[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7163-7164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3322]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Trout Slope East Timber Project; Ashley National Forest, Uintah
County, UT
AGENCY: Forest Service, DOA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Ashley National Forest has proposed to harvest live and
dead timber within the Trout Slope East area of the Vernal Ranger
District. After completing an environmental assessment (EA), the
Responsible Official, Forest Supervisor Bert Kulesza, has determined
this proposal will be a major federal action which may affect the
quality of the human environment, requiring the preparation of an EIS
(Environmental Impact Statement).
The objectives of the project are to improve ecosystem function by
improving forest structure and pattern characteristics. Treatments are
proposed that will recover wood products, reduce fuel loads, salvage
the dead tree component to prevent a likely future forest condition of
blown down and jackstrawed timber, improve long term scenic quality
along primary access routes and at popular recreation sites while
protecting the integrity of the productive land base.
DATES: To be most useful, comments concerning the scope of the analysis
should be received in writing by March 15, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and questions should be sent to: Brad
Exton, District Ranger, Vernal Ranger District, Ashley National Forest,
355 N. Vernal Avenue, Vernal, Utah 84078, or e-mail at bexton/
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Specific questions about the proposed
project and analysis should be directed to Greg Clark, ID Team Leader,
Vernal Ranger District, 355 N. Vernal Ave., Vernal, Utah, (435) 789-
1181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal arose out of the Vernal Ranger
District's Trout Slope Landscape Assessment (1996) which described the
existing condition of an 80,000 acre area between East Park and Leidy
Peak. The assessment suggested a desired condition for the area, and
recommended resource management strategies to move the area toward the
desired condition as a more area-specific complement to the broad
direction of the Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan (1986).
The Trout Slope East analysis area is approximately 18,650 acres
and lies between East Park and Oaks Park reservoirs and extends to the
divide of this part of the eastern Uinta Mountains.
The project area begins about six miles from Highway 191 on the
East Park Highway. There are over 38 miles of system roads and numerous
miles of non-system roads which provide access into the area.
Approximately 20 miles have been gated (five gates) to secure big game
habitat and provide non-motorized recreation. Access would be provided
by controlled access of gated road systems, opening some existing roads
and by possible construction of temporary roads. After harvest, opened
roads would be closed and temporary roads obliterated.
The proposed action was developed during the initial environmental
analysis and documented in the Trout Slope East Timber EA released for
public comment in spring, 1998. For continuity, this alternative will
be carried through this analysis as the proposed action. However, based
on the comments we received on the EA, we have developed two additional
alternatives in order to respond to some of the issues raised. These
are summarized briefly below.
Proposed Action (Alternative 1): Harvest from existing roads and
construct short segments of temporary roads. This alternative would
better access some treatment areas and reduce skidding distances.
Dead-only salvage on approximately 2,600 acres for
approximately 15 million board feet (MMBF) and overstory removal or
clearcut 475 acres of leave strips for approximately 4 MMBF.
Dead-only salvage on approximately 850 acres for 5 MMBF to
improve the East Park Campground viewshed.
Approximately 18 miles of temporary road would be
constructed.
Approximately 26 miles of existing roads would be opened
to access all harvest units. In general, a minimal amount of work is
needed to make these roads serviceable for hauling.
A ford crossing would be replaced with a temporary bridge
on a [West Fork] tributary of Little Brush Creek in the Round Park
area.
Timber stand improvement including precommercial thinning
of overstocked sapling stands would occur within the project area.
There are approximately 500 acres of sapling stands in the project area
scheduled for surveys and possible thinning within the next five years.
In addition, stands in this proposed action would be evaluated after
treatment for further work in the remaining seedling/sapling
understory.
The proposed timber management actions are based on the following:
The timber resource in this area is primarily even-aged lodgepole
pine with small pockets of uneven-aged mixtures of lodgepole pine,
Engelmann spruce, Douglas-fir, subalpine fir and aspen. The lodgepole
pine stands are comprised of about 70% to 90% dead trees due to a
mountain pine beetle epidemic in the late 1970s to early 1980s.
Currently, the landscape looks gray with stands or strips of timber
containing dead trees surrounding 10 to 40 acre seedling or sapling
stands (regenerated clearcuts).
The project area was selected from the Trout Slope Assessment area
by using existing stand level data, areas with existing roads and areas
with primarily dead lodgepole pine. Environmental conditions considered
were sensitive soils, geologic hazard zones, riparian
[[Page 7164]]
zones, timber stand patch size and arrangement in relation to wildlife
use, slopes suitable for tractor logging, level and type of recreation
use, forest cover type and vegetative structure stage. The existing
condition based on the calculated vegetative structure stage (VSS) by
site was compared to a possible desired future condition from the Trout
Slope Landscape Assessment.
Strips of (mostly dead) trees left between some of the previously
harvested areas are too narrow to function as forest cover habitat for
certain wildlife species. In many of these same stands the amount of
dead trees is so great that the current stand structure stage will not
continue to exist much longer. Overstory removal of the dead and
diseased trees in these strips would create a mosaic of larger stands
of seedling to sapling sized trees. These stands as they grow would, in
the long term, provide interior forest habitat for certain wildlife
species.
In other locations where past harvest hasn't occurred, only dead
trees would be removed, leaving a less dense but more green appearing
forest and lower fuel loads.
Maintenance of the remaining live green stands, especially those
with a mature component, is needed to provide forest cover in a
landscape primarily consisting of seedling/sapling stands and dead
trees until young stands grow to function as live mature forest. In
selected live stands, removal of individual live and dead trees is
expected to improve stand vigor and longevity.
Two other action alternatives have been developed thus far based on
resource issues (documented in the previously mentioned EA), in
response to public comment on the EA and in consideration of the
pending development of a new Forest Service roads policy. These
alternatives defer some harvest activity and drop some treatment areas
included in the proposed action. One of these alternatives emphasizes
harvest from the existing road system only, using longer skidding
distances and alternate skidding patterns to access treatment areas.
Public Involvement
Comments received and issues which were raised during the
development of the Trout Slope East EA will be carried forward and
considered in this EIS. Additional comments are encouraged. Public
participation is especially important at several points during the
analysis, particularly during initial scoping and review of the draft
EIS. Individuals, organizations, federal, state, and local agencies who
are interested in or affected by the decision are invited to
participate in the scoping process. This information will be used in
the preparation of the draft EIS.
Formal scoping begins upon publication of this notice and will
include mailing of information to known interested parties.
The second major opportunity for public input is the draft EIS. The
draft EIS is expected to be filed with the EPA (Environmental
Protection Agency) and to be available for public review in April of
1999. At that time the EPA will publish a notice of availability of the
draft EIS in the Federal Register. 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. It is very important that those interested in
this proposed action participate at that time. To be the most helpful,
comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible and may
address the adequacy of the statement or the merits of the alternatives
discussed (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).
The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers
notice at this early stage of several federal court decisions 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,
533 (1978). Second, environmental objections that could have been
raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised until after
completion of the final environmental impact statement. City of Angoon
v. Hodel, (9th Circuit, 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.
After the comment period ends on the draft EIS, the comments will
be analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in preparing the final
EIS.
Dated: February 1, 1999.
Bert Kulesza,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 99-3322 Filed 2-11-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M