Plentybob Ecosystem Restoration Projects, Umatilla National Forest, Umatilla County, Oregon

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Plentybob Ecosystem Restoration Projects, Umatilla National

Forest, Umatilla 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) on a proposed action to implement ecosystem restoration

projects, designed to promote healthy watershed conditions within the

Upper Umatilla River watershed. The project area is located on the

Walla Walla Ranger District approximately 30 air miles southeast of

Walla Walla, Washington.

Proposed project activities consist of hardwood planting in

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, hydrologic stability projects

(road obliteration, road re-alignment and/or reconstruction), noxious

weed treatments, wildlife enhancement projects, landscape prescribed

fire and restoration of forest stand structure and composition using a

variety of silvicultural treatments including commercial timber

harvest. The proposed action is designed to reduce risk to ecosystem

sustainability, prevent further degradation of forest health, reduce

risks of catastrophic wildfire 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 February 26, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments and suggestions to the Responsible

Official, Thomas K. Reilly, District Ranger, Walla Walla Ranger

District, 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, Washington, 99362.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Sedam, Project Team Leader,

Walla Walla Ranger District, Phone: (509) 522-6050.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The decision area contains approximately

73,156 acres within the Umatilla National Forest in Umatilla County,

Oregon. It is within the Meacham Creek and South Fork Umatilla River

watersheds. Approximately 53,250 acres of the planning area is located

in the Hellhole Roadless Area. The legal description of the decision

area if as follows: All or part of Sections 1-3 Township 1 South, Range

37 East; Section 6 Township 1 South, Range 38 East; Sections 1-5, 8-12,

22-27 Township 1 North, Range 36 East; Sections 1-27, 30 and 34-36

Township 1 North, Range 37 East; Sections 1-5, 8-18, 19-36 Township 2

North, Range 36 East; Sections 4-10, 15-22, 26-35 Township 2 North,

Range 37 East; Sections 22-28 and 32-36 Township 3 North, Range 36 East

and Sections 16-22 and 28-33 Township 3 North, Range 37 East, W.M.

surveyed.

Water quality improvement projects include stabilization of stream

banks with planting of hardwoods on 192 acres. Proposed hydrologic

stability projects include approximately 44.5 miles of road

obliteration, 23.6 miles or road reconstruction and revegetation of cut

and fill slopes. Road construction would include bank stabilization,

surfacing and construction of drainage structures. 14,473 acres of

prescribed burning for elk habitat are proposed to enhance wildlife

habitat. A variety of silvicultural methods would treat approximately

4,103 acres within the area. This proposal also includes prescribed

burning of approximately 3,000 acres within harvest units and

approximately 15,500 acres outside of harvest units to reduce the

potential for future wildfires, prepare sites for regeneration, enhance

wildlife habitat, modify stand structure and composition and maintain

forest health by bring fuel levels closer to their historic levels.

An estimated 38.0 million board feet of green and 10.0 million

broad feet of dead timber would be commercially harvested in four

timber sales over a period of three to five years. Proposed

silvicultural treatments would include shelterwood, group selection and

salvage harvest. None of the proposed timber harvest would take place

within the Hellhole Roadless Area.

For all 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 subalphine fir biophysical groups (both

are below their historic range of variability).

Several streams within the analysis area are not Oregon's 303(d)

List of Water Quality Limited Waterbodies. The proposed action will

include Best Management Practices and include components of a Water

Quality Management Plan.

The proposed action will tier to the FEIS and Umatilla Forest

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

guidelines for activities and land allocations on the Forest. There are

six designated Management Areas (MAs) found within the analysis area:

A4 Viewshed 2, A9 Special Interest Area, C1 Dedicated Old Growth, C4

Wildlife Habitat, C5 Riparian (Fish and Wildlife) and C8 Grass-Tree

Mosaic.

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 Sustatinability--How would the proposed activities

affect 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 affected by the

proposed activities?

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

would the proposed activities have on TES species and what

opportunities exist to improve habitat?

6. 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 1998

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

Actions. 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

of the process and is encouraged to visit the 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 and local agencies and other individuals or

organizations who may be interested in, or affected by the proposal.

This input will be used in

[[Page 2876]]

preparation of the Draft EIS. The scoping process includes:

1. Identifying potential issues.

2. Identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth.

3. Considering additional alternatives based on themes which will

be derived from issues recognized during scoping activities.

4. 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 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 June, 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.

1335, 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 or 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. Thomas Reilly, 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: December 30, 1998.

Thomas K. Reilly,

District Ranger.

[FR Doc. 99-1072 Filed 1-15-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M