Tower Fire Rehabilitation Projects, Umatilla National Forest, Grant & Umatilla Counties, Oregon

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Tower Fire Rehabilitation Projects, Umatilla National Forest,

Grant & Umatilla Counties, Oregon

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact

statement on a proposal to rehabilitate lands and resources burned in

1996 by the Tower Fire. The project area is located on the North Fork

John Day Ranger District and lies approximately 12 miles southeast of

Ukiah, Oregon, within the North Fork John Day River Sub-basin.

Projects would be designed at the landscape level to replant forest

and riparian vegetation (including the use of herbicides in some upland

areas to control vegetation which would compete with new seedlings);

stabilize slopes exposed by the fire; enhance wildlife habitat; reduce

recreational disturbance of moderate and severely burned sites;

reconstruct, repair, or decommission degraded roads and stream

crossings; restore and protect stream habitat; reduce hazards along

open roads, OHV trails, and a campground; restore forest stand

structure and composition through precommercial or commercial thinning;

reduce fuel loading to create conditions which would allow the use of

prescribed fire; subsoil known areas of soil compaction; and salvage

valuable timber that was damaged or killed by the fire. The proposed

projects will be in compliance with the 1990 Umatilla National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended, which

provides the overall guidance for management of this area.

The agency invites written comments and suggestions on the scope of

the analysis. In addition, the agency will give notice of the full

environmental analysis once it nears completion so that interested and

affected people may participate and contribute to a final decision.

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

in writing by February 26, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments and suggestions concerning the

management of this area to Craig Smith-Dixon, North Fork John Day

District Ranger, PO Box 158, Ukiah, OR 97880.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about the proposed project

and scope of analysis should be directed to Tim Davis, Tower Projects

Team Leader, North Fork John Day Ranger District. Phone: (541) 427-

5341.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Tower Fire burned approximately 50,800

acres, 46,300 of which occur on the Umatilla National Forest. The

decision area for the Tower Fire Rehabilitation Projects includes all

46,300 acres. It includes portions of the Cable Creek, Bridge/Pine

North Fork John Day, Big, and Hidaway watersheds of the North Fork John

Day River Sub-basin. The area also includes all of the South Fork-Tower

Roadless Area (16,300 acres) and is bounded on the south by the North

Fork John Day Wilderness.

Originally, five separate analyses were proposed for salvage and

restoration projects with the Tower Fire area. These were: Hairy Hazard

Tree CE, Tower Fire Salvage EA, Big Tower Salvage and Revegetation

Project, EA, South Tower Fire Recovery Projects EA, and Cable Fire

Recovery Project EA. In January 1998, the Big Tower Fire Recovery

Projects Decision Notice and Environmental Assessment was challenged in

court. The Federal District Court upheld the project decision and the

three salvage sales associated with the Big Tower Salvage and

Revegetation Project were sold and awarded. The court was petitioned

for a stay of implementation but the stay was denied. The District

Court's decision was then appealed and the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals overturned the decision, instructing the Forest Service to

conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any further

projects within the entire Tower Fire. All activities on the three

timber sales associated with the Big Tower Salvage and Revegetation

Project as well as the Hairy Hazard Tree Sale (which was to remove

hazard trees along open roads) were stopped. At the time of the halt

order, 19 million board feet of the 26 million board feet of timber

sold had been cut and removed from three of the four timber sales. This

notice of intent initiates the analysis for the required EIS covering

the remainder of the Big Tower Salvage and Revegetation projects and

all other fire recovery projects proposed within the burn. Since the

fall of 1996, many restoration activities have been initiated,

including tree planting, erosion seeding, road stabilization, and

salvage of fire-killed trees. Completion of the EIS and associated

decisions will allow these and other watershed restoration projects to

be implemented.

The purpose of the Forest Service proposal is to rehabilitate

portions of the burn to facilitate reaching the desired future

condition for the area and recover economic value of timber where such

salvage is compatible with protection of damaged resources. Proposed

projects would involve: Reforestation of areas which sustained high

tree mortality (including ecologically important stands of western

white pine); revegetation of burned riparian areas; reconstruction of

roads open to the public and repair of roads closed to the public but

still required for administrative use; decommissioning of degraded

roads; repair or replacement of road culverts to improve fish passage;

reconstruction of stream crossings which are considered at risk due to

fire-

[[Page 1589]]

induced high flows; removal or repair of degraded stock ponds;

restoration of large wood to deficient stream channels; construction of

grade control structures where gullys have been identified on streams;

seeding and fertilization where wildlife forage has been limited by the

fire; breaking tops out of scattered fire-killed trees to enhance snag

habitat; fencing of degraded meadows, springs, and stockponds to

promote natural recovery and improve wetland habitat; relocation of the

Roundaway 4-Wheeler trail to a safer, more stable site; removal of

hazardous trees along open roads, OHV trails, several trailheads, and a

campground; stabilization of highly erodible slopes and a small

landslide on Hidaway Creek by seeding or transplanting shrubs;

