Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Uinta National Forest, Utah

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Uinta National Forest,

Utah

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

and a revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Uinta National

Forest, located in Utah, Wasatch, Juab, Tooele, and Sanpete Counties,

Utah.

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

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), and a revised

Forest Plan for the Uinta National Forest. The revised Forest Plan will

supersede the current Forest Plan, which was approved October 3, 1984,

and has been amended seven times.

This notice describes the needs for change in the current Forest

Plan that to date have been identified by Uinta Forest Supervisor,

Peter W. Karp, to be revised; the environmental issues considered in

the revision; the estimated dates for filing the EIS; the 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 November 30, 1999. The agency expects to file a Draft EIS

in the Fall of 2000, and a Final EIS in the Spring of 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Peter W. Karp, Forest Supervisor,

Uinta National Forest, PO Box 1428, 88 West 100 North, Provo, UT 84603-

1428.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marlene DePietro, Planning Team

Leader, Uinta National Forest (801) 342-5161.

Responsible Official: Jack Blackwell, Intermountain Regional

Forester, 324 25th Street, Ogden, UT 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 Uinta 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 October 3, 1984.

The Regional Forester gives notice that the Uinta National Forest

is beginning an environmental analysis and the decision-making process

for this proposed programmatic action to revise the Uinta Forest Plan.

Forest plans describe the long-term direction for managing national

forests. Agency decisions in these plans do the following:

Establish multiple use goals and objectives (36 CFR

219.11)

Establish forest-wide management requirements (standards

and guidelines) (36 CFR 219.13 to 219.26)

Establish management areas and management area direction

through the application of management prescriptions (36 CFR 219.11(c))

Establish monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR

219.11(d))

Determine suitability and potential capability of lands

for resource production. This includes identifying lands not suited for

timber production

[[Page 52767]]

and establishment of allowable sale quantity (36 CFR 219.14)

Where applicable, recommend official designation of

special areas such as wilderness (36 CFR 219.17) and wild and scenic

rivers to Congress.

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.

Need for Changes in the Current Forest Plan

It has been almost 15 years since the current Forest Plan was

approved. 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. These

sources include:

Public involvement that has identified new information and

public values,

Monitoring and scientific research that has identified new

information and knowledge gained, and

Forest Plan implementation that has identified management

concerns to find better ways for accomplishing desired conditions.

In addition to changing public views about how these lands should

be managed, information and the scientific understanding of these

ecosystems has evolved.

Proposed Action

The following topics are being considered for revision in the

Forest Plan. Each need for change was placed into one of three

categories: appropriate for inclusion in the revision; able to be

postponed and later addressed through the continuous assessment

process; or not requiring attention.

Identified needs for change are addressed in the following

sections, with a short description of what each change entails and why

it is necessary.

1. Topics Appropriate for Inclusion in the Forest Plan Revision

The following topics will be included in the Forest Plan revision

because law and/or regulation require them to be considered in all

forest plan revisions.

a. Wild and Scenic Rivers: The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968

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 1997 the

Uinta National Forest, in consultation with tribal governments and

state and other federal agencies, undertook an inventory of the rivers

on the Forest. Four segments were found to be free-flowing and in

possession of at least one outstandingly remarkable value, making them

eligible for designation. Until such time as a suitability

determination and Congressional designation can be made, the Forest

Service must protect the values that made the stream eligible for

NWSRS, and maintain the rivers' free-flowing character. The proposed

action is to establish direction to provide interim protection for

these four rivers and to defer decisions on NWSRS recommendations until

these decisions can be made through separate, more focused analyses

later.

b. Wilderness Recommendation From Existing Roadless Inventory:

Forest Service policy, the regulations in 36 CFR 219.17, and the 1984

Utah Wilderness Act require that roadless areas be evaluated and

considered for recommendation as potential wilderness areas during the

forest planning process. In 1997 the Forest began updating its

inventory of roadless areas. A Draft Inventory of Unroaded and

Undeveloped Lands on the Uinta National Forest was released for public

review in April 1999, identifying 528,015 acres of roadless areas on

the Uinta National Forest.

c. Reevaluation of Lands Not Suited for Timber: NFMA and its

implementing regulations require identification of lands appropriate

for timber management. The revision process provides an opportunity to

reassess and better define the lands deemed appropriate for timber

management, and to account for changes in land status and uses having

occurred in the past 10-15 years. The revision will also use more

accurate technology (such as GIS data) than was available during

development of the original Forest Plan. The proposed action is to make

any appropriate adjustments and better define the lands suited for

timber production.

d. Areas Where Change May Be Needed: The topics in the following

sections were included in the revision based on information found in

monitoring reports, insight from Forest Service employees and their

experience with the public regarding the effectiveness (or

ineffectiveness) of the current Plan, requirements in Forest Service

Handbooks and Manuals, and employment of new direction and policy.

