[Federal Register: August 14, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 48596-48598]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14au03-31]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Iron Ecosystem Restoration Project, Okanogan-Wenatchee National
Forests, Kittitas County, Washington State
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 reduce the risk of wildfire in the Iron Ecosystem
planning area due to the buildup of both aerial and ground fuels.
Approximately 12,000 acres will be analyzed with treatment expected on
3,000 to 3,500 acres within the Swauk Late Successional Reserve (LSR).
Much of the area is in Condition Class III and IV fuels types, which
are greater than three to four times the natural range of fire
occurrence in the area. The possibility of catastrophic wildfire exists
through ignitions caused both by natural sources and increased traffic
on U.S. Route 97 and forest roads.
The Forest Service proposes to thin these stands from below to
restore forest health and resistance to stand replacing wildfire, and
to be better protect late successional refugia. Protection of refugia
would be achieved by breaking up contiguous, heavy fuel loading across
the Swauk landscape, focusing on dry sites and sites at risk above the
point of historical fire starts. Techniques such as thinning from below
(pre-commercial and commercial), mechanical treatments, under burning,
piling, top yarding, mulching, and fuel wood sales are proposed as
tools reduce heavy fuel loading. Re-introduction of prescribed fire
after initial treatments are completed in also proposed. The planning
area is located approximately 15 miles northeast of Cle Elum,
Washington. The agency has given notice of the full environmental
analysis and decision-making process that will occur on the proposal so
that interested and affected people may become aware of how they car
participate in the process and contribute to the final decision.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received
by September 30, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the Cle Elum Ranger District, Attn:
Floyd Rogalski, Natural Resource Planner, 803 West Second Street, Cle
Elum, Washington 98922.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Floyd Rogalski, Natural Resource
Planner Cle-Elum Ranger District, 803 West Second Street, Cle Elum,
Washington 98922, (509) 674-4411.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This environmental impact statement (EIS)
will analyze an areas for possible treatments designed to improve
forest health while providing forest structure for wildlife habitat,
such as the Northern Spotted Owl, and protecting other resource values.
Risk of Wildfire has increased in the planning area due to the buildup
of both aerial and ground fuels, exclusion of fire, and past harvest
activities. These past treatment have reduced the presence of health,
vigorous growing trees, while increasing the risk of stand replacement
fire within an LSR. The possibility of wildfire ignition exists with
increased recreational use and vehicle traffic on U.S. Highway 97 and
lateral roads.
Purpose and Need for Action. Past timber harvest treatments removed
many of the early seral species, leaving more shade tolerant species
such as grant and Douglas-fir. Root diseases are widespread within the
planning area with grand fir being the most prone and currently showing
high mortality as a result. Douglas-fir mistletoe is also widespread
within this area, affecting the vigor of the stands and making them
more susceptible to insect attacks. Past harvest treatments also
removed a majority of the dominant overstory trees, changing stocking
and distribution levels, thus increasing the probability of stand
replacement fire.
The primary purpose of the Iron Ecosystem Restoration Project is to
implement the National Fire Plan, (January 2002) and Healthy Forest
Initiative (August 2002) in the planning area. Protection of values at
risk within the Swauk LSR is ultimately of the highest importance.
Values at risk in the planning area include habitat for threatened and
endangered species, late-successional habitat, wildland urban
interface, aquatic habitat values, water quality, science values, and
long-term forest stability and forest health. A strategic landscape
plan would be developed and implemented for silviculturally treating
heavily stocked stands for long-term stability and growth of fire
resistant overstory trees, for protection of the highest quality
spotted owl habitat from stand replacement fire, and for protection of
current and planned home sites on private land in the Wildland Urban
interface.
Proposed Action. The proposed action is to treat stands within the
project area to reduce potential fire spread in the event of an
ignition and to improve forest health, while continuing to provide
forest structure for wildlife habitat and other resources. The Forest
Service would focus treatment on those stands with greater tree
densities and higher fuel loadings, considering their location on the
landscape in terms of aspect and slope, and the projected benefits of
manipulation in these stands to enhance suppression efforts. There have
been 95 units identified that involve stands that contain a variety of
mixed conifer and dry-site pine forest.
