Upper Charley Subwatershed Ecosystem Restoration Projects Umatilla National Forest, Garfield County, Washington

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Upper Charley Subwatershed Ecosystem Restoration Projects

Umatilla National Forest, Garfield County, Washington

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 ecosystem restoration

projects, designed to promote healthy watershed conditions, within the

Upper Charley subwatershed. The project area is located on the Pomeroy

Ranger District approximately 10 air miles southeast of Pomeroy,

Washington.

Proposed project activities consist of in-channel fish habitat

projects, hydrologic stability projects (road obliteration, road re-

alignment/reconstruction), wildlife enhancement projects, range

improvements, noxious weed treatments, recreation opportunities,

landscape prescribed fire, and restoration of forest stand structure/

composition using a variety of silvicultural treatments including

commercial timber harvest. The proposed action is designed to reduce

risks to ecosystem sustainability, prevent further degradation of

forest health, reduce risks of catastrophic wildfire, improve or

maintain aquatic and terrestrial habitat, manage access to protect

wildlife, and provide some economic return to local economies.

The EIS will tier to the 1990 Land and Resource Management Plan

FEIS for the Umatilla National Forest, which provides overall guidance

for forest management of the area.

DATES: Written comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be

received on or before September 24, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments and suggestions to the Responsible

Official, Monte Fujishin, District Ranger, Pomeroy Ranger District, 71

West Main Street, Pomeroy Washington, 99347.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall Walker, Project Team Leader,

Pomeroy Ranger District. Phone: (509) 843-1891.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The decision area contains approximately

7,650 acres within the Umatilla National Forest in Garfield County,

Washington. It is within the boundary of the Upper Charley subwatershed

of the Asotin watershed. The legal description of the decision area is

as follows: Sections 11-14, 22-28, and 33-36 Township 9 North, Range 42

East; and Sections 8, 17-20 and 30 Township 9 North, Range 43 East, and

Sections 3 and 4 Township 8 North, Range 42 East, W.M. surveyed. All

proposed activities are outside the boundaries of any roadless or

wilderness areas.

Fish habitat projects include in-channel restoration, pond

construction, and stabilization of streambanks. Proposed hydrologic

stability projects include 14.04 miles of road obliteration, 13 miles

of road realignment/reconstruction, and revegetation of cut and fill

slopes. Snag creation, construction of cisterns for non-big game

species and prescribed burning for elk habitat are proposed to enhance

wildlife habitat. Noxious weed treatments to help restore biodiversity

and productivity of native plant species are also included in the

proposed action. A variety of silvicultural methods would treat

approximately 4,492 acres within the area. Approximately 4.3 miles of

temporary road construction is proposed to access timber harvest areas

(all temporary roads would be obliterated following completion of sale

activities), and approximately 7.71 miles of existing non-system roads

would be added to the transportation system for future project use.

This proposal also includes prescribed burning within harvest units

(3,554 acres) and outside of harvest units (2,000 acres) to reduce the

potential for future wildfires, prepare sites for regeneration, enhance

wildlife habitat and maintain forest health by bringing fuel levels

closer to their historic levels.

An estimated 18.2 million board feet of timber would be

commercially harvested on approximately 3,554 acres. Proposed

silvicultural treatments are briefly described as follows:

Precommercial Thinned: Saplings would be thinned to a tree per acre

variable spacing to promote growth and provide a sustainable species

composition. This treatment is proposed on 938 acres.

Thin from Below: Thinning of stand to recommended stocking level

(listed by residual square feet of basal area per acre). This would be

accomplished by leaving the largest and healthiest trees on each

microsite. This treatment is proposed on 885 acres.

Uneven-aged Management: Stand densities would be reduced to 60-100

square feet of basal area per acres by removing the least vigorous

trees greater than 7 inches DBH. This treatment is proposed on 2,176

acres.

Shelterwood Group Selection: Windfirm trees favoring western larch

and ponderosa pine would be retained as groups and individuals.

Openings from one-half to four acres would occur in areas of insect and

disease pockets and low vigor fir thickets. This treatment is proposed

on 493 acres.

