[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 28 (Friday, February 11, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7226-7227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2672]



[[Page 7226]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


West Bear Vegetation Management Project; Wasatch-Cache National 
Forest, Summit County, UT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Revised notice of intent to prepare environmental impact 
statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Supervisor of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 
gives notice of the agency's intent to prepare an environmental impact 
statement on a proposal to manage forest land in the West Fork Bear 
River drainage. Temporary roads would be constructed to provide access 
for timber harvest in portions of the area. The proposal also includes 
reconstruction or relocation of some poorly designed or located 
existing roads. The headwaters of this drainage are located on the 
Evanston Ranger District about 40 miles south of Evanston, Wyoming in 
the Uinta Mountain Range. The proposed action was developed to meet 
Forest Plan vegetation management objectives for achieving forest 
vegetation composition, structure, and patterns in properly functioning 
condition. The analysis area includes approximately 16,000 acres. The 
proposal addresses lands located primarily in the Humpy Creek, Meadow 
Creek, West Bear and Mill City Creek drainages located in Township 1 
North, Ranges 9 East and 10 East, Salt Lake Meridian.
    The first notice of intent was published on pages 12963-12964 of 
the Federal Register on March 20, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 54). The 
project was delayed due to other priorities developing as the result of 
a large wildfire in the summer of 2002.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
in writing by March 7, 2005. A draft environmental impact statement is 
expected to be published in May 2005, with public comment on the draft 
material requested for a period of 45 days, and completion of a final 
environmental impact statement is expected in September, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Stephen Ryberg, District Ranger, 
Evanston Ranger District, PO Box 1880, Evanston, WY. 82930. Electronic 
comments must be submitted in a format such as an email message, plain 
text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), and Word (.doc) to comments-
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Johnson, Environmental Planner, 
(307) 789-3194, or Kent O'Dell, Timber Management Coordinator, (307) 
782-6555, USDA Forest Service, Evanston Ranger District (see ADDRESS 
above.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Action

    The project purpose is to use timber harvest and prescribed fire 
meet Revised Wasatch-Cache National Forest Plan vegetation management 
objectives to move toward properly functioning condition and to move 
toward a variety of vegetation types, age classes, and patch sizes 
covering the landscape and contributing to healthy watersheds, aquatic 
and terrestrial wildlife habitats, recreation environments, and 
production of commodities such as wood and forage. The Revised Forest 
Plan (Page 4-29) identified a need to treat vegetation with the aspen, 
aspen/conifer, spruce-fir and mixed conifer forest types on the forest 
to maintain or move the forests toward properly functioning condition. 
A forest-wide assessment concluded that apsen communities as well as 
conifer, sagebrush and several other vegetation types are currently 
outside the historic range of variation, primarily related to the 
absence of naturally occurring fire.

Proposed Action

    The proposal to salvage includes timber harvesting, prescribed 
burning, construction of temporary roads, intermittent service roads, 
and minor reconstruction of existing system roads. Treatment would 
involve group selection harvest in spruce-fir and mixed conifer stands, 
small (1 to 5 acre) patch cutting in mixed aspen/conifer stands, 
conifer removal and prescribed burning in aspen/conifer stands, and 
burning with aspen stands. The proposal includes retaining green trees 
and snags for wildlife habitat. Approximately 1,626 acres within 38 
units would be treated under the proposal. Harvests would be 
accomplished using ground-based systems, and in conformance with Forest 
Plan Standards and Guidelines. Access to the timber would require the 
construction of approximately 7.2 miles of temporary roads, 2.1 miles 
of intermittent service system roads, and relocation of approximately 
0.6 miles of existing system roads to reduce sedimentation and improve 
drainage. All temporary roads would be recontoured/rehabilitated after 
harvest. Proposed reconstruction or relocation of existing roads would 
emphasize improving drainage design of the roads near stream crossings 
and relocating or improving drainage where the roads are near stream 
channels. No harvest or road construction would take place in 
inventoried roadless areas. Firelines would be constructed where needed 
prior to burning to reduce the probability of fire escaping the 
boundaries. Approximately 1.4 miles of firelines would be needed.
    In addition to the No Action alternative, an alternative that would 
reduce road construction and emphasize prescribed fire without 
mechanical pretreatment is being considered. It would treat 
approximately 1,384 acres within 28 tentative harvest units. It would 
require construction of approximately 1.8 miles of temporary roads, 0.3 
miles of intermittent service system road, and relocation of 
approximately 300 feet of an existing system road to reduce 
sedimentation and improve drainage. Temporary roads would be 
recontoured/rehabilitated after harvest as with the proposed action. An 
estimated 6.4 miles of firelines would be needed to accomplish the 
prescribed burning.
    Preliminary issue identified include effects of the alternatives on 
threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) species, land stability, 
erosion and sedimentation, fish and aquatic habitat, cultural resource 
sites, noxious weed spread, and conflicts with recreational traffic.

Responsible Official

    The Responsible Official is Thomas L. Tidwell, Forest Supervisor, 
Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 8236 Federal Building, 125 South State 
Street, Salt Lake City, UT 86138.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The decision to be made is whether to implement the proposed 
activities listed above.
    A determination of effects on Canada lynx will be required from the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Scoping Process

    The Forest Service invites comments and suggestions on the scope of 
the analysis to be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
(DEIS). In addition, the Forest Service gives notice that it is 
beginning a full environmental analysis and decision-making process for 
this proposal so that interested or affected people may know how they 
can participate in the environmental analysis and contribute to the 
final decision. Knowledge of the issues will help establish the scope 
of the Forest Service environmental analysis and define the kind and 
range of alternatives to be considered. The

[[Page 7227]]

Forest Service welcomes any public comments on the proposal.

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'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 environmental 
impact statement should be as specific as possible and may address the 
adequacy of the statement or the merits of the alternatives discussed.
    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 30-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)

    Dated: February 7, 2005.
Thomas L. Tidwell,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05-2672 Filed 2-10-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M