[[Page 48597]]
These unit vary in size from 5 to 150 acres.
The proposed action includes burning natural meadow openings
([sim]120 acres) to stop the encroachment by tree species, use of fire
and/or mechanical treatments ([sim]2500 acres) to restore open pine
stands, thinning with fire and mechanical treatments ([sim]3000 acres),
commercial removal of small diameter trees in stands where thinning
would reduce competition and benefit residual stand vigor and
resistance to forest insects and disease, and mechanical piling and
burning of slash ([sim]2500 acres) in stands with high levels of
existing hazardous fuel concentrations.
The existing road and trail system needed to implement vegetative
treatments within the project area would also be evaluated. This
evaluation would include the analysis of mitigation measures needed to
meet resource objectives within the project area. Mitigation measures
may include relocation, reconstruction, closure, obliteration and
decommissioning of existing roads and trails. The actual miles of road
and trails that would be affected by this project have not yet been
determined; the current road density averages [sim]2 mi/sq mile in the
planning area.
Possible Alternatives. Alternative consider at this time include
following; No Action; Fuel Reduction Outside of Preferred Owl Habitat;
Fuel Reduction Outside of Preferred habitat and Breeding Radii in Owl
Habitat; and Fuel Reduction Outside of Preferred, Breeding, and Home
Range Areas with Light Thinning.
Nature of Decision To Be Made. The decision to be made is whether
vegetative treatment and road and trail system changes should be
carried out within the Iron Ecosystem Restoration Project area and, if
so, how, where, and to what extent across the landscape.
Scoping Process. The proposed project was first listed in the
Wenatchee National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions in 1997 as the
Iron Thin Project. In January 2000 scoping letters were sent to the
District NEPA mailing list, referring to this project as the Iron Thin
Forest Health Project. The project has been listed continuously, under
one of these names, in the Schedule of Proposed Actions for the
Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests since the Second Quarter 1997
edition. Information will continue to be distributed through periodic
mailings. There are no public meetings scheduled at this time.
Issues. At this time, the preliminary issues identified include
potential impacts on: Threatened and endangered species habitat;
changes in vegetative condition and forest succession resulting from
the proposed activities; treatment of fuels to modify fire behavior;
cumulative effects on long term site productivity; management of the
roads for future access and use within the project area; economic
viability of the project; and potential impacts to visual quality along
U.S. Highway 97. Other issues considered in analysis include: Potential
impacts to cultural resources within the project area; noxious weed
concerns; potential effects to hydrologic relationships and fish
habitat conditions; potential effects on recreational access; use
within the project area [including winter recreation]; and potential
impacts to Survey and Manage species.
Comment Requested. Your comments are being sought to aid in the
identification of additional issues that should be considered in the
development of the EIS. Public participation will be especially
important at several points during the analysis. The Forest Service
will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from Federal,
state, Tribal, and local agencies, and other individuals or
organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed
actions. This information will be used in preparation of the draft EIS.
Comments received in response to this notice and through scoping,
including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered
part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available
for 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. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be
aware that, under FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very
limited circumstances, such as to protect secrets. The Forest Service
will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the
request for confidentiality, and 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.
A draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and is to be available for public review by
December 2003. 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 completed June 2004.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important
to give reviewers notice 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 coulb be raised at the draft EIS statement 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 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 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
provisions of the National Environmental lPolicy 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 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 Responsible Official is Forest
Supervisor, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests. The Responsible
Official will document the decision and rationale for the decision in a
Record of Decision. The decision will be subject to review under Forest
Service Appeal Regulation (36 CFR part 215).
[[Page 48598]]
Dated: August 1, 2003.
Alan Quan,
Deputy Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 03-20703 Filed 8-13-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 2003/08/14 EST