Monroe Mountain Aspen Ecosystems Restoration Project Fishlake National Forest; Sevier and Piute Counties; UT, 60373-60375 [2012-24317]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60373-60375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24317]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Monroe Mountain Aspen Ecosystems Restoration Project Fishlake 
National Forest; Sevier and Piute Counties; UT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; Intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) to document the analysis and disclose the environmental 
impacts of proposed land management

[[Page 60374]]

activities, and corresponding alternatives, within the Monroe Mountain 
Aspen Ecosystems Restoration Project area.
    The purpose of the Monroe Mountain Aspen Ecosystems Restoration 
Project is to implement land management activities that are consistent 
with direction in the Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource 
Management Plan (Forest Plan) and respond to specific needs identified 
in the project area. The project-specific needs include addressing 
aspen decline to restore persistent aspen communities of various age 
classes and sizes with biodiverse understories.
    The Monroe Mountain Aspen Ecosystems Restoration Project area is 
located on National Forest System lands, administered by the Richfield 
Ranger District, southeast of Richfield, Utah. The legal description 
for the project area is: multiple sections in Ranges 1, 2, 2\1/2\ and 3 
West and in Townships 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 South.

DATES: Comments concerning the proposed land management activities 
should be received by November 19, 2012 to receive timely consideration 
in the preparation of the draft EIS.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments concerning the proposed land 
management activities or requests to be placed on the project mailing 
list to: Jason Kling, Attention: Monroe Mountain Aspen Restoration 
Project, Richfield Ranger District, 115 East 900 North, Richfield, Utah 
84701. You are welcome and encouraged to submit electronic comments in 
acceptable formats [plain text (.txt), rich text (.rtf) or Word (.doc)] 
to: comments-intermtn-fishlake-richfield@fs.fed.us.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Kling, Richfield District 
Ranger, 115 East 900 North, Richfield, Utah 84701, phone (435) 896-
9233, fax (435) 896-9347, email: jkling@fs.fed.us. In addition, an Open 
House will be held at the Sevier County Administrative Building in 
Richfield, Utah October 10, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this notice is 
included to help the reviewer determine if they are interested in or 
potentially affected by the proposed land management activities. The 
information presented in this notice is summarized. Those who wish to 
provide comments, or are otherwise interested in or affected by the 
project, are encouraged to obtain additional information from the 
contact identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 
Additionally, project detailed information, including maps, may be 
found on the web at: www. fs.usda.gov/goto/fishlake/projects.
    Proposed Actions--Aspen ecosystem restoration activities are 
proposed in order to restore and sustain aspen in the project area. The 
Richfield Ranger District has identified restoring all aspen ecosystems 
on Monroe Mountain as the primary purpose of this project. To 
accomplish this purpose, the District has identified a need to address 
lack of fire and subsequent conifer encroachment as one of the primary 
underlying causes for aspen decline on Monroe Mountain. To address lack 
of fire and subsequent conifer encroachment on Monroe Mountain, the 
Richfield District is considering a combination of mechanical and/or 
prescribed fire treatments that target approximately 55,106 acres of 
mixed conifer/aspen. Treatments would occur over the next 10 years.
    Restoring all aspen ecosystems on Monroe Mountain would result in 
multiple benefits, which include but are not limited to, improving 
water yield; improving and increasing habitat for wildlife dependent 
upon aspen communities; dispersing the use of aspen stands by 
ungulates; improving native species diversity; reducing hazardous fuel 
accumulations; and reducing the risk for large scale, intense wildland 
fires, which in turn creates an environment with less risk to public 
and firefighter safety.
    Responsible Official--The District Ranger of the Richfield 
District, Fishlake National Forest, Jason Kling, is the Responsible 
Official for making project-level decisions from the project.
    Decision Space--Decision-making will be limited to specific 
activities relating to the proposed actions. The primary decision to be 
made will be whether or not to implement the proposed actions or 
another action alternative that responds to the project's purpose and 
needs.
    Project History--Unsustainable aspen ecosystem conditions include, 
but are not limited to, conifer encroachment due to reduced fire, and 
lack of recruitment due to domestic and wild browsing by cattle, sheep, 
elk and deer. Overbrowsing and absence of fire have been identified as 
the primary underlying causes for aspen ecosystems on Monroe Mountain 
being at risk. Aspen of 5-15 feet height (``recruitment'') are uncommon 
on Monroe Mountain, despite continued sprouting of aspen 
(``regeneration''). Due to high cost and continual maintenance, fencing 
is not a long term sustainable response option for protecting aspen 
sprouts from overbrowsing, and does not address underlying causes of 
the lack of recruitment. Aspen is a keystone species and historically 
was a landscape dominant species on Monroe Mountain. Aspen ecosystems 
support the highest level of biodiversity for interior western forests. 
Productivity of aspen ecosystem understories (grass, forbs, and shrubs) 
is higher than all other forest types. Individual aspen trees arise 
almost exclusively from root suckers and are relatively short-lived 
(i.e., 100-200 years). Aspen is shade intolerant and sprouts heavily 
following disturbance; such as fire, which removes shading effects in 
areas where conifers have become dominant and compete with aspen. 
Mechanical treatments can also be an effective disturbance tool for 
aspen restoration.
    Preliminary Issues--Comments from American Indian tribes, the 
public, and other agencies will be considered in identifying 
preliminary issues. The District has identified and is concerned about 
the following potential issues: prescribed fire near private 
inