[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 205 (Monday, October 25, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62244-62250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23210]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Manti-La Sal National 
Forest, Utah

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
for a revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Manti-La Sal 
National Forest, with portions of the Forest located in Utah, Juab, 
Emery, Carbon, Sanpete, Grand, San Juan and Sevier Counties in Utah and 
Mesa and Montrose Counties in Colorado.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service will prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in conjunction with revision of 
the Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan).
    This notice describes the needs for change in the current Forest 
Plan that have been identified by Manti-La Sal National Forest 
Supervisor, Alice B. Carlton, to be revised; the environmental issues 
to be considered in the revision; the estimated dates for filing the 
EIS; information concerning public participation; and the names and 
addresses of the responsible agency official and the individual who can 
provide additional information.

DATES: Comments regarding the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing by December 21, 2004. The agency expects to file a Draft EIS 
in the fall of 2005 and a Final EIS in the late winter of 2006 or early 
spring of 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Alice B. Carlton, Forest 
Supervisor, Manti-La Sal National Forest, 599 West Price River Drive, 
Price, Utah 84501.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marlene DePietro, Recreation and 
Planning Staff Officer, Manti-La Sal National Forest, (435) 636-3539.
    Responsible Official: Jack Troyer, Intermountain Regional Forester, 
324 25th St., Ogden, Utah 84401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Part 36 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) 219.10(g), the Regional Forester for the 
Intermountain Region gives notice of the agency's intent to prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement to revise the Manti-La Sal National 
Forest Plan. According to 36 CFR 219.10(g), land and resource 
management plans shall ordinarily be revised on a 10 to 15 year cycle. 
The existing plan was approved November 5, 1986.
    The Regional Forester gives notice that the Manti-La Sal National 
Forest is beginning an environmental analysis and the decision-making 
process for this proposed programmatic action to revise the Manti-La 
Sal Forest Plan.
    The authorization of project-level activities on a forest occurs 
through project or site-specific decisions. Project-level decisions 
must comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures 
and must include a determination that the project is consistent with 
the forest plan.

Needs for Change in the Current Forest Plan

    The current Forest Plan was approved 17 years ago and has been 
amended 18 times. Experience and monitoring have shown the need for 
changes in management direction for some resources or programs. Several 
sources have highlighted needed changes in the current Forest Plan.
     Public involvement has identified new information and 
public values.
     Monitoring and scientific research has identified new 
information and knowledge gained.
     Forest Plan implementation has identified management 
concerns to find better ways for accomplishing desired conditions.
     Changes have occurred in Agency policy and direction 
(i.e., Four Threats, Forest Service Strategic Plan).
    In addition to changing public views about how these lands should 
be managed, information and the scientific understanding of these 
ecosystems have evolved.
    Each need for change was placed into one of three categories: 
required by law, requiring immediate attention; or able to be postponed 
and addressed later through the continuous assessment process.

Proposed Action

    The following topics are being proposed for revision in the Forest 
Plan. Needs for change are addressed in the following sections, with a 
short description of what each change entails and why it is necessary. 
The proposed action for each topic is identified by italics.

1. Goals and Objectives, Standards and Guidelines, and Identification 
of Suitable Uses

     We propose to clarify and expand, where necessary, the 
description of the desired conditions for all physical, biological, 
social, and economic components associated with the Forest, including 
addressing the unique components of each geographic area. The desired 
conditions will be utilized to clarify overall Forest-wide resource 
management goals and facilitate development of objectives to reach 
those goals and desired conditions. Additionally, these desired 
conditions will identify the Forest's niche, describe how the Forest 
contributes to the broader vision for the Intermountain Region and the 
Forest Service as a whole, and provide a vision of the Forest's 
contribution to the human dimension.
     We propose to identify objectives that when implemented 
will take the Forest resources and uses toward desired conditions. 
These objectives will be developed considering realistic future budget 
expectations and will be based on expected personnel availability to 
implement projects to meet the objectives.
     We propose to redefine the management boundaries, 
identifying geographic areas that will provide a sense of place for the 
local publics and communities, as well as other recreating publics, 
when discussing activities and uses within them. Forest-wide and 
geographic area suitable uses will be identified.