The following topics will be included in the Forest Plan revision.

Experience indicates that existing direction for the following topics

is too limited or is inappropriate. Forest plan direction could be

changed on a project by project basis through amendment; however,

addressing these topics through the revision would eliminate the need

for several future site-specific amendments and would facilitate

achievement of other Forest Plan, ecosystem management, and Natural

Resource Agenda goals.

e. Revise the List of Timber Practices: The Forest Plan identified

the even-aged silvicultural system as the primary means of forest

regeneration. While this may be appropriate for lodgepole pine and

aspen, which develop an even-aged structure, many spruce/fir stands

naturally develop an uneven-aged structure, and consequently,

individual and group selection (instead of clearcutting) have been the

preferred regeneration methods under an uneven-aged silvicultural

system. The proposed action is to expand the array of silvicultural

systems and harvest methods that may be used.

f. Eliminate Game Retrieval Policy: Although the Uinta Forest Plan

does not make site-specific travel management decisions, it does

contain direction allowing off-road and trail motorized vehicle use to

retrieve legally taken big game animals. Monitoring has revealed that

the practice often causes resource damage. The policy is inconsistent

with other local national forests and other Uinta National Forest

policies. Ghost roads are created that are difficult to control and

that increase road densities. Limiting off-road motorized vehicle use

to only game retrieval purposes is virtually impossible. The proposed

action is to eliminate this provision. Site-specific travel management

decisions will not be made through the Forest Plan revision.

g. Expand Management Direction for Areas of Heavy Dispersed

Recreation Use: Dispersed recreation use on the Forest has increased

significantly over the last several years, and this is expected to

continue in the future. This use is resulting in resource damage and

conflicts in some areas. The proposed action is to develop Limits of

Acceptable Change (LAC) guidelines for determining unacceptable impacts

to resources, and to use Meaningful Measures (another set of criteria

developed by the Forest Service) for

[[Page 52768]]

defining recreation management objectives. Meaningful Measures blends

both quantitative and qualitative aspects of recreation and will be

more useful in budgeting and monitoring than were the reports

previously used.

h. Revise Fuelwood Harvest Levels: The 1984 Forest Plan projected

an annual fuelwood program of 18,000 cords (equivalent to 9 million

board feet (MMBF)). Although there has been little interest in

commercial fuelwood, the Forest has maintained a personal-use fuelwood

program. Current annual demand is about 1,000 cords (equivalent to 0.5

MMBF). The proposed action is to revise the objective for fuelwood

harvest to more closely reflect demand.

i. Update/Revise Management Indicator Species (MIS): The

regulations in 36 CFR 219.19 require identification and monitoring of

MIS to indicate the effects of management activities on fish and

wildlife. A list of MIS were identified in the 1984 Forest Plan, and

was subsequently amended in 1993. Experience with these MIS indicates

additional refinements may be needed. Some of the species listed are

difficult to monitor accurately, and/or their population trends may be

affected by things other than forest management. The proposed action is

to change the list of MIS.

j. Eliminate Emphasis On Adding Developed Recreation Capacity: The

1984 Forest Plan placed an emphasis on the construction of additional

recreational facilities to accommodate an expected increase in demand.

Since the Plan was written, inadequate funding and limited personnel

have restricted both new construction and the expansion of existing

facilities. As this trend is expected to continue, the proposed action

is to change the focus in the Plan to managing existing facilities to

increase utilization, and to provide for reconstruction when necessary.

k. Remove Post and Pole Harvest Objectives: Forest Plan timber

objectives include providing posts and poles to the public as a

service. While limited post and pole opportunities do exist on the

Uinta National Forest, these stands are valuable for wildlife, and most

requests are referred to the Ashley and Wasatch-Cache National Forests.

The proposed action is to remove post and pole harvest objectives from

the Forest Plan.

