[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 161 (Friday, August 20, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45504-45505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21634]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Goose Restoration Projects, Winema National Forest, Klamath
County, Oregon
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) for restoration projects on the Klamath Ranger District
of the Winema National Forest. The planning area is located in T32S,
R6E, T32S, R7 1/2E, T33S, R6E, and T33S, R7 1/2E, Willamette Meridian.
Projects included under this analysis include commercial timber
harvest, precommercial thinning, underburning, post and pole harvest,
reforestation, evaluation of access and travel opportunities, road
closures and obliterations, correction of sediment problems at the
Annie Creek dispersed site, and elk forage enhancement. The Forest
Service is initiating the process of preparing an EIS to analyze and
disclose the effects of the proposed action and alternatives.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received
in writing by September 20, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Goose Project, Klamath Ranger
District, 1936 California Ave., Klamath Falls, Oregon, 97601.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Jahns, Klamath Ranger District,
Winema National Forest, 1936 California Avenue, Klamath Falls, Oregon
97601, phone 541-885-3400 or e-mail at: pjahns/
r6pnw__,winema@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Goose Planning Area is located on the
east side of the southern Cascades immediately south of Crater Lake
National Park. The elevation ranges from 4000 to 6000 feet and
encompasses forest types ranging from lodgepole pine and white fir in
the lower elevations to Shasta red fir and Mountain hemlock in the
higher reaches. The planning area contains one of the largest root
disease pockets in western North America.
This project-level EIS will tier to the 1990 Winema National Forest
Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by the 1994 Record of
Decision for ``Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management Planning Document Within the Range of the Northern spotted
Owl'' (Forest Plan). The Forest Plan provides guidance for management
activities within the potentially affected area through its goals
objectives, management area direction, and standards and guidelines.
The project would occur primarily within Scenic Management Area (MA3)
and to a lesser extent within Late Successional Reserve (MA16) and
Timber Management Area (MA12).
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to (1) develop implementable
treatments that will reduce the risk of large scale disturbances and/or
encourage development of old growth characteristics within the planning
area, (2) review the adequacy of the transportation system for the
future and recommend deletion of those segments that are surplus to the
needs or that are contributing to water quality problems, and (3)
produce a timber product from matrix lands.
Proposed Action
The proposal contains a series of projects which reduce forest
mortality to root disease while improving watershed condition. Up to
1930 acres of commercial harvest with thinning prescriptions will be
proposed. Up to 2320 acres may be treated with prescribed underburning,
possibly in conjunction with thinning. Up to 335 acres will be
precommercially thinned and up to 100 acres will have opportunities to
harvest posts and poles. Other proposed activities are 150 acres of
seeding to improve elk foraging habitat, evaluation of access and
travel opportunities and up to 40 miles of road may be closed or
obliterated. In addition, the recreation site by Annie Creek will be
reconstructed to minimize sediment.
Alternatives
The No Action alternative will serve as a baseline for comparison
of alternatives and will be fully developed and analyzed. With the No
Action alternative, there would be no activities implemented based on
the Goose analysis. Previously approved activities, and routine
protection and maintenance activities will continue. The proposed
action, as described above, will be considered and other alternatives
will be developed around the proposed
[[Page 45505]]
action to address issues identified in the scoping and public
involvement process.
Issues
The preliminary issues that have been identified include the
importance of the area for elk calving, the need to improve
connectivity of late seral habitat between blocks of Late Successional
Reserve and Crater Lake National Park, and the potential impact of the
project on roadless values.
Public Involvement
Public participation will be important at several points during the
EIS preparation. The first point is during the scoping process (40 CFR
1501.7). The Forest Service will be seeking information and comments
from Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes, and other individuals
or organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed
action. This input will be used in preparation of the draft EIS.
Public scoping will be achieved through mailings, notification in
the Klamath Falls Herald & News, and if interest dictates, public
meetings will be held within the Klamath Basin.
A range of alternatives will be considered including the No Action
alternative. As issues are identified, other potential alternatives
will be developed.
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 proposed action and will be available for 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 or
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.
Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the
FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very 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 and 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.
Estimated Dates For Draft and Final EIS
The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review in
January 2000. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from
the date EPA's Notice of Availability appears in the Federal Register.
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
a draft EIS 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 Angoom 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 be 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 statement. 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 addressing these points.
After the 45 day comment period ends on the draft EIS, the comments
will be analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in preparing the
final EIS. The final EIS is scheduled to be completed by April 2000. In
the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to the
comments received (40 CFR 1503.4). Forest Supervisor, Winema National
Forest, is the responsible official and will consider comments,
responses, environmental consequences discussed in the EIS and
applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making a decision
regarding this proposal. The responsible official 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: August 12, 1999.
Mary C. Erickson,
Acting Deputy Forest Supervisor, Winema National Forest.
[FR Doc. 99-21634 Filed 8-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
