Monroe Mountain Ecosystem Restoration Project; Fishlake National Forest, Sevier and Piute Counties, UT

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Monroe Mountain Ecosystem Restoration Project; Fishlake National

Forest, Sevier and Piute Counties, UT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Forest Service, USDA, will

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to implement proposed

actions to maintain or restore the long-term health and productivity of

lands within the Monroe Mountain Ecosystem Restoration Project area, on

the Richfield Ranger District, Fishlake National Forest. The purpose of

these proposals is to initiate actions that would: (1) Reduce the loss

of aspen through succession to mixed conifer and sagebrush; (2) restore

watershed values that favor increases in water yield to restore

riparian conditions; (3) reduce the risk of large intense wildfires and

the potential of epidemic level spruce beetle outbreaks and other

diseases; (4) recover the value of merchantable trees while performing

ecosystem restoration; (5) contribute to the restoration of aspen and

grass/forb communities to improve habitat for wildlife and livestock.

The proposals include: (1) commercial and noncommercial regeneration

treatment of aspen and mixed conifer/aspen forests, and associated road

construction, maintenance and closures; (2) commercial salvage,

sanitation and density management timber harvest in spruce forests, and

associated road construction, maintenance and closures; (3) treatment

of aspen and mixed conifer/aspen forests using ignited prescribed fire;

(4) treatment of dense sagebrush vegetative types of ignited prescribed

fire, disking, or Dixie harrowing. Multiple decisions may be issued

upon completion of the analysis; however, the cumulative effects of all

the proposed actions will be disclosed in the EIS. The proposed actions

would be completed within a five-year period. The project is located

approximately twelve miles southeast of Richfield, Utah. The project

would be implemented in accordance with direction of the Land and

Resource Management Plan (LRMP, 1986) for the Fishlake National Forest.

The agency gives notice that the environmental analysis process is

underway. During the analysis process, an issue surfaced that warranted

disclosure of effects under an EIS. This issue is the high degree of

interest associated with the potential to alter the undeveloped

character of portions of the project area due to proposed vegetative

treatments within inventoried roadless areas. Public scoping and issue

development identified issues involving: biological diversity; land

stability; soil erosion and productivity; water and water resources;

vegetative vigor and health; fire and fuel loading; wildlife and

fisheries; transportation system; range; visual landscape; economics;

recreation; cultural resources; and air quality.

DATES: Written comments to be considered in the preparation of the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) should be submitted by

March 18, 1999, which is at least 30 days following the publication of

this Notice in the Federal Register. The DEIS is expected to be

available for review by April, 1999. The Record of Decision and Final

Environmental Impact Statement are expected to be available by June,

1999.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to District Ranger, Richfield Ranger

District, 115 East 900 North, Richfield, Utah 84701.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Direct questions about the proposed action and

EIS by mail to Don Okerlund, Acting District Ranger, 115 East 900

North, Richfield, Utah 84701; or by phone at (435) 896-9233; or FAX:

(435) 896-9347.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed projects are located in an

analysis area of about 50,000 acres, including 41,400 acres of National

Forest System lands 8,400 acres of private land, and 200 acres of State

of Utah land. It is centered within Monroe

[[Page 7621]]

Mountain, extending from Magleby Pass southerly about fifteen miles to

Langdon Mountain. The project area is located in Townships 25, 26, 27

and 28 South, Ranges 1, 2, and 3 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian.

The proposed need for action is based upon scientific evidence that

vegetation is in an unhealthy condition over much of the project area.

Within the project area the size and number of aspen stands have

decreased. There are significantly fewer areas occupied by aspen now

that 150 years ago. As older aspen trees have died, insufficient

regeneration has resulted to maintain the stands. It is believed that

lack of fire has contributed to the loss of aspen stands. Conifer and

sagebrush are encroaching into the aspen stands. Research has shown

that such encroachment causes a significant decrease in the area's

water yield, the variety and number of wildlife and vegetative species

present, and the forage available for wildlife and livestock. Local

timber mills have created a market for merchantable aspen that has

benefited the local economy.

In addition, increased numbers of Engelmann spruce are being killed

by spruce beetles, which are at epidemic levels. Spruce provides

products that benefit local economies and supplies wood needed for a

multitude of products. Spruce stands also provide habitat for wildlife

and soil protection. One purpose of the project is to salvage the dead

and dying Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir to recover wood products that

would otherwise be lost, while still meeting the desired future

condition. Also, spruce dominated stands that are at risk to spruce

beetle infestation would be treated by commercial and noncommercial

sanitation treatments to alter the forest conditions that contribute to

this risk. Reducing the risk in these stands would provide the best

opportunity to maintain a green, forested condition as well as maintain

important resource values.

The proposed actions would occur within eight treatment areas

totalling 17,325 acres within the 50,000 acre analysis area. The eight

treatment areas contain approximately 1,200 acres of Engelmann spruce/

fir; 12,500 acres of aspen and aspen/mixed conifer; and 3,600 acres of

sagebrush. The proposed action involves recovery of approximately 20-25

million board feet of timber (aspen, spruce and other conifer species)

from approximately 5,000 to 6,000 acres. Ignited prescribed fire would

be a treatment for aspen regeneration on approximately 3,000 to 4,000

acres. About 14 miles of specified road construction would be required

to access treatment areas to recover the wood products. In the spruce

treatment areas, the roads would be closed by gates to allow future

entry for timber stand improvement activities. Roads needed in the

aspen/mixed conifer treatment areas would be rehabilitated and

permanently closed at completion of the activity. Approximately 2,000

acres of sagebrush would be treated by ignited prescribed fire,

disking, or Dixie harrowing.

The proposed actions would implement management direction,

contribute to meeting the goals and objectives identified in the

Fishlake National Forest LRMP, and move the analysis area toward the

desired future condition.

Tentative alternatives to the proposed faction include: (1) No

action, meaning the project would not take place, but current

management and natural succession would continue; (2) apply the

proposed actions to acres external to inventoried roadless areas; (3)

apply the proposed actions to acres external to inventoried roadless

areas and selected acres within inventoried roadless areas. No road

construction would occur within the inventoried roadless areas.

The analysis area includes both National Forest System lands, State

of Utah lands and private lands. Proposed treatments would occur only

on National Forest System lands. No federal or local permits, licenses

or entitlements would be needed.

As the lead agency, the Forest Service would analyze and document

direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects for a range of

alternatives. Each alternative would include mitigations measures and

monitoring requirements.

Rob Mrowka, Forest Supervisor, Fishlake National Forest, is the

responsible official. He can be reached by mail at 115 East 900 North,

Richfield, Utah 84701.

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 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 Plant 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 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.

Dated: February 9, 1999.

Rob Mrowka,

Forest Supervisor, Fishlake National Forest.

[FR Doc. 99-3609 Filed 2-12-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M