subsoiling areas compacted by previous timber harvest practices to

reduce overland flows; application of prescribed fire over a five year

period to enhance forage and shrub composition; salvage harvest of

5,100 acres resulting in recovery of approximately 21 MMbf of valuable

fire-killed timber (including timber already sold but enjoined by the

court order); thin overstocked stands (up to 1,000 acres (3.2 MMbf) of

which would be of merchantable size) to improve tree vigor, adjust

stand structure to reduce threat of future crown fire, and mimic

historic specifies compositions; control competing vegetation within

reforestation areas using herbicides to assure seedling survival;

define and harden dispersed campsites and install informational signing

to control recreational disturbance of burned areas; and create a fuel

break between the South Fork-Tower Roadless Area and the North Fork

John Day Wilderness to expand options for natural fires in both areas.

Only three planting and the above-mentioned fuelbreak would occur

within the South Fork-Tower Roadless Area, no harvest or other

restoration projects are proposed within this area.

Forage enhancement seeding would occur on sites that are devoid of

herbaceous cover or with limited amounts of vegetation. The seeding

mixture would consist of native seed and/or non-persistent annuals, be

certified weed free, and would not exceed 20 pounds per acre.

Application would be accomplished aerially with selected areas seeded

by hand. Aerial broadcast fertilization of 100 pounds per acre would

also be conducted. The fertilizer mix would consist of 27-12-0 plus 12%

pelletized sulfur. No fertilizer would be applied in or adjacent to

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA's).

Proposed timber salvage and commercial thinning units would be

harvested using tractor, harvester/forwarder, skyline, and helicopter

logging systems. Access for salvage and commercial thinning would

require reconstruction of about 6 miles of existing roads and

construction of approximately 10 miles of temporary roads. The

temporary roads would be closed and obliterated after completion of

project activities. Activities that 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

trapping or barriers to prevent animal damage to seedlings.

Planting of tree seedlings both within and outside harvest units

would involve control of vegetation which could compete aggressively

enough to kill the seedlings. Control would be achieved across

approximately 11,000 planted acres by the ground application of

herbicides. The objective of such treatment is to ensure that 70% or

more of the planted seedlings will still be alive after three growing

seasons. With an average of 222 planted seedlings per acre, this means

that herbicides would be applied to 13% of a reforestation unit--87% of

the land area within the unit would not receive herbicides. No

herbicide application would occur within RACFISH Riparian Habitat

Conservation Areas. Herbicides would be applied once during the five-

year tree establishment period. Herbicides would be used as a

correction treatment when other methods are ineffective or would

increase project costs unreasonably. For areas that are not expected to

exceed a competing vegetation threshold, an 18 inch hand scalp would be

used as a site preparation method when the seedlings are planted but no

herbicide would be applied.

Public participation will be especially important at several points

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

1501.7). Some scoping has already been conducted through the five

initial analyses mentioned earlier. Information received during this

scoping will be incorporated into the analysis for the Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS). Additional scoping will include listing of this

EIS in the Winter 1999 issue of the Umatilla National Forest's Schedule

of Proposed Activities; letters to agencies, organizations, and

individuals who have already indicated their interest in such

activities; and news releases in the East Oregonian and other local

newspapers. No public meetings have been planned at this time; they

will be scheduled later as needed. This notice is to encourage members

of the public, interested organizations, federal, state and county

agencies, and local tribal governments to take part in planning this

project. They are encouraged to visit with Forest Service officials at

any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. Any information

received 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).

Preliminary issues include: Effects of the proposed fuelbreak on

the roadless character of the South Fork-Tower Roadless Area;

cumulative effects of past and proposed activities together with

effects from the fire; effects of proposed activities on soils exposed

by the fire; effects of proposed activities on water quality and the

anadromous and resident fisheries resource; ability of proposed

activities to restore historic vegetation composition, structures, and

patterns; effects of proposed herbicide use, and economic viability of

salvage.

A full range of alternatives will be considered, including a ``no-

action'' alternative in which none of the activities proposed above

would be implemented. Based on the issues gathered through scoping, the

action alternatives will vary in (1) the number, type and location of

rehabilitation projects, (2) use of herbicides or mechanical methods to

control competing vegetation in areas to be planted, (3) the

silvicultural and post-harvest treatments prescribed, (4) the amount

and location of harvest and thinning, and (5) the amount of time needed

to move the area toward its desired condition. Tentative action

alternatives are: The proposed action, a modified proposed action with

no use of herbicides, an alternative which would not remove or reduce

the current number of live trees within the burn, and an alternative

that excludes any harvest or temporary road construction.

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

[[Page 1590]]

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 July, 1999. In the

final EIS, the Forest Service will 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 environmental impact statements 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 environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised

until after 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 them 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 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 provision of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points).

The Forest Service is the lead agency. Jeff Blackwood, Forest

Supervisor, 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.

Jeff D. Blackwood,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 99-487 Filed 1-8-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M