[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48866-48869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-18900]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Cibola National Forest Bluewater Ecosystem Management Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service will prepare an 
environmental impact statement for a proposal to initiate vegetation 
treatments to reach desired conditions within the Bluewater Watershed 
in the Zuni Mountains on the Mt. Taylor

[[Page 48867]]

Ranger District within McKinley and Cibola counties in New Mexico.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
by August 23, 2002. The draft environmental impact statement is 
expected September 2002 and the final environmental impact statement is 
expected December 2002.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Planning Staff, Forest Supervisor's 
Office, Cibola National Forest, 2113, Osuna Rd., NE, Suite A, 
Albuquerque, NM 87113-1001, Attn: Planning Staff.
    For further information, mail correspondence to: Forest Supervisor, 
Cibola National Forest Supervisor's Office, 2113 Osuna Rd., NE., Suite 
A, Albuquerque, NM 87113-1001, phone (505) 346-3900.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forest Supervisor, Cibola National 
Forest Supervisor's Office, 2113 Osuna Rd., NE., Suite A, Albuquerque, 
NM 87113-1001, phone (505) 346-3900.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   

Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose and need of the Proposed Action for the Bluewater 
Ecosystem Management Project, Mt. Taylor Ranger District, Cibola 
National Forest is to:
     Create conditions where wildfire intensities allow fire to 
resume its natural ecological role and intensity in the forest mosaic 
of the Bluewater area within the framework of watershed restoration.
     Create a condition where wildfire intensities in the 
Bluewater wildland-urban interface are at a level where fire 
suppression forces can safely remain on site in the face of an 
advancing fire.

Proposed Action

    The USDA Forest Service, Cibola National Forest, Mt. Taylor Ranger 
District proposes to initiate vegetation treatments to reach desired 
conditions within the Bluewater Watershed in the Zuni Mountains. The 
proposed project would be implemented over a period of 5 to 7 years. 
All endangered, threatened and sensitive species habitat will be 
surveyed prior to treatment. All cultural resource surveys will be 
conducted prior to treatment.
    No new roads would be constructed under any of the proposed 
treatments, existing roads will be used. Some overland access to remove 
material will be allowed under strict contract or permit 
administration. These access routes will be rehabilitated following 
use. The following vegetation treatments are proposed:

Pinon/Juniper Wildland Urban Interface

    The Pinon/juniper WUI (Wildland Urban Interface) is found along the 
northern forest boundary just south and west of the Village of 
Bluewater.
    This treatment would restore the grassland and shrub vegetation 
community and reduce fire hazard in selected pinon-juniper invaded 
areas along the WUI. Approximately 770 acres of pinon/juniper would be 
treated through personal use and commercial fuel wood harvest. Groups 
and corridors of ponderosa pine and pinon/juniper will remain scattered 
throughout the area. In addition, patches of trees on north and east 
facing slopes five acres in size and at least 300 feet wide will be 
retained for thermal and hiding cover for large mammals. Non-useable 
forest products (i.e. small trees and limbs) will be treated by 
prescribed burning.
    Treatments are expected to take 3-7 years to complete.

Maintenance of Pinon/Juniper Control Units

    There are three areas of pinon/juniper control units along the 
wildland urban interface, totaling approximately 2,475 acres, that were 
originally treated in 1968 or 1971 to enhance rangeland production. 
Under this prescription the original treatment areas would be 
maintained by removing most conifer tree vegetation to enhance the 
grassland/shrub community and reduce fuel continuity. Groups and 
corridors of conifer species left from the original treatment would be 
maintained. In addition, hiding and thermal cover may be maintained in 
5-acre patches where appropriate to benefit wildlife. Trees will be 
removed mechanically and non-useable forest products (i.e. small trees 
and limbs) will be treated by burning. The treatment will be 
implemented in years 3 to 5.

Fuelbreak

    The proposed action will treat approximately 12.5 miles (roughly 
652 acres) of wildland urban interface along the northern boundary of 
the project area. These areas are primarily pinon/juniper vegetation 
types with some ponderosa pine. The objective is to create a 400-foot 
wide fuelbreak to reduce the continuity of crown fuels and lesten the 
probability of high intensity crown fire spreading to adjacent homes 
and other structures. Because natural features will be incorporated 
when present, fuelbreak treatments will not always be 400 feet wide. 
Tree density will be reduced by removing primarily smaller diameter 
trees. The largest diameter trees remain on site after treatment. Non-
useable forest products (i.e. small trees and limbs) will be treated by 
prescribed burning. The burning of slash is normally conducted one or 
two seasons after treatment activities.

