Silvies Canyon Watershed Restoration Project, Malheur National Forest, Grant and Harney Counties, Oregon

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