May
1995. At that time, copies of the draft EIS will be distributed to
interested and affected agencies, organizations, and members of the
public for their review and comment. EPA will publish a notice of
availability of the draft EIS in the Fedeal 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.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important
to give reviewers notice 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 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 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 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 1503.13 in addressing these points).
The final EIS is scheduled to be completed by January 1996. 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 the decision
regarding this proposal. Thomas A. Schmidt, Forest Supervisor, Ochoco
National Forest, is the Responsible Official. As the responsible
official he will document the decision and reasons for the decision in
the Board of Decision. That decision will be subject to appeal under 36
CFR part 215.
Dated: November 18, 1994.
Rodney D. Collins,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 94-29161 Filed 11-25-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
