6582 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2000 / Notices

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 ‘‘noaction’’ 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2000 / Notices 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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

North Rich Allotment Management

Plan, Wasatch-Cache National Forest,

Logan Ranger District, Cache and Rich

Counties, Utah

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

SUMMARY: The Logan Ranger District, of

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, will

prepare an EIS on a proposal to

authorize grazing on the North Rich

Allotment at a level and in a manner

consistent with direction set forth in the

Forest Plan, the Rangeland Health EIS,

and other applicable laws.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope

of the analysis should be received in

writing by March 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Brian Ferebee, District Ranger, 1500 East

Highway 89, Logan, Utah 84321.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Evelyn Sibbernsen, Environmental

Coordinator, Logan Ranger District,

(435) 755–3620.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Logan

Ranger District proposes to authorize

grazing on the North Rich Allotment at

a level and in a manner consistent with

direction set forth in the Forest Plan, the

Wasatch-Cache Rangeland Health EIS,

and other applicable laws and

guidelines. In conjunction, the District

proposes to revise the Allotment

Management Plan (AMP) and adjust the

resource management of lands within

the North Rich Allotment to reflect

information developed since the Forest

Plan (approved in 1985) and to improve

resource conditions as needed in several

areas.

In an effort to continue moving

present rangeland conditions toward

desired conditions, select improvement

and restoration projects are being

proposed. Livestock grazing would be

managed under a rotation system, to

provide for the longterm health and

sustainability of rangeland and riparian

ecosystems.

Environmental analysis on the

proposal began in the fall of 1998.

Preliminary analysis indicated an

Environmental Impact Statement would

not be required. A scoping letter was

mailed to more than 70 individuals,

organizations, and local and state

government agencies in January, 1999.

An open house was held in January and

a field trip was held in July, 1999. Data

collection and analysis continued

through the fall of 1999. In January of

2000, the responsible official and the

Forest Service interdisciplinary team

decided that an Environmental Impact

Statement should be prepared because

there may be significant environmental

effects associated with the proposal.

Preliminary issues identified by the

interdisciplinary team include the

effects of grazing on riparian conditions,

watershed health, threatened,

endangered, and sensitive species, and

the effects on dispersed recreation in the

area.

A range of alternatives for the

allotment will be considered. One of

these, no action from the current

situation, will be to authorize grazing

under the current regime (number and

type of livestock, grazing system, and

maintenance of improvements). Another

alternative will consider no grazing on