In addition to the topics previously listed, the following topics

will be included in the revision. Experience has shown the lack of

specificity or direction in the following areas has severely hampered

implementation of the Forest Plan. Addressing these topics, while not

required, would provide the over-arching framework needed to

effectively implement the Forest Plan.

l. Refine Management Area Boundaries: To implement the Forest Plan,

ecosystem boundaries must be delineated. The present management areas

are less useful than they could be given the current understanding of

ecosystems from both a social and biological standpoint. The seven

current management areas range in size from 56,755 to 290,925 acres and

are not easily recognized as distinct places. They are not directly

related to ecological units such as watersheds, and their usefulness in

examining actions and their effects is limited. The proposed action is

to redefine management area boundaries, generally using watersheds as

revised management areas.

m. Define Management Prescription Categories: A management

prescription category is a set of management practices and intensities

scheduled for application on a specific area. Management choices must

be made in determining management prescription categories, as these in

turn determine the direction for specific areas based on the resource

emphasis. Once management areas are defined and potential Desired

Future Conditions (DFCs) for those areas are identified, management

prescription categories will be used to describe what is and is not

allowed in a given area. With some exceptions, the current Forest Plan

does not clearly identify the management prescription for any specific

area. The proposed action is to identify the management prescription

category applicable to each specific area of the Forest.

n. Identify Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) For All Ecosystems:

DFCs describe the land, resources, or social and economic conditions

that are expected in 50-100 years if objectives are achieved. It is a

vision of the long-term conditions of the land. The current Forest Plan

describes a DFC for each management area; however, these are often

vague and/or do not address all components of the ecosystem. Failure to

adequately describe the DFC results in a high degree of uncertainty as

to what management actions were intended and needed. The proposed

action is to develop, for each management area, DFCs addressing all

affected ecosystems.

o. Identify Desired Recreation Environments Using the Recreation

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS): The ROS allocation in the 1984 Forest Plan

is incomplete and is not being utilized as intended. The Forest Plan

references locations and acreages, but includes no map. ROS can be used

together with Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) to define capacity and

establish standards and guidelines, particularly for wilderness and

many types of dispersed recreation. ROS can be incorporated into the

description of the DFC as a useful tool for allocating and separating

conflicting or competing uses. Site-specific travel management

decisions will not be made in the revision. However, establishing ROS

will facilitate travel management planning, which strongly influences

the supply of opportunity for various activities. The proposed action

is to identify the ROS allocation for each area of the Forest and to

incorporate ROS into the description of DFC.

p. Identify Desired Scenery Management Objectives: The visual

quality objectives in the 1984 Forest Plan are incomplete and outdated.

The 1974 Visual Management System used in the 1984 Forest Plan was

replaced in 1995 with the Scenery Management System (SMS). The SMS

process can assist in the establishment of overall resource goals and

objectives to monitor the scenic resource and ensure high quality

scenery for future generations. However, fully implementing SMS would

not be practical during revision given the revision schedule and

available staffing and funding. The proposed action is to identify

desired scenery management conditions across the Forest, and initiate

implementation of the SMS.

q. Delineate Areas Suitable For Domestic Livestock Grazing: The

Forest Plan addresses suitability of lands for domestic livestock

grazing, but discusses capability and suitability in terms of animal

unit months of forage rather than acres. This makes comparison between

the current Plan and current conditions difficult. Some large tracts of

land, including the Strawberry Projects Lands, have been added to the

Forest since the suitability analysis was completed. These areas were

grazed for many years prior to their transfer to the Forest Service,

and the Forest annually receives some requests to restore grazing on

these lands. In addition, two domestic sheep allotments in the Pleasant

Grove Management Area were identified as suited for grazing in the 1984

Forest Plan. These allotments are currently vacant and adjoin a

proposed bighorn sheep reintroduction site. The Strawberry Project

Lands and these two vacant allotments are part of important watersheds,

provide valuable wildlife habitat, and support heavy recreation use.