2. Monitoring and Evaluation Requirements

    Evaluation and monitoring provide knowledge and information to keep 
the Forest Plan viable. The appropriate selection of indicators, and 
monitoring and evaluation of key results helps determine if Forest Plan 
management direction is being met. Evaluation and monitoring also helps 
determine if there should be changes made to the goals and objectives, 
or monitoring methods.
    The tie between monitoring and Forest Plan desired conditions, 
goals, and objectives needs to be strengthened. Priorities need to be 
established for monitoring elements to ensure that important items are 
accomplished with available funding.

[[Page 62245]]

    Federal Regulations (36 CFR 219.19) require forests to select 
management indicator species (MIS). Management indicator species in the 
current Forest Plan were selected because their habitat requirements 
encompass a diverse range of conditions. Monitoring and management 
experience with MIS since the Plan was implemented indicate that some 
species may not be the best indicator for the habitat they were chosen 
to represent; their population trends may be affected by factors other 
than forest management; they are difficult to monitor accurately; and/
or monitoring techniques were so complex they could not be adequately 
completed within present forest budgets. A revised list will better 
indicate the effects of management activities on fish and wildlife 
habitats.
     We propose to develop a meaningful, realistic, and 
implementable monitoring and evaluation program, focusing monitoring 
activities on required monitoring items (meet intent of law), 
eliminating duplicate monitoring requirements, and developing 
reasonable reporting schedules.
     We propose to revise the list of Management Indicator 
Species (MIS).

3. Recommendations to Congress of Areas Eligible for Wilderness 
Designation

    The regulations implementing the National Forest Management Act (36 
CFR 219.17) require that ``roadless areas * * * shall be evaluated and 
considered for recommendation as potential wilderness areas during the 
forest planning process.'' The 1984 Utah Wilderness Act (Pub. L. 98-
428) also requires that a roadless inventory be completed during forest 
plan revision. Further requirements for evaluation and designation of 
wilderness are in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 1923, FSM 2320) and 
Handbook (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 7). The Manti-La Sal National Forest has 
completed the draft roadless area inventory.
    The awareness of ecological and social values associated with 
roadless areas has increased since the development of the current 
Forest Plan. Roadless areas meeting the criteria for potential 
wilderness recommendation will be evaluated accordingly. Suitable uses 
will be determined for areas not recommended to Congress for wilderness 
designation.
     We propose to evaluate inventoried roadless areas for 
wilderness potential and make wilderness recommendations as 
appropriate.
     We propose to develop management direction and identify 
suitable uses for roadless areas that are not recommended for 
wilderness designation.

4. Re-evaluation of Lands Not Suited for Timber Production

     We propose to review all forested lands to determine those 
lands deemed not suited for timber production as required by NFMA (36 
CFR 219.14).
     We propose to review and adjust as necessary the long-term 
sustained yield capacity, and in turn the allowable sale quantity as 
appropriate, in response to:
    a. Changes in forest growing stock resulting from insect-related 
mortality.
    b. Proposed changes in management direction for forest resources, 
as appropriate.
    c. Final identification of lands suited for timber production.

5. Wild and Scenic Rivers

    The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-542) was enacted 
to protect and preserve, in their free-flowing condition, certain 
selected rivers of the Nation and their immediate environments. The Act 
established the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS); 
designated rivers included in the system, established policy for 
managing designated rivers, and prescribed a process for designating 
additional rivers to the system. The Act requires consideration of Wild 
and Scenic Rivers as part of the ongoing planning process. In March 
2003, the Manti-La Sal National Forest, in consultation with tribal 
governments and State and other Federal agencies, completed an 
eligibility determination of all of the rivers on the Forest. Fourteen 
rivers segments were found to be free-flowing and to possess at least 
one outstandingly remarkable value, making them eligible for a 
suitability analysis and potential recommendation for designation into 
the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
     We propose to complete the suitability analysis on the 
Fish Creek and Gooseberry Creek, lower left fork of Huntington Creek, 
Huntington Creek, Hammond Canyon, and the north fork of Whiskers 
(including Whiskers Draw) eligible river segments during Forest Plan 
revision. We propose to develop interim direction for management of 
activities and uses that have the potential to affect the outstandingly 
remarkable values for the remaining nine eligible river segments. This 
interim direction will be utilized for management of each river segment 
until the suitability analysis can be completed (post-revision), at 
which time the segment will either be recommended for inclusion in the 
Wild and Scenic River System or not.

