[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 21, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54164-54166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-21215]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Dixie National Forest, Utah, Long Deer Vegetation Management 
Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental Environment Impact 
Statement.

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

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service will prepare a Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to the South Spruce Ecosystem 
Rehabilitation Project EIS (1999) to implement vegetation management 
treatments in the spruce/fir forests within the Cedar City Ranger 
District, Dixie National Forest, Utah. The agency gives notice of the 
full environmental analysis and decision-making process that will occur 
on the proposal so that interested and affected people may become aware 
of how they can participate in the process and contribute to the final 
decision.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
by thirty days after publication of this Notice of Intent in the 
Federal Register. The draft supplemental environmental impact statement 
is expected in September 2002. The final supplemental environmental 
impact statement is expected in December 2002.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Long Deer Interdisciplinary Team 
Leader, Cedar City Ranger District, Dixie National Forest, 1789 
Wedgewood, Cedar City, Utah 84720.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Long Deer Interdisciplinary Team 
Leader, Cedar City Ranger District, Dixie National Forest, 1789 
Wedgewood, Cedar City, Utah 84720.

[[Page 54165]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed project is located in a 10,436 
acre analysis area in portions of the Tommy, Duck, and Upper Midway 
Creek watersheds. Approximately 7,514 acres of the project area are 
forested and 2,922 acres are non-forested. The proposed commercial 
conifer treatment areas currently are infested with spruce beetle 
(Dendroctonus rufipennis).
    The purpose of the project is to harvest approximately 2,443 acres 
of dead, dying, and high risk Engelmann spruce trees to recover wood 
products that would otherwise be lost, while still meeting desired 
resources objectives for the project area. Minor amounts of subalpine 
fir trees (less than 15% of the total removed) would also be removed to 
encourage open growth, spruce or subalpine fir regeneration, improve 
residual stand vigor, or that will likely be damaged or killed during 
the removal of the spruce trees.
    Rehabilitation of areas heavily impacted by bark beetle mortality 
through the completion of natural and artificial regeneration 
activities would occur as needed. An estimated 1,000 acres would be 
planted with spruce seedlings. Reforestation is essential to providing 
for the most rapid progression toward the desired future condition for 
forest cover in the project area.
    Aspen regeneration of approximately 470 acres is also included in 
this proposal. These areas are included with the 2,443 acres of 
salvage/improvement treatments. Treatments would include tree removal 
followed by burning or mechanical treatment (commercial harvest) with 
or without burning.
    Within the areas proposed for treatments, approximately 102 acres 
would be machine piled and burned and 619 acres would be broadcast 
burned to reduce fuels to the desired levels and to help stimulate the 
regeneration of aspen.
    Travel management is proposed for portions of the project area. The 
purpose of this activity is to restore and rehabilitate ecological 
values in areas where excessive numbers of open roads exist; primarily 
to offset the loss of big game hiding cover from harvest activities. 
Moving these portions of the project area toward or below the Land 
Resource Management Plan guideline of two miles of open road per square 
mile will reduce the adverse environmental impacts associated with 
excessive numbers of open roads and loss of cover. A reduction in open 
road density will also reduce long-term maintenance costs while 
promoting safe, efficient public travel on the open road system. Road 
closures would be accomplished with earth and rock barriers, fences, or 
gates. The open road density for the analysis area would be reduced 
from the current 2.39 miles per square mile to 1.70 miles per square 
mile.
    Vegetation management treatments involving commercial harvest, 
aspen regeneration, and travel management would occur on National 
Forest system lands located within portions of section 19, 30-32 of 
Township (T) 37 South (S), Range (R) 8 West (W); sections 13, 14, 23-
26, 35, and 36 of T37S, R8\1/2\W; sections 11-14, 23-26, 35 and 36 of 
T37S, R9W; sections 1 and 2 of T38S, R9W; and sections 4-6, and 8-10 of 
T38S, R8W, Salt Lake City Meridian, Iron and Kane Counties, UT.
    The transportation system required to access commercial harvest 
areas is in place. All skid trails would be obliterated and may be 
seeded upon completion of the project.
    The proposed actions would implement management direction, 
contribute to meeting the goals and objectives identified in the DNF-
LRMP, and move the project area toward the desired condition. This 
project SEIS would be tiered to the Dixie National Forest LRMP EIS 
(1986), which provides goals, objectives, standards and guidelines for 
the various activities and land allocations on the Forest.
    The Forest Service would analyze and document direct, indirect, and 
cumulative environmental effects for a range of alternatives. Each 
alternative would include mitigation measures and monitoring 
requirements. One alternative to the proposed action has been 
identified at this time. Alternative A was developed to address an 
issue identified during scoping. This alternative would close less 
roads in order to maintain access to dispersed campsites and popular 
off highway vehicle routes. The open road density would be reduced from 
the existing 2.39 miles per square mile to 1.80 miles per square mile 
under this alternative. All other actions would be identical to the 
Proposed Action. No other issue has been identified beyond those 
initially identified and analyzed under separate alternatives in the 
South Spruce Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project EIS.
    Responsible Official: Randy Swick, Acting Forest Supervisor, Dixie 
National Forest, is the responsible official. He can be reached by mail 
at 1789 Wedgewood, Cedar City, Utah, 84720.
    Comments Requested: Comments will continue to be received and 
considered throughout the analysis process. Comments received in 
response to this notice and through scoping, including names and 
addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public 
record of this proposed action and will be available for public 
inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and 
considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have 
standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR parts 215 or 
217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request 
the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing 
how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. 
Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the 
FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited 
circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service 
will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the 
request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the 
agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the 
comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within a 
specified number of days.
    Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be 
prepared for comment. The draft SEIS is expected to be filed with the 
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and to be available for public 
review. At that time the EPA will publish a notice of availability of 
the draft SEIS in the Federal Register. The comment period for the 
draft environmental impact statement will be forty-five days from the 
date the EPA's notice of availability appears in the Federal Register. 
Comments on the draft SEIS 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, 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 reviewers' position and 
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 
553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could have been raised 
at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not 
raised until after completion of the final environmental

[[Page 54166]]

impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. 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 the time 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 about the proposed action, comments on the draft 
supplemental 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 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.
    In the final SEIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to 
substantive comments and responses received during the comment period 
that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the draft 
SEIS and applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in 
making a decision regarding the proposal. The Responsible Official will 
document the decision and rationale for the decision in a Record of 
Decision. The final SEIS is scheduled for completion in December, 2002. 
The decision will be subject to review under Forest Service Appeal 
Regulations.

    Dated: August 9, 2002.
Randall G. Swick,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Dixie National Forest.
[FR Doc. 02-21215 Filed 8-20-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M