West Bear Vegetation Management Project; Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Summit County, UT, 7226-7227 [05-2672]
Download as PDF
7226
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 28 / Friday, February 11, 2005 / Notices
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:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
West Bear Vegetation Management
Project; Wasatch-Cache National
Forest, Summit County, UT
Forest Service, USDA.
Revised notice of intent to
prepare environmental impact
statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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-intermtnwasatch-cache-evanstonmtnview@fs.fed.us.
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:18 Feb 10, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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, WasatchCache 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 decisionmaking 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
E:\FR\FM\11FEN1.SGM
11FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 28 / Friday, February 11, 2005 / Notices
Forest Service welcomes any public
comments on the proposal.
National Environmental Policy Act at 40
CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
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 30day 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
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22;
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section
21)
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:18 Feb 10, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Notice of Tri-County Advisory
Committee Meeting
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in
the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Pub. L. 92–463) and under the Secure
Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–
393) the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National
Forest’s Tri-County Resource Advisory
Committee will meet on Thursday,
March 3, 2005, from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. in
Deer Lodge, Montana, for a business
meeting. The meeting is open to the
public.
DATES: Thursday, March 3, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the USDA Service Center, 1002
Hollenback Road, Deer Lodge, Montana.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas K. Reilly, Designated Forest
Official (DFO), Forest Supervisor,
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest,
at (406) 683–3973.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda
topics for this meeting includes a review
of projects approved and proposed for
funding as authorized under Title II of
Public Law 106–393, new proposals for
funding, review of a community fire
plan, and public comment. If the
meeting location is changed, notice will
be posted in local newspapers,
including The Montana Standard.
Dated: February 7, 2005.
Thomas K. Reilly,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05–2670 Filed 2–10–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Natural Resources Conservation
Service
Notice of Intent
Natural Resources
Conservation Service, USDA.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ACTION:
7227
Notice of intent.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, as amended, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
Utah State Office, announces its
intention to prepare an environmental
impact statement (EIS) to evaluate the
impacts of floodplain and stream
channel modifications in the Coal Creek
Watershed. A plan would be developed
to reduce safety risks and property
damage caused by flooding of Cedar
City and agricultural lands, improve
water quality, and address related
resource and amenity issues for the
community. The EIS will analyze the
potential environmental and
socioeconomic impacts of alternatives to
the human environment, as identified in
the NEPA planning process, including
any structural and non-structural
measures that would address resource
concerns in Coal Creek floodplain.
The purpose of this notice is to
request participation and invite
comments from all those individuals
and organizations interested in the
development of the EIS.
Proposed Action: The section of Coal
Creek that traverses through Cedar City,
Utah has channel stability and capacity
deficiencies that pose a threat to
existing infrastructure and
development. Typical summer, fall, and
winter discharges through this section
of Coal Creek range from 5 to 15 cubic
feet per second (cfs). However, intense
summer cloudburst events centered in
the upper Coal Creek watershed during
the past 100 years have resulted in
several flood events with peak
discharges of between 4,000 and 5,000
cfs. The peak snowmelt event on record
is approximately 1,800 cfs.
The NRCS, in cooperation with Cedar
City, proposes to modify portions of the
Coal Creek channel that are located east
of Interstate 15 within the corporate
limits of Cedar City. Channel
modifications are needed to protect
existing infrastructure and development
from damage or loss caused by bank
erosion or flood water from a 100-year
flood event and to eliminate the portion
of the 100-year floodplain located
outside the stream channel, as defined
on existing Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) flood
hazard boundary maps. In conjunction
with needed channel improvements,
one or more irrigation diversion
structures on Coal Creek may have to be
relocated upstream from their current
locations to eliminate existing flooding
hazards. It is an NRCS goal to construct
new diversion facilities that will
E:\FR\FM\11FEN1.SGM
11FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 28 (Friday, February 11, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7226-7227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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-
intermtn-wasatch-cache-evanston-mtnview@fs.fed.us.
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