The proposed action is to delineate the areas of the Forest suited for

[[Page 52769]]

domestic livestock grazing using acres instead of animal unit months,

identifying the Strawberry Project Lands and lands within the two

allotments in the Pleasant Grove Management Area as not suited for

domestic livestock grazing.

r. Establish Direction For Managing Cave Resources: Since the

Forest Plan was written, the Federal Cave Management Act of 1988 was

implemented. As the Forest Plan provides no direction for managing cave

resources, the proposed action is to develop direction for accessing

and managing cave resources on the Forest. Addressing the following

topics in the Forest Plan revision would simplify and clarify the

intent of the Forest Plan without requiring significant resource

expenditures. Consequently, these topics will be addressed in the

Forest Plan revision.

s. Remove Administrative or Procedural Direction: The proposed

action is to remove information that is not related to land and

resource management planning or to one of the six decisions made in

forest plans, or that is redundant. Such information can be found in

Forest Service Handbooks or Manuals or other reference materials.

t. Correct Typographical and Description Errors: The proposed

action is to make editorial corrections, clarifications, and updates in

order to present an accurate and more professional document.

u. Correct and Clarify Direction for 3-Pasture Rest Rotation: The

proposed action is to reword an existing standard and guideline to

identify the 3-pasture rest rotation as one of several recognized

livestock management strategies, instead of it being the only

management option.

v. Clarification of Existing Minerals Goals and Objectives: Current

direction does not specify if goals and objectives for minerals

management refer to locatable, leasable, or common variety minerals.

Management of these minerals is governed by different laws and

regulations. The proposed action is to refine the existing management

direction to be more specific as to the type of mineral resource

concerned.

w. Incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Air Quality

Standards: The Utah Department of Environmental Quality has been

working in cooperation with the Forest Service and other state and

federal agencies to develop a set of BMPs as part of a statewide Non-

point Source Management Plan for Silvicultural Activities. This plan,

which will be adopted by the national forests in Utah, provides a set

of standard management practices to reduce non-point source pollution

from silvicultural activities. Air quality and visibility are national

concerns, goals, and priorities. The proposed action is to add

direction to the Forest Plan to address these issues.

x. Remove Direction for Afforestation of Oak Woodlands: Ecosystem

management implies managing wildlands using vegetation native to the

site. Past afforestation practices on the Uinta have included the

planting of tree species on oak sites where such species would not have

otherwise established. These plantings have sometimes done well for a

number of years, but many have then exhibited a rapid decline. These

plantings also have the potential to replace the vegetation natural to

the site. Current thinking on ecosystem management is to manage

wildlands using vegetation native to the site. The proposed action is

to eliminate direction in the current Plan calling for afforestation of

oak woodlands.

y. Elimination of Numerical Objectives and Implementation

Schedules: Many of the objectives and schedules in the existing Plan

are not required, are quickly out-of-date, and have lead to frequent

confusion. The proposed action is to eliminate those that are not

required by law or regulation.

z. Update Property Management Goals and Terminology: Right-of-Way

and Land Adjustment Plans for the Forest have been updated since the

1984 Forest Plan was completed. The proposed action is to incorporate

goals and objectives from these in the revised Forest Plan.

aa. Remove Direction Allowing Horse Use During Hunting Season in

All Developed Sites: The Forest Plan allowed for this practice for the

period of 1980-90, with no direction following that period. The Forest

has not continued this practice outside of the designated time frame.

The proposed action is to remove this direction.

bb. Identify the Jumpoff Point Research Natural Area (RNA) and

Establish Management Direction for It: In 1987, the Chief of the Forest

Service signed an Establishment Report designating the Jumpoff Point

Research Natural Area (RNA). The Jumpoff Point RNA was designated after

the completion of the Forest Plan, and no amendment was completed at

the time of establishment. The proposed action is to map this 290 acre

area as a unique management prescription category and to develop

appropriate management direction.

cc. Identify Standards Versus Guidelines: Standards are not

currently distinguished from guidelines. Standards are direction which

must be followed; guidelines are direction which generally should be

followed. The proposed action is to identify which management direction

are standards and which are guidelines. This will clarify the intent of

the Forest Plan and eliminate unnecessary site-specific amendments in

implementation.

dd. Revise/Correct the Section Describing Amendment of the Forest

Plan: The Forest Plan implies amendments may be needed when the list of

projects proposed in the Forest Plan must be altered. A Forest Plan

defines programmatic actions and does not make project decisions. The

proposed action is to revise this section to state that amendment is

needed when one of the six decisions made in the Forest Plan must be

adjusted.

