[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7620-7621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3609]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Monroe Mountain Ecosystem Restoration Project; Fishlake National 
Forest, Sevier and Piute Counties, UT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Forest Service, USDA, will 
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to implement proposed 
actions to maintain or restore the long-term health and productivity of 
lands within the Monroe Mountain Ecosystem Restoration Project area, on 
the Richfield Ranger District, Fishlake National Forest. The purpose of 
these proposals is to initiate actions that would: (1) Reduce the loss 
of aspen through succession to mixed conifer and sagebrush; (2) restore 
watershed values that favor increases in water yield to restore 
riparian conditions; (3) reduce the risk of large intense wildfires and 
the potential of epidemic level spruce beetle outbreaks and other 
diseases; (4) recover the value of merchantable trees while performing 
ecosystem restoration; (5) contribute to the restoration of aspen and 
grass/forb communities to improve habitat for wildlife and livestock. 
The proposals include: (1) commercial and noncommercial regeneration 
treatment of aspen and mixed conifer/aspen forests, and associated road 
construction, maintenance and closures; (2) commercial salvage, 
sanitation and density management timber harvest in spruce forests, and 
associated road construction, maintenance and closures; (3) treatment 
of aspen and mixed conifer/aspen forests using ignited prescribed fire; 
(4) treatment of dense sagebrush vegetative types of ignited prescribed 
fire, disking, or Dixie harrowing. Multiple decisions may be issued 
upon completion of the analysis; however, the cumulative effects of all 
the proposed actions will be disclosed in the EIS. The proposed actions 
would be completed within a five-year period. The project is located 
approximately twelve miles southeast of Richfield, Utah. The project 
would be implemented in accordance with direction of the Land and 
Resource Management Plan (LRMP, 1986) for the Fishlake National Forest.
    The agency gives notice that the environmental analysis process is 
underway. During the analysis process, an issue surfaced that warranted 
disclosure of effects under an EIS. This issue is the high degree of 
interest associated with the potential to alter the undeveloped 
character of portions of the project area due to proposed vegetative 
treatments within inventoried roadless areas. Public scoping and issue 
development identified issues involving: biological diversity; land 
stability; soil erosion and productivity; water and water resources; 
vegetative vigor and health; fire and fuel loading; wildlife and 
fisheries; transportation system; range; visual landscape; economics; 
recreation; cultural resources; and air quality.

DATES: Written comments to be considered in the preparation of the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) should be submitted by 
March 18, 1999, which is at least 30 days following the publication of 
this Notice in the Federal Register. The DEIS is expected to be 
available for review by April, 1999. The Record of Decision and Final 
Environmental Impact Statement are expected to be available by June, 
1999.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to District Ranger, Richfield Ranger 
District, 115 East 900 North, Richfield, Utah 84701.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Direct questions about the proposed action and 
EIS by mail to Don Okerlund, Acting District Ranger, 115 East 900 
North, Richfield, Utah 84701; or by phone at (435) 896-9233; or FAX: 
(435) 896-9347.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed projects are located in an 
analysis area of about 50,000 acres, including 41,400 acres of National 
Forest System lands 8,400 acres of private land, and 200 acres of State 
of Utah land. It is centered within Monroe

[[Page 7621]]

Mountain, extending from Magleby Pass southerly about fifteen miles to 
Langdon Mountain. The project area is located in Townships 25, 26, 27 
and 28 South, Ranges 1, 2, and 3 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian.
    The proposed need for action is based upon scientific evidence that 
vegetation is in an unhealthy condition over much of the project area. 
Within the project area the size and number of aspen stands have 
decreased. There are significantly fewer areas occupied by aspen now 
that 150 years ago. As older aspen trees have died, insufficient 
regeneration has resulted to maintain the stands. It is believed that 
lack of fire has contributed to the loss of aspen stands. Conifer and 
sagebrush are encroaching into the aspen stands. Research has shown 
that such encroachment causes a significant decrease in the area's 
water yield, the variety and number of wildlife and vegetative species 
present, and the forage available for wildlife and livestock. Local 
timber mills have created a market for merchantable aspen that has 
benefited the local economy.
    In addition, increased numbers of Engelmann spruce are being killed 
by spruce beetles, which are at epidemic levels. Spruce provides 
products that benefit local economies and supplies wood needed for a 
multitude of products. Spruce stands also provide habitat for wildlife 
and soil protection. One purpose of the project is to salvage the dead 
and dying Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir to recover wood products that 
would otherwise be lost, while still meeting the desired future 
condition. Also, spruce dominated stands that are at risk to spruce 
beetle infestation would be treated by commercial and noncommercial 
sanitation treatments to alter the forest conditions that contribute to 
this risk. Reducing the risk in these stands would provide the best 
opportunity to maintain a green, forested condition as well as maintain 
important resource values.
    The proposed actions would occur within eight treatment areas 
totalling 17,325 acres within the 50,000 acre analysis area. The eight 
treatment areas contain approximately 1,200 acres of Engelmann spruce/
fir; 12,500 acres of aspen and aspen/mixed conifer; and 3,600 acres of 
sagebrush. The proposed action involves recovery of approximately 20-25 
million board feet of timber (aspen, spruce and other conifer species) 
from approximately 5,000 to 6,000 acres. Ignited prescribed fire would 
be a treatment for aspen regeneration on approximately 3,000 to 4,000 
acres. About 14 miles of specified road construction would be required 
to access treatment areas to recover the wood products. In the spruce 
treatment areas, the roads would be closed by gates to allow future 
entry for timber stand improvement activities. Roads needed in the 
aspen/mixed conifer treatment areas would be rehabilitated and 
permanently closed at completion of the activity. Approximately 2,000 
acres of sagebrush would be treated by ignited prescribed fire, 
disking, or Dixie harrowing.
    The proposed actions would implement management direction, 
contribute to meeting the goals and objectives identified in the 
Fishlake National Forest LRMP, and move the analysis area toward the 
desired future condition.
    Tentative alternatives to the proposed faction include: (1) No 
action, meaning the project would not take place, but current 
management and natural succession would continue; (2) apply the 
proposed actions to acres external to inventoried roadless areas; (3) 
apply the proposed actions to acres external to inventoried roadless 
areas and selected acres within inventoried roadless areas. No road 
construction would occur within the inventoried roadless areas.
    The analysis area includes both National Forest System lands, State 
of Utah lands and private lands. Proposed treatments would occur only 
on National Forest System lands. No federal or local permits, licenses 
or entitlements would be needed.
    As the lead agency, the Forest Service would analyze and document 
direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects for a range of 
alternatives. Each alternative would include mitigations measures and 
monitoring requirements.
    Rob Mrowka, Forest Supervisor, Fishlake National Forest, is the 
responsible official. He can be reached by mail at 115 East 900 North, 
Richfield, Utah 84701.
    The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will 
be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes 
the notice of availability in the Federal Register.
    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 Plant 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 provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 
40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

    Dated: February 9, 1999.
Rob Mrowka,
Forest Supervisor, Fishlake National Forest.
[FR Doc. 99-3609 Filed 2-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M