6. Areas Where Change May Be Needed

    The Forest Supervisor, Forest Leadership Team, and Forest Plan 
Interdisciplinary team have identified four major topics the Forest 
proposes to address during Forest Plan revision. Those major topics 
are:
     Recreation Management
     Watershed Health
     Minerals Management
     Fire/Fuels Management
    The needs for change in these resource areas are evident. Because 
the solutions may generate some controversy or multiple solution 
possibilities, alternatives will be developed to determine the type and 
amount of change.
a. Recreation Management
    By mid-century our Nation's population is projected to increase by 
nearly 50 percent. Simultaneously, public access to privately owned 
forestland is expected to continue to decline. This situation will 
increase the pressure on public lands to provide recreational 
opportunities. If public lands are to meet increased demand for 
recreational opportunities without experiencing unacceptable impacts to 
resources, emphasis must be placed on effective management solutions. 
In particular, it is critical that management of off-highway vehicle 
access and use on National Forest System lands is improved to preserve 
high-quality experiences for all recreational users.
    The Forest Plan stated that over the planning period new developed 
sites would be constructed on average of about 20 PAOTS (people at one 
time) each year. In actuality, new construction occurred in the form of 
hardened dispersed sites that provide the social setting people desire 
while providing the resource protection needed to allow intensive use 
of these areas. The current Forest Plan predicted the demand for 
developed recreation facilities would occasionally exceed supply. The 
capacity of developed recreation facilities has not been exceeded. The 
public's demand for an unconfined camping experience has resulted in 
more and larger dispersed recreation sites across the Forest.
    Beyond the issue of developed and dispersed recreation, the Forest 
Plan does not discuss the necessity of providing a broad range of 
recreation opportunities that would ensure the breadth of recreational 
experiences in a natural setting would be available for future 
generations.

[[Page 62246]]

    Current Forest Plan direction focused on construction issues and 
occasionally on overall capacities using Recreation Opportunity 
Spectrum (ROS) classes to set limits for both dispersed recreation and 
trail use. The Plan did not anticipate dispersed recreation and off-
highway vehicles as dominant forms of recreation on the Forest. Current 
direction focuses on recreation management units (Developed Recreation 
Sites, Undeveloped Motorized Areas, Semi-Primitive Recreation Areas) 
and does not provide guidance for ROS classes currently available on 
the Forest. The current ROS map is outdated and does not reflect 
opportunities available on the Forest. A new ROS inventory is needed to 
ensure that all recreation settings available are maintained to provide 
a variety of opportunities into the future.
    The Forest Plan does not provide adequate recreation guidelines or 
direction for the management of winter recreation activities. Increased 
winter use of the Forest has led to conflicts between motorized users 
and nonmotorized recreationists. The best areas for motorized winter 
use are also the best areas for nonmotorized use.
    Resource damage often takes place when unauthorized motorized or 
mechanized use occurs off designated routes. Current trail definitions 
(FSH 2309.18) do not distinguish width requirements for the range of 
off-highway vehicles. Off-highway vehicle routes can range from 
singletrack to doubletrack to roads depending on the vehicle type.
    The Forest has issued numerous Outfitter and Guide (O&G) permits 
covering a variety of activities including guided hunts, mountain bike 
and OHV touring, and other recreation related activities. A demand for 
additional permits exists. A capacity study will be completed later as 
a Continuous Assessment and Planning (CAP) project to determine the 
need and capacity for outfitted recreational activities.
     We propose to emphasize management of dispersed recreation 
opportunities to address user conflicts and minimize resource impacts, 
while providing the recreational opportunities sought by the public.
     We propose to identify desired recreation environments 
using the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). Management direction 
would be expanded for recreation opportunities and settings in both 
winter and summer seasons that balance current and anticipated visitor 
needs while sustaining or enhancing resources. Suitable recreational 
opportunities would be identified within each geographic area.
     We propose to clarify management direction for roads, off-
highway vehicle routes, and hiking/biking trail systems.
     We propose to develop direction to facilitate the 
determination of how outfitter/guide operations may be utilized to 
provide recreational opportunities for that segment of the recreating 
public who require such services to experience the variety of 
recreational opportunities available on the Forest.
b. Watershed Health
    Conservation of the soil and water resources of forest ecosystems 
is vital to all aspects of sustainable resource management. These 
resources, the building blocks of all ecosystems, are also the most 
complex elements in the landscape to consistently and comprehensively 
assess.