ee. Eliminate Redundant Monitoring Requirements: Currently, the

Forest Plan requires monitoring of items pertaining to individual

resource areas. This has lead to overlapping and redundant monitoring

of items such as riparian habitat and water quality. The proposed

action is to eliminate redundant and overlapping monitoring.

ff. Correct the Monitoring Frequency for Timber Suitability:

Current direction requires suitability determination and monitoring to

be completed every 10 years. The Forest Plan erroneously states it is

to be completed every year. The proposed action is to correct this

error.

gg. Update Acreages and Other ``Current Situation'' Data: Numerous

changes in the environment have occurred since this section was

prepared in 1984. This includes changes resulting from land

adjustments, the Central Utah Project, implementation of the Forest

Plan, and natural events such as wildfire. The proposed action is to

update this section to reflect changes that have occurred.

hh. Use People At One Time (PAOTs) Instead of Recreation Visitor

Days (RVDs) for Developed Recreation Supply Objectives: PAOTs are

commonly used to define capacity; RVDs are used to define use. The

Forest Plan uses RVDs for both, Using PAOTs to define capacity is more

accurate. The proposed action is to revise objectives for developed

recreation capacity using PAOTs rather than RVDs.

2. Topics Not Addressed in the Forest Plan Revision But To Be Addressed

Through Continuous Assessment and Planning (CAP)

The following topics are areas where existing management direction

needs to be clarified, refined, or changed. These topics will not be

addressed in the Forest Plan revision, but will be

[[Page 52770]]

addressed through project or forest Plan amendments. Addressing these

topics in the Forest Plan revision would likely require significant and

unavailable resources, given time and funding limitations. These are

topics where implementation can usually proceed and be consistent with

existing Forest Plan direction (only occasional site-specific

amendments to Forest Plan direction may be needed to allow

implementation to proceed).

a. Refinement of grazing standards for stream channel types

b. Expansion of management direction for non-greenline conditions in

streamside management zones

c. Development of species-specific conservation measures for

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species.

There is a need for management decisions on the following topics,

to the extent they involve Forest Service discretionary decisions. More

thorough, detailed analysis and consideration of these topics and

related issues would occur if they were analyzed through localized,

site-specific analyses conducted outside of the revision process.

d. Wild and Scenic River suitability determinations (Little Provo Deer

Creek, North Fork of the American Fork River, South Fork of the Provo

River, and Fifth Water)

e. Wildlife reintroductions

f. Non-conforming uses in wilderness areas

g. Energy corridors

3. Topics Where No change Is Proposed

The following topics would not be addressed through the Forest Plan

revision, except to the extent they are directly impacted by other

revision topics being addressed. These topics cover areas where the

Forest Plan provides management direction that some may want changed,

but which otherwise appears to be adequate (and therefore, not a need

for change).

a. Western Uinta Basin Oil and Gas leasing decisions

b. General intent of DFCs established through the Rangeland Ecosystem

Amendment

c. Predator control direction established through the Predator Control

EIS and in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the

U.S. Forest Service and the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS)

d. Direction to harvest timber only where needed for forest health or

other resource objectives

e. Identification of recreation residences

f. Direction established through the ongoing Utah Fire Amendment

g. Direction established through the ongoing Utah Goshawk Amendment

h. Direction emphasizing protection of water quality, particularly in

watersheds providing water for domestic use.

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

comments provided.

Involving the Public

The Forest Service is seeking information comments, and assistance

from individuals, organizations, tribal governments, and federal,

state, and local agencies who 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 at various locations. Public

participation activities included 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). Three public meetings are scheduled during the

scoping process. These will run from 7 to 9 p.m. and be held October

26, 1999, at Wasatch County Chamber of Commerce Visitor Center, 475 N.

Main Street, Heber City, Utah; October 27, 1999, at Mellor Banquets,

877 North 100 East, Lehi, Utah; and October 28, 1999, at Payson City

Banquet Hall, 439 W. Utah Avenue, Payson, Utah.

Release and Review of the EIS

The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and be available for public comment in late

Fall of 2000. 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 the EPA publishes the notice

of availability in the Federal Register, as required by the 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 so 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 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 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 of 2001. 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 A. Blackwell, Intermountain

Regional Forester, is the responsible official for this EIS.

[[Page 52771]]

Dated; September 20, 1999.

Peter W. Karp,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 99-25016 Filed 9-29-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M