For all harvest treatments existing snags and large down wood would

be left on site. Ponderosa pine and western larch would be the

preferred species for leave trees. All trees greater than 21 inches DBH

would be left in the ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir biophysical groups

(both are below their historic range of variability). Thinning of

saplings would occur after harvest.

The proposed action will tier to the FEIS and Umatilla Forest Plan,

as amended, which provides goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines

for the various activities and land allocations on the forest. In the

project/analysis area there are eight designated management areas

(MAs): A6, A9, C1, C3, C3A, C4, C5 and E2. Management area A6-Developed

Recreation is managed to provide recreation opportunities that are

dependent on the

[[Page 45221]]

development of structural facilities for user convenience (no timber

harvest is allowed). A9-Special Interest Area is managed to preserve

and interpret areas of significant cultural, historical, geological,

botanical, or other special characteristics for educational, scientific

and public enjoyment purposes (no timber harvest allowed). C1-Dedicated

Old Growth is managed to provide and protect sufficient suitable

habitat for wildlife species dependent upon mature and/or overmature

forest stands and promote a diversity of vegetative conditions for such

species (no timber harvest allowed). C3-Big Game Winter Range is

managed to provide high levels of potential habitat effectiveness and

high quality forage for big game species (timber harvest is allowed).

C3A-Sensitive Big Game Winter Range is managed to provide high levels

of potential habitat effectiveness (timber harvest allowed only under

catastrophic conditions). C4-Wildlife Habitat is managed to provide

high levels of potential habitat effectiveness for big game and other

wildlife species with emphasis on size and distribution of habitat

components (timber harvest is allowed). C5-Riparian is managed to

maintain or enhance water quality, and produce a high level of

potential habitat capability for all species of fish and wildlife

within the designated riparian habitat areas while providing for a high

level of habitat effectiveness for big game (limited timber harvest is

allowed). E2-Timber and Big Game is managed to emphasize production of

wood fiber (timber), encourage forage production, and maintain a

moderate level of big game and other wildlife habitat (timber harvest

is allowed). Timber harvest for the proposed action would only take

place in management areas C3 and E2.

The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. One of

these will be the ``no action'' alternative in which none of the

proposed activities would be implemented. Additional alternatives will

examine varying levels and locations for the proposed activities to

achieve the proposal's purposes, as well as to respond to the issues

and other resource values.

Preliminary Issues: Tentatively, the preliminary issues identified

are briefly described below:

1. Wildlife Habitat--What effects would timber harvest and

prescribed burning have on big game and non-game habitat?

2. Ecosystem Sustainability--How would the proposed activities

effect ecosystem sustainability and forest health?

3. Air Quality--What effects would landscape prescribed burning

have on air quality?

4. Water Quality/Riparian Habitat--How would water quality, flow,

temperature, timing and riparian habitat conditions be effected by the

proposed activities?

5. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) Species--What effect

will the proposed activities have on TES species and what opportunities

exist to improve habitat?

6. Road Management--What opportunities exist to obliterate roads

and reduce road density in the subwatershed?

7. Noxious Weeds--What effects would the proposed activities have

on noxious weed populations?

This list will be verified, expanded, or modified based on public

scoping and interdisciplinary review of this proposal.

Public participation will be especially important at several points

during the analysis, beginning with the scoping process (40 CFR

1501.7). Initial scoping began with the project listing in the 1997

Winter Edition of the Umatilla National Forest's Schedule of Proposed

Actions. A public meeting will be scheduled for September, 1998 to

discuss the project, other meetings will be scheduled as needed. This

environmental analysis and decision making process will enable

additional interested and affected people to participate and contribute

to 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 who 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

January, 1999. 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 May, 1999. 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 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 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 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 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. Monte Fujishin, District

Ranger, is the Responsible Official. As the Responsible Official, he

will decide which, if any, of

[[Page 45222]]

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: August 17, 1998.

Monte Fujishin,

District Ranger.

[FR Doc. 98-22736 Filed 8-24-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M