Water Resources

    Streams: Management direction for mineral resources, in part, 
emphasizes protection for perennial sections of the drainage network 
that support aquatic life. The Plan does not address management of 
activities or permitted uses within intermittent and ephemeral stream 
reaches and springs, the source areas for perennial stream segments.
    Streambank trampling, in areas of concentrated livestock and 
recreational use, is resulting in soil compaction, the loss of 
stabilizing vegetation, streambank erosion, increased sediment 
delivery, and changes in channel structure and function.
    Springs: In some instances, uses of and activities that occur 
around spring developments (by wildlife, livestock, and recreation 
activities) are resulting in undesirable effects to soil, vegetation, 
wildlife habitats, and riparian ecosystems. In addition, spring 
developments involving flow diversions are affecting the dependent, 
associated riparian ecosystem as surface flows are reduced and/or 
diverted.
    Wetlands: Wetlands are included in the general definition and 
management direction for riparian areas. The Plan does not separate 
wetlands from other riparian areas to reflect their unique soils, 
vegetation, landform, sensitivity to disturbances, recovery potentials, 
and legal protections.
    Proper Use Criteria: The proper use criteria for rangelands in the 
current Plan lacks the specificity recommended by the Regional Office 
to provide for the desired resource conditions on lands affected by 
grazing and browsing animals.
    Concerns have arisen over the sustainability of riparian and upland 
browse species due to browsing pressure on young plants, the effects of 
streambank trampling, the physiological differences of hydric and non-
hydric species in the greenline, and the inconsistency in definition 
and terminology for soil disturbance in the riparian zone.
    Soil Productivity: Increasing knowledge and understanding has led 
to a greater emphasis on long-term soil productivity. Management 
direction in the current Plan does not address the role of effective 
ground cover and above ground organic matter, which protects and/or 
contributes nutrients to the soil resource.
    Water Quality/Quantity: Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been 
developed in cooperation with the Utah Department of Environmental 
Quality and other State and Federal agencies as part of a statewide 
Non-Point Source Management Plan for Silvicultural Activities. This 
plan identifies standard management practices to reduce non-point 
source pollution from silvicultural activities. These standard 
practices, which are not addressed in the current Plan, can provide 
similar soil/water protection from other management activities and 
permitted uses.
    Since the current Plan was approved, some stream segments on the 
Forest have been identified as water quality impaired under the Clean 
Water Act. These impaired stream segments are known as 303d 
waterbodies. The current Plan does not address 303d waterbodies.
    The Forest Plan is too general to secure favorable water flow to 
meet Forest purposes and to sustain ecological functions. Forest 
specialists have identified concerns regarding continued water 
depletions and/or diversions and their effects on high-value aquatic 
sites such as riparian areas, recreational streams, Colorado cutthroat 
conservation/recovery watersheds, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, 
research natural areas, and other water dependent sites.

Municipal Watershed Management

    Numerous municipalities depend on the Forest for all or a portion 
of their culinary water. The Plan currently identifies only a small 
fraction of the actual municipal water sources under the municipal 
water supply (MWS) management prescription. The Plan is inconsistent in 
its identification and management direction for municipal water supply 
areas.

