Middle Fork John Day Range Planning on the Long Creek/Bear Valley and Prairie City Ranger Districts, Malheur National Forest, Grant County, Oregon

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Middle Fork John Day Range Planning on the Long Creek/Bear Valley

and Prairie City Ranger Districts, Malheur National Forest, Grant

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) to update range management planning on 8 livestock

(cattle and horse) grazing allotments and three (3) administrative use

pastures which will result in the development of new Allotment

Management Plans (AMPs). The allotments are called Austin, Bear Creek,

Camp Creek, Lower Middle Fork, Elk, Blue Mountain, Upper Middle Fork on

the Long Creek/Bear Valley Ranger District, and Sullens on the Prairie

City Ranger District of the Malheur National Forest. The administrative

use pastures are called Sunshine, Bear Creek and Blue Mountain. The

range planning area is located approximately 20 to 25 air miles north

and east of John Day, Oregon. The allotments, combined, are called the

Middle Fork John Day Range Planning Area. Small portions of the

Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest System lands that are

within the allotments, will also be considered in the proposal.

Management actions are planned to be implemented beginning in the year

2000. The agency gives notice of the full environmental analysis and

decision-making process that will occur on the proposal so that

interested

[[Page 9306]]

and affected people may become aware of how they may participate in the

process and contribute to the final decision.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received

in writing by March 26, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments and suggestions concerning this

proposal to F. Carl Pence, Forest Supervisor, Malheur National Forest,

P.O. Box 909, John Day, Oregon 97845.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Direct questions about the proposed action and

EIS to Paul Bridges, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Wallowa-Whitman

National Forest, Baker Ranger District, 3165 10th Street, Baker City,

Oregon 97814, phone (541) 523-1950.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action is to continue to permit

livestock grazing on National Forest System lands. The proposed action

is designed to continue the improving trends in vegetation, watershed

conditions, and in ecological sustainability relative to livestock

grazing within the eight allotments of the Middle Fork John Day, Galena

and Camp Creek Watersheds. The action is needed to develop new AMPs

which incorporate results of recent scientific research, analysis and

documentation at the sub-basin level.

The Malheur Forest Plan as amended, recognized the continuing need

for forage production from the Forest and recognized the eight

allotments of the Middle Fork John Day, Galena and Camp Creek

watersheds as containing lands which are capable and suitable for

grazing by domestic livestock. This action is needed to continue this

historic use.

The eight allotments encompass approximately 185,886 acres of

National Forest System lands, with Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and

private land included in some allotments. Forest Plan Management Areas

(MAs) include MA1 (general forest), MA2 (rangeland), MA3 (riparian

zones), MA4 (big game winter range maintenance), MA7 (scenic area),

MA13 (dedicated/replacement old growth), MA14 (visual corridors), MA19

(administrative sites) and MA21 (wildlife emphasis area with non-

scheduled timber harvest). The administrative pastures make up

approximately 490 acres.

Four species of anadromous and resident salmonid fish species

inhabit the Middle Fork John Day Range Planning Area for all or part of

their life history. Both resident and/or anadromous forms of inland

redband trout/summer steelhead, fluvial and resident bull trout, spring

chinook salmon, summer steelhead and mountain whitefish are found

within the watershed. Two of these species are listed under the

Endangered Species Act, the bull trout are threatened, and the summer

steelhead are proposed to be listed as threatened. Spring chinook

salmon are regionally listed as sensitive. The planning area contains

habitat for two listed animal species, American peregrine falcon

(endangered) and northern bald eagle (threatened), and one proposed

species, North American lynx. Habitat for many other wildlife species

including management indicator species (MIS) is also present in the

planning area. These species include California wolverine, North

American lynx, Rocky Mountain elk, marten, pileated woodpecker, and

goshawk. Since 1992, mitigations associated with the Endangered Species

Act and other issues, have addressed many of the areas of past concern

on allotments within this planning area.

Preliminary issues include: (1) The effects of livestock grazing on

riparian conditions (including water quality, water temperature and

stream bank stability); (2) the ability to maintain ecological

sustainability and continue watershed restoration with continued

livestock grazing; (3) the effects of livestock grazing on threatened,

endangered, proposed, or sensitive (TES) species; and (4) the effects

of no grazing or reduced grazing on the local economy.

A detailed public involvement plan has been developed, and an

interdisciplinary team has been selected to do the environmental

analysis, prepare and accomplish scoping and public involvement

activities.

The proposed action is intended to provide the analysis needed to

prepare new AMPs that meet all the Forest Plan amended requirements of

Interim strategies for managing Pacific anadromous fish-producing

watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of

California (PACFISH), Inland Native Strategies for Managing Fish-

producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western

Montana, and Portions of Nevada (INFISH), and are consistent with the

scientific findings of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Program (ICBEMP). Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries

Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as required under the

ESA, will be completed for all proposed activities.

Public involvement will be especially important at several points

during the analysis, beginning with the scoping process. The Forest

Service will be consulting with Indian Tribes and seeking information,

comments, and assistance from Federal, State, local agencies, tribes,

and other individuals or organizations who may be interested in or

affected by the proposals. The scoping process includes:

1. Identifying and clarifying issues.

2. Identifying key issues to be analyzed in depth.

3. Exploring alternatives based on themes which will be derived

from issues recognized during scoping activities.

4. Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposals and

alternatives (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and

connected actions).

5. Determining potential cooperating agencies and task assignments.

6. Developing a list of interested people to keep apprised of

opportunities to participate through meetings, personal contacts, or

written comments.

7. Developing a means of informing the public through the media

and/or written material (e.g., newsletters, correspondence, etc.).

Public comments are appreciated throughout the analysis process.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and be available for public review by September 1999. 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. The final

EIS is scheduled to be available March 2000.

The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers

notice of this early stage of public participation and 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 have been raised

at the draft stage may be waived or dismissed by the court if not

raised until after completion of the final EIS. 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 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.

[[Page 9307]]

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.)

In the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to

substantive comments and response 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 Responsible Official is F. Carl Pence, Forest Supervisor for

the Malheur National Forest. The Responsible Official will document the

decision and rationale for the decision in the Record of Decision. That

decision will be subject to appeal under 36 CFR Part 215.

Dated: February 12, 1999.

F. Carl Pence,

Forest Supervisor, Malheur National Forest.

[FR Doc. 99-4645 Filed 2-24-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M