[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