[[Page 62247]]

    As per the 1996 amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act, all 
municipalities are required to identify their drinking water source 
areas, evaluate the risk of accidental contamination, and develop 
source protection plans accordingly. Drinking water source protection 
plans have not been evaluated to ensure Forest Service management 
activities or permitted uses do not jeopardize drinking water source 
areas.
    While Forest Plan direction seems generally adequate, it does 
promote vegetation management for the protection of municipal water 
supply areas from catastrophic events, such as wildland fire, which may 
result in large-scale impacts to vegetation, soil, and ultimately, 
water quality and water supply system infrastructure.
     We propose to clarify desired conditions and strengthen 
existing direction for management of activities and uses within stream-
side riparian areas, wetlands, and springs, including emphasizing the 
need to provide for water quality/quantity needs for ecosystems and 
threatened and endangered species. Specific items we propose to address 
include:
    (a) Clarify appropriate protections for perennial, intermittent, 
and ephemeral stream reaches, with an emphasis on management of 
activities and uses within habitat associated with aquatic 
environments.
    (b) Clarify direction limiting streambank alteration to levels 
which minimize effects to streambank soils and vegetation, allowing 
streams to maintain normal channel morphology and function.
    (c) Clarify and update direction for spring developments to include 
protection for wildlife, the spring source area, and the associated 
riparian area.
    (d) Clarify direction, as appropriate, to sustain and protect 
wetland function and values.
    (e) Revise proper use criteria to ensure livestock grazing is 
managed to meet desired conditions for browse species, hydric and non-
hydric species in the greenline, and ensure sufficient ground cover in 
riparian zones.
    (f) Incorporate description and role of effective ground cover and 
above ground organic matter.
    (g) Incorporate direction from Best Management Practices (BMPs) for 
soil and water resources, as appropriate.
    (h) Incorporate direction for 303d listed waterbodies to ensure 
management activities or permitted uses do not contribute to further 
degradation or new listings.
    (i) Include direction for qualifying and quantifying consumptive 
and non-consumptive water needs for instream flows, in-place standing 
water, and conservation pools. To facilitate identification of suitable 
uses, we propose to develop criteria to identify sites where water 
developments, diversions, and occupancy to divert may be prohibited, or 
situations where mitigation may be required to protect and provide for 
National Forest resources and uses.
    (j) Clarify direction for management of suitable uses within those 
areas where municipal water sources areas exist.
c. Minerals Management
    Oil and Gas Leasing: The Nation's forests play a significant role 
in meeting America's need for the production and transmission of 
energy. Unless otherwise restricted, National Forest System lands are 
available for energy exploration and development. The Oil and Gas 
Leasing FEIS made a determination of areas not available for leasing 
(NAL) and identified a number of sensitive resources that require 
protection through stipulations. The Record Of Decision on Oil and Gas 
Leasing stated decisions that designated lands as not available for 
leasing would be revisited. Current leasing stipulations should be 
reviewed relative to current laws and agency roles.
    Coal Suitability: Federal regulations (43 CFR 3420.1-4) require: 
(1) identification of areas acceptable for further consideration for 
coal leasing take place during forest planning or in a land use 
analysis, and (2) a land use plan contain an estimate of the amount of 
coal recoverable by either surface or underground mining operations or 
both. Coal unsuitability criteria and changes in other resources (such 
as additional threatened, endangered, and sensitive species) require a 
review of unsuitability, and management direction revised based on the 
review.
    Common Variety Minerals: Demand for common variety minerals 
(gravel, sand, and stone) is expected to increase. Because of limited 
supplies of common variety mineral sources, Forest Service and local 
government needs should be considered over commercial uses by private 
developers. Criteria for issuing free-use permits to other agencies, 
local governments, and the public for non-commercial uses of common 
variety minerals are not discussed in the Plan.
    Mine Reclamation: Several abandoned uranium/vanadium mines and 
other mining area sites have been inventoried for reclamation. These 
abandoned mines present a hazard and are sources of potentially 
polluting materials.
    Gypsum: The existence of gypsum deposits is not acknowledged in the 
1986 Forest Plan.
    Paleontological Resources: The Manti-La Sal National Forest 
contains a large variety of invertebrate and vertebrate, as well as 
plant fossils. Regulations provide for protection of paleontological 
resources (e.g., fossils). The Forest Plan does not provide direction 
for issuing permits or for the documentation and curation of 
discoveries.
     We propose to review areas currently identified as Not 
Administratively Available for Leasing (NAL), review oil/gas (including 
coalbed methane) leasing and occupancy stipulations, and clarify/update 
as needed.
     We propose to review coal leasing unsuitability criteria 
and determine if any additional lands are unsuitable for leasing or if 
any previously identified suitable areas are now unsuitable. We also 
propose to:
    (a) Incorporate estimates of remaining recoverable coal reserves.
    (b) Review and clarify/update coal stipulations.
    (c) Identify areas for withdrawal as appropriate.
     We propose to focus management of common variety minerals 
for Forest, local government, or small/limited personal use, and limit 
commercial use or development.
     We propose to emphasize reclamation of abandoned mines.
     We propose to update locatable minerals definition and 
management direction to include gypsum.
     We propose to clarify direction for management of 
paleontological resources (such as research opportunities and 
interpretation).
d. Fire and Fuels Management
    New policy and legislation has been enacted since the Utah Fire 
Amendment updated fire management direction in the Forest Plan. The 
amendment was approved prior to the National Fire Plan (2001), the 10-
Year Comprehensive Wildland Fire Strategy (2001), the Healthy Forests 
Initiative (2000), and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (2003).
    Residential communities and recreation residences continue to 
expand into areas within and around the boundaries of the Manti-La Sal 
National Forest. This boundary zone between forestland and developed, 
private lands is known as the wildland-urban interface. The wildland-
urban interface has been recognized as a high priority area for fire 
and fuels management given the risks to life and property from 
wildfire. The current

