[Federal Register: February 11, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 28)]
[Notices]
[Page 7226-7227]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11fe05-21]
[[Page 7226]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
West Bear Vegetation Management Project; Wasatch-Cache National
Forest, Summit County, UT
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Revised notice of intent to prepare environmental impact
statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Supervisor of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest
gives notice of the agency's intent to prepare an environmental impact
statement on a proposal to manage forest land in the West Fork Bear
River drainage. Temporary roads would be constructed to provide access
for timber harvest in portions of the area. The proposal also includes
reconstruction or relocation of some poorly designed or located
existing roads. The headwaters of this drainage are located on the
Evanston Ranger District about 40 miles south of Evanston, Wyoming in
the Uinta Mountain Range. The proposed action was developed to meet
Forest Plan vegetation management objectives for achieving forest
vegetation composition, structure, and patterns in properly functioning
condition. The analysis area includes approximately 16,000 acres. The
proposal addresses lands located primarily in the Humpy Creek, Meadow
Creek, West Bear and Mill City Creek drainages located in Township 1
North, Ranges 9 East and 10 East, Salt Lake Meridian.
The first notice of intent was published on pages 12963-12964 of
the Federal Register on March 20, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 54). The
project was delayed due to other priorities developing as the result of
a large wildfire in the summer of 2002.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received
in writing by March 7, 2005. A draft environmental impact statement is
expected to be published in May 2005, with public comment on the draft
material requested for a period of 45 days, and completion of a final
environmental impact statement is expected in September, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Stephen Ryberg, District Ranger,
Evanston Ranger District, PO Box 1880, Evanston, WY. 82930. Electronic
comments must be submitted in a format such as an email message, plain
text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), and Word (.doc) to
comments-intermtn-wasatch-cache-evanston-mtnview@fs.fed.us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Johnson, Environmental Planner,
(307) 789-3194, or Kent O'Dell, Timber Management Coordinator, (307)
782-6555, USDA Forest Service, Evanston Ranger District (see ADDRESS
above.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose and Need for Action
The project purpose is to use timber harvest and prescribed fire
meet Revised Wasatch-Cache National Forest Plan vegetation management
objectives to move toward properly functioning condition and to move
toward a variety of vegetation types, age classes, and patch sizes
covering the landscape and contributing to healthy watersheds, aquatic
and terrestrial wildlife habitats, recreation environments, and
production of commodities such as wood and forage. The Revised Forest
Plan (Page 4-29) identified a need to treat vegetation with the aspen,
aspen/conifer, spruce-fir and mixed conifer forest types on the forest
to maintain or move the forests toward properly functioning condition.
A forest-wide assessment concluded that apsen communities as well as
conifer, sagebrush and several other vegetation types are currently
outside the historic range of variation, primarily related to the
absence of naturally occurring fire.
Proposed Action
The proposal to salvage includes timber harvesting, prescribed
burning, construction of temporary roads, intermittent service roads,
and minor reconstruction of existing system roads. Treatment would
involve group selection harvest in spruce-fir and mixed conifer stands,
small (1 to 5 acre) patch cutting in mixed aspen/conifer stands,
conifer removal and prescribed burning in aspen/conifer stands, and
burning with aspen stands. The proposal includes retaining green trees
and snags for wildlife habitat. Approximately 1,626 acres within 38
units would be treated under the proposal. Harvests would be
accomplished using ground-based systems, and in conformance with Forest
Plan Standards and Guidelines. Access to the timber would require the
construction of approximately 7.2 miles of temporary roads, 2.1 miles
of intermittent service system roads, and relocation of approximately
0.6 miles of existing system roads to reduce sedimentation and improve
drainage. All temporary roads would be recontoured/rehabilitated after
harvest. Proposed reconstruction or relocation of existing roads would
emphasize improving drainage design of the roads near stream crossings
and relocating or improving drainage where the roads are near stream
channels. No harvest or road construction would take place in
inventoried roadless areas. Firelines would be constructed where needed
prior to burning to reduce the probability of fire escaping the
boundaries. Approximately 1.4 miles of firelines would be needed.
In addition to the No Action alternative, an alternative that would
reduce road construction and emphasize prescribed fire without
mechanical pretreatment is being considered. It would treat
approximately 1,384 acres within 28 tentative harvest units. It would
require construction of approximately 1.8 miles of temporary roads, 0.3
miles of intermittent service system road, and relocation of
approximately 300 feet of an existing system road to reduce
sedimentation and improve drainage. Temporary roads would be
recontoured/rehabilitated after harvest as with the proposed action. An
estimated 6.4 miles of firelines would be needed to accomplish the
prescribed burning.
Preliminary issue identified include effects of the alternatives on
threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) species, land stability,
erosion and sedimentation, fish and aquatic habitat, cultural resource
sites, noxious weed spread, and conflicts with recreational traffic.
Responsible Official
The Responsible Official is Thomas L. Tidwell, Forest Supervisor,
Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 8236 Federal Building, 125 South State
Street, Salt Lake City, UT 86138.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The decision to be made is whether to implement the proposed
activities listed above.
A determination of effects on Canada lynx will be required from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Scoping Process
The Forest Service invites comments and suggestions on the scope of
the analysis to be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS). In addition, the Forest Service gives notice that it is
beginning a full environmental analysis and decision-making process for
this proposal so that interested or affected people may know how they
can participate in the environmental analysis and contribute to the
final decision. Knowledge of the issues will help establish the scope
of the Forest Service environmental analysis and define the kind and
range of alternatives to be considered. The
[[Page 7227]]
Forest Service welcomes any public comments on the proposal.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review
A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for
comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement
will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency's
notice of availability appears in the Federal Register. It is very
important that those interested in this proposed action participate at
that time. To be the most helpful, comments on the draft environmental
impact statement should be as specific as possible and may address the
adequacy of the statement or the merits of the alternatives discussed.
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
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 30-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 provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at
40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, Section 21)
Dated: February 7, 2005.
Thomas L. Tidwell,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05-2672 Filed 2-10-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M