Upland Meadow Treatments

    These treatments are designed to re-establish upland meadows to 
their pre-fire suppression condition based on soil type. The treatment 
areas were either (1) attempted to be reforested during the mid to late 
1980's or (2) have been invaded by conifer species as a result of heavy 
historic grazing and fire suppression. Only large diameter ponderosa 
pine and trees adjacent to historic tree evidence (large diameter logs 
and stumps) will be retained.
    Approximately 1,900 acres will be treated by mechanical means (hand 
felling, mechanical sheer). Roughly 380 acres will be treated each year 
for five successive years. Non-useable forest products (i.e. small 
trees and limbs) will be treated by prescribed burning.

Ponderosa Pine Uneven-Aged Management

    This treatment constitutes the predominant vegetation treatment 
proposed for the Bluewater Ecosystem Management Project. The primary 
objective of this treatment in the ponderosa pine ecosystem is to 
create conditions where wildfire intensities allow fire to resume its 
natural role and intensity in the forest mosaic within the framework of 
watershed restoration.
    Approximately 18,809 acres are proposed for vegetation treatments 
that will reduce the number of trees within treatment blocks. Treatment 
blocks will be delineated and prioritized based on stand 
characteristics, fire risk, access availability, and wildlife 
objectives.
    Approximately (1,960 acres) will be managed for higher tree density 
to meet northern goshawk habitat standards and guidelines for nesting 
and post-fledging family areas as specified in the Cibola Forest Plan.
    The larger trees will be left standing after treatment. Thinning 
from below (removing smaller diameter trees) will create a non-uniform, 
clumpy structure with all ages and all species (pine, juniper, oak, 
etc.) represented across the landscape. Some groups of trees with 
interlocking crowns will be retained. Tree groups may consist of any 
age-class. Large woody material (snags, logs, tree limbs) will be 
retained across the landscape in accordance with the Cibola Forest Plan 
standards and guidelines. All oak greater than 10 inches would be 
retained. Stand openings (1 to 4 acres in size) will be re-established 
or

[[Page 48868]]

maintained where they previously existed.
    Useable wood products will be made available to the public through 
personal use permits or commercial sales. Non-useable forest products 
(i.e. small trees and limbs) will be treated by prescribed burning.

Possible Alternatives

    Possible alternatives to the proposed action include: (1) Alternate 
methods of slash treatment and (2) taking no action to allow fire to 
resume its natural role within the ecosystem and to create conditions 
along the wildland urban interface, which will allow fire suppression 
forces to remain and defend property against wildfire. The no action 
alternative would also exclude the use of various methods of vegetation 
treatments to reach the desired conditions.

Responsible Official

    The responsible official is Liz Agpaoa, Forest Supervisor, Cibola 
National Forest Supervisor's Office, 2113 Osuna Rd., NE., Suite A., 
Albuquerque, NM 87113-1001.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The Forest Supervisor, as the Responsible Official, will:
    1. Select the Proposed Action or an alternative.
    2. Determine what mitigation measures will be needed to protect 
resources.

Scoping Process

    Public participation will be important at several times during the 
analysis. The first time is during the scoping period [Reviewer may 
wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for 
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environment 
Policy Act (CFR) at 40 CFR 1501.7]. The Agency will be seeking written 
issues with the Proposed Action from Federal, State, and local 
agencies, any affected Indian tribes, and other individuals who may be 
interested in or affected by the Proposed Action. The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, will be invited to 
participate as a cooperating agency to evaluate potential impacts to 
threatened and endangered species habitat if any such species are found 
to exist in the potential treatment areas. This input will be used to 
develop additional alternatives. The scoping process includes:
     Identifying potential issues;
     Selecting significant issues with the Proposed Action, 
needing in-depth analysis;
     Eliminating insignificant issues; issues that have been 
analyzed and documented in a previous EIS, issues that controvert the 
need for the Proposed Action, or issues that are outside the authority 
of the Responsible Official to decide;
     Exploration of additional alternatives based on the issues 
identified during the scoping process; and
    Identification of potential environmental effects of the proposed 
action and alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 
and connected actions). 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 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 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 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.

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 
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 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 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.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 
1909.15, Section 21)


[[Page 48869]]


    Dated: July 15, 2002.
Liz Agpaoa,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 02-18900 Filed 7-25-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M