[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