[[Page 62248]]

Forest Plan does not address management of the wildland-urban interface 
to provide a defensible space from wildland fire.
     We propose to review and update the Forest Plan, as 
necessary, to reflect current policy, legislation, and terminology for 
fire and hazardous fuel management. This will include a fire regime/
condition class assessment and identification of management direction 
for vegetation and fuel treatments within the wildland-urban interface. 
Criteria may be developed to facilitate identification of priority 
treatment areas in coordination with the local communities.

Topics Where Existing Direction Does Not Fully Convey the Intent of 
Forest Plan, Ecosystem Management, Four Threats, and Strategic Plan 
Goals

    How management of each of these resource areas contributes to 
addressing Forest Plan, Ecosystem Management, Four Threats, and Forest 
Service Strategic Plan goals were considered in identifying specific 
items associated with each resource area to be addressed through 
revision.

Forest and Rangeland Health/Condition

    Invasive Species: Invasive species such as cheat grass and tamarisk 
are present on the Forest. Forest users and management activities have 
the potential to introduce or spread invasive species. The current Plan 
does not address invasive species.
    Noxious Weeds: Current Plan direction focuses more heavily on 
noxious weed control than prevention. Forest users and management 
activities continue to contribute to the establishment and spread of 
noxious weeds.
    Native Seed Collection: The Manti-La Sal National Forest offers 
several permits for the collection of native seed, much of which is 
used for revegetation projects on State and Federal lands. Forest 
resource specialists have voiced concerns regarding the collection of 
native seed such as collection in protected areas, timing and method of 
harvest, plant and seed depletions from continuous harvesting, and 
accuracy in seed source identification. The current Plan does not 
provide direction regarding the collection of native seed.
     We propose to incorporate objectives for invasive species 
and noxious weeds that focus on prevention, early detection, and 
control to restrict their colonization and expansion on the Forest.
     We propose to incorporate direction for the collection of 
native seed to address protection of Forest resources.

Terrestrial and Aquatic Species

    The current Forest Plan addresses many of the key indicators of 
biological diversity. These indicators are largely described and 
analyzed as separate functional entities. There is little information 
as to how these indicators interact with one another and with natural 
processes, particularly at the broad, forest-level scale.
    The Northern Goshawk Amendment provided specific direction for 
activities occurring around active goshawk nests. The current Plan does 
not provide standards for habitat management or protection measures for 
other raptor species. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Eagle 
Protection Act, and Endangered Species Act, the Forest is required to 
protect raptors, their nests, or eggs.
     We propose to clarify/update management direction for 
species and communities in which they occur (the whole instead of 
pieces). As appropriate, management direction will be incorporated from 
approved conservation agreements and strategies for threatened, 
endangered, and sensitive terrestrial and aquatic species found on the 
Forest.
     We propose to provide direction that contributes to the 
maintenance/improvement of native species habitat on National Forest 
System lands.
     We propose to incorporate guidance for management 
activities and permitted uses around active raptor nest sites (for 
species other than northern goshawk) from nest site selection to 
fledging.

Topics Where Existing Direction is Inconsistent With Meeting Agency 
Direction

    This topic represents inadequate or outdated Forest Plan direction 
that should be updated to bring the Forest Plan current with national 
direction.

Scenery Management

    The current Forest Plan includes Forest-wide standards that were 
developed under the Visual Management System (1974). In 1995, the 
Forest Service adopted the Scenery Management System (SMS). The new 
system is designed to incorporate ecological concepts and valued 
cultural features to better address and complement other resource needs 
and management strategies. In response to an appeal on November 18, 
1993, an agreement between the Forest Service, Southern Utah Wilderness 
Alliance, and Owen Severance was reached stating that the Forest 
Service would complete a visual resource inventory for the Monticello 
Ranger District prior to revision of the Forest Plan.
     We propose to develop scenery management objectives as 
part of the desired conditions, which will utilize an inventory of 
landscape character, visual sensitivity, and scenic integrity. These 
attributes, along with the objectives, will provide the framework for 
the Scenery Management System.

Heritage Resources

    While Forest Plan direction is adequate and appropriate to meet the 
basic requirements of section 106 of the law, new legislation, agency 
direction, and trends in public use warrant review and revision of 
current Forest Plan direction. Forest-wide direction does not address 
changes in the areas of tribal consultation and provide emphasis on the 
requirements of Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
     We propose to clarify objectives for cultural resource 
areas and provide direction for the proactive identification, 
preservation, and nomination to the National Register of Historic 
Properties of historical and archeological properties on lands within 
the Forest's jurisdiction.

Topics Where Corrections Would Not Require Significant Revision 
Resources

    Addressing the following topics during revision would simplify and 
clarify the intent of the Forest Plan and would likely not require 
significant resource expenditures.
     Remove administrative or procedural direction to reduce 
redundancy of agency requirements.
     Correct typographical and description errors. These 
editorial corrections, clarifications, and updates will result in more 
accurate Forest Plan.
     Eliminate objectives and implementation schedules that are 
not required. Many of the objectives and schedules in the existing 
Forest Plan are not required and are quickly out-of-date.
     Eliminate redundant monitoring requirements.
     Update acreages and other ``Current Situation'' data in 
the Forest Plan.
     Move management direction for paleontological resources 
from the Heritage program to the Minerals program.
     Clarify direction to allow for flexibility in determining 
a grazing system strategy dependent on allotment needs.
     Assess rangeland capability as per current national and 
regional direction using current data and technology.
     Clarify timber management direction to provide for the 
protection of aspen regeneration projects.
     Update special designations list with research natural 
areas and special

[[Page 62249]]

interest areas designated since current Forest Plan implementation and 
incorporate management direction for these areas as found in 
establishment records.

Topics Not Addressed in the Forest Plan Revision That Will Be Addressed 
Through the Continuous Assessment and Planning (CAP) Process

    The following topics are areas where existing management direction 
needs to be clarified, refined, or changed. Addressing these topics 
during Forest Plan revision would require significant resources. These 
topics are better addressed at a later time and may need to be analyzed 
at a different scale.

                                Continuous Assessment and Planning Projects (CAP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lands.....................................................................   Review and update guidance
                                                                             for long-term use or occupancy,
                                                                             such as utility corridor
                                                                             designations and communication
                                                                             sites. Evaluate and designate new
                                                                             sites as appropriate.
                                                                             Develop a Land Adjustment
                                                                             Plan.
                                                                             Prepare a Rights-of-Way
                                                                             Acquisition Plan.
Recreation................................................................   Complete a capacity
                                                                             analysis for the land to
                                                                             accommodate outfitter and guide
                                                                             services.
                                                                             Establish use capacity in
                                                                             some areas of the forest to
                                                                             minimize conflicts and ensure
                                                                             quality experiences.
                                                                             Develop a recreation
                                                                             facilities master plan.
                                                                             Develop a recreation and
                                                                             trails business plan.
Watershed health..........................................................   Review municipal drinking
                                                                             water source protection plans and
                                                                             develop management direction as
                                                                             appropriate.
Special interest areas....................................................   Evaluate potential Special
                                                                             Interest Areas (SIAs).
                                                                              [cir] Maple Canyon, White
                                                                               Mountain, Maloy Park, and Little
                                                                               Dry Mountain have been identified
                                                                               by Forest specialists for
                                                                               potential SIA designation.
                                                                             Evaluate proposed expansion
                                                                             of Mont E Lewis Botanical Area.
                                                                             Identify and review
                                                                             archeological resource sites for
                                                                             potential SIA designation.
Research natural areas....................................................   Evaluate potential and
                                                                             proposed research natural areas
                                                                             (RNAs). Sinbad Ridge has been
                                                                             proposed by the Nature Conservancy
                                                                             for RNA designation.
Transportation............................................................   Update the travel
                                                                             management plan. system management
                                                                             Complete watershed scale
                                                                             roads analyses.
Wilderness management.....................................................   Develop a wilderness plan
                                                                             for Dark Canyon Wilderness.
                                                                             Analyze capacity study and
                                                                             set group size limits to mitigate
                                                                             the impacts on wilderness
                                                                             resources.
Wild and scenic rivers suitability........................................   Complete suitability
                                                                             analysis for the nine remaining
                                                                             eligible river segments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Potential Alternatives

    The No Action Alternative, continuing management under the present 
Forest Plan, will be considered in the analysis of the proposed action. 
The No Action Alternative would not include any of the legally mandated 
revision topics.
    Topics to be addressed in the proposed action were described 
previously. No other alternatives have been developed at this time. 
However, additional alternatives will likely be developed based upon 
public comments.

Involving the Public

    The Forest Service is seeking information, comments and assistance 
from individuals, organizations, tribal governments, and Federal, 
State, and local agencies that may be interested in or affected by the 
proposed action (36 CFR 219.6).
    Public participation will be solicited by notifying (in person and/
or by mail) known interested and affected publics. News releases will 
be used to give the public general notice, and public involvement 
opportunities will be offered. Public participation activities include 
written comments, open houses, focus groups, and collaborative forums.
    Public participation will be sought throughout the revision 
process, but will be particularly important at several points along the 
way. The first formal opportunity to comment is during the scoping 
process (40 CFR 1501.7). Five public collaborative forums will be 
scheduled in early November 2004. The locations and exact dates/times 
have yet to be determined. When locations, dates and times have been 
arranged, the public will be notified through mailings, news releases, 
and public notices.

Release and Review of the EIS

    The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and will be available for public comment in the 
late fall/early winter of 2005. At that time, the EPA will publish a 
notice of availability in the Federal Register. The comment period on 
the Draft EIS will be at least 90 days from the date EPA publishes the 
Notice of Availability in the Federal Register, as required by planning 
regulations.
    The Forest Service believes that 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 the Draft EIS 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 EIS stage 
but are not raised until after completion of the Final EIS 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 comment period and that 
substantive comments and objectives are made available to the Forest 
Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to 
them in the Final EIS.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed programmatic actions, comments on the 
Draft EIS 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 EIS or the merits 
of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statements. 
Reviewers may wish to refer to the Counsel on Environmental Quality 
Regulations for implementing the procedural to the Counsel on 
Environmental Quality Regulations for

[[Page 62250]]

implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
    After the comment period ends on the Draft EIS, comments will be 
analyzed, considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in 
preparing the Final EIS. The Final EIS is scheduled to be completed in 
the spring/summer of 2007. The responsible official will consider the 
comments, responses, and environmental consequences discussed in the 
Final EIS, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making 
decisions regarding the revision. The responsible official will 
document decisions and reasons for the decisions in a Record of 
Decision for the revised plan. The decisions will be subject to appeal 
in accordance with 36 CFR, part 217. Jack Troyer, Intermountain 
Regional Forester, is the responsible official for this EIS.

    Dated: October 8, 2004.
Alice B. Carlton,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 04-23210 Filed 10-22-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P