[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 116 (Friday, June 16, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34880-34881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-5466]



[[Page 34880]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Escalante Ranger District, Dixie National Forest; Utah; Pockets 
Resource Management Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Dixie National Forest proposes specific commercial timber 
harvest, pre-commercial stand treatment, and fencing in the Pockets 
Project area. These actions will contribute to meeting the Dixie 
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) goals and 
objectives and comply with the standards and guidelines set in the 
LRMP. Connected with the commercial timber harvest is road system 
modification, including changes in the forest road system, road 
construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and travel management. The 
proposed treatments are needed at this time due to a spruce bark beetle 
(Dendroctonus refipennis) epidemic. In some stands, beetle attacks have 
removal most of the live Engelman spruce trees greater than 12 inches 
diameter at breast height. Timely removal of insect infested spruce 
trees can reduce current tree mortality from spruce bark beetle. The 
development of diverse healthy stands can help reduce the risk and 
extent of future outbreaks. The Pockets Resource Management Project is 
located completely within public lands on the Dixie National Forest, 
Escalante Ranger District. It is approximately 22 miles northwest of 
Escalante, Utah. The 8,564 acre project area is located within the 
Antimony Creek, Coyote hollow-Antimony Creek, and pacer Lake 
watersheds. The project area is located between 8,712 and 10,243 feet 
above sea level within the Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir, Douglas-fir, 
and aspen forest cover types.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
by July 31, 2006 to be helpful. The draft environmental impact 
statement is expected November 2006 and the final environmental impact 
statement is expected March 2007

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Gina Lampmann, District Ranger, 
Escalante Ranger District, 755 West Main, PO Box 246, Escalante, Utah 
84726. Comments may also be e-mailed to: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pockets Project Manager, Escalante 
Ranger District, 755 West Main, PO Box 246, Escalante, Utah 84726.

Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose of this proposed action for the spruce/fir component of 
the forest is to salvage spruce beetle killed Engelmann spruce, reduce 
long term fuel loadings, improve the balance of age class distribution, 
decrease stand densities, and reduce tree mortality from spruce beetle 
on 3,715 acres. There is a need to reduce stand densities on up to 
3,024 acres emphasizing harvesting stands that are highly or moderately 
susceptible to attack by forest pests. This will increase tree growth 
and vigor, and create stand conditions that are less conducive to 
increased bark beetle populations and disease. There is also a need to 
reduce beetle activity on an additional 691 acres, which are within 
desired stand density levels, and to salvage beetle killed Engelmann 
spruce trees to reduce long term fuel loading.
    The purpose of this proposed action for the aspen component of the 
forest is to restore both the distribution and balance of the age-
classes for serial aspen clones (seedling/saplings, young to mature, 
and older than 80 years) using timber cutting. There is a need to 
convert mature and over-mature aspen stands that are succeeding to 
conifer to the regeneration age class on approximately 350 acres. In 
addition, approximately 433 acres of aspen will have the understory 
conifer trees removed using non-commercial methods to delay succession.
    The purpose of the proposed riparian treatment is to improve 
riparian health along the Antimony Creek stream bank. There is a need 
to increase the presence of healthy willow trees along the stream bank, 
and to reduce the encroachment of conifer along both the stream bank 
and meadow. Removal of spruce trees will allow for additional space for 
willow tree establishment and provide conditions suitable for a diverse 
age class of willow.
    The purpose of the proposed road work is to provide a 
transportation system that safely facilities timber harvest and related 
activities and meets Best Management Practices (BMP). There is a need 
to modify the transportation system to allow for the safe removal of 
timber and the completion of post sale activities while meeting BMPs 
associated with timber harvest haul roads. A Travel Management Plan 
also needs to be developed to provide a long-term system of roads and 
motorized trails to meet the variety of uses occurring within the 
project area while protecting the natural resources. There is also a 
need to prevent future user developed roads by restricting off road 
use, particularly in riparian areas.

Proposed Action

    About 3,024 acres of Engelmann spruce/sub-alpine fir forest would 
be harvested commercially using a combination of intermediate and 
sanitation/salvage treatments. Following the timber harvest, 548 of 
these acres would be treated with a pre-commercial thinning in which a 
portion of the smaller diameter trees would be cut. Finally, 
sanitation/salvage timber harvest, removing only spruce beetle-infested 
and recently killed trees, would be implemented on another 691 acres of 
spruce/fir.
    Of the approximately 2,647 acres of aspen in the project area, 
approximately 350 acres would be clear-cut in 12 blocks of up to 40 
acres in size using a commercial timber harvest. An additional 433 
acres of aspen would be treated by hand cutting understory conifer 
trees less than 8 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH).
    Within approximately 82 acres along the Antimony Creek drainage, 
conifer trees greater than or equal to 6'' DBH would be girdled to 
create snags. Conifer trees smaller than 6'' DBH would be cut by hand 
and left on the ground.
    Approximately 9.0 miles of new roads would be constructed and added 
to the forest road system. Approximately 7.0 miles of currently 
unauthorized roads would be added to the NFS road system. Up to 13.4 
miles of existing NFS roads would be improved for timber hauling.

Possible Alternatives

    The Forest Service will likely consider an alternative to the 
proposed action that reduces permanent road construction.

Responsible Official

    Robert A. Russell, Forest Supervisor, Dixie National Forest, 1789 
Wedgewood Lane, Cedar City, UT 84720.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The responsible official must decide whether to proceed with the 
project as proposed, to proceed by an alternative method, or to forgo 
the project at this time.

Scoping Process

    In addition to the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register, the Dixie National Forest will mail a copy of the proposed 
action to those individuals and groups who may be affected by the 
proposed action or who have expressed

[[Page 34881]]

interest in the proposed action. The mailing will contain instructions 
for submitting comments and will request that comments be submitted by 
the close of the scoping period, July 31, 2006.

Preliminary Issues

    Timber harvest and road construction may impact the undeveloped 
characteristics of a portion of the project area.

Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides 
the development of the environmental impact statement. The Forest 
Service uses scoping early in its projects as a means to gather 
information about significant, site-specific issues that are directly 
elated to the proposed action. Comments that express concern about a 
resource but include no specific information regarding how the proposed 
action will affect that resource, do not constitute issues. Issues that 
the analysis shows to be significant will be resolved through project 
mitigation measures or through the development of alternatives that 
address those particular issues. While your comments are always 
welcome, comments received by July 31, 2006 will be most helpful.
    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 Services 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 Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement comment period (expected in November, 2006) so that 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.
    Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who 
comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal 
and will be available for public inspection.

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

    Dated: June 6, 2006.
Robert A. Russell,
Forest Supervisor, Dixie National Forest.
[FR Doc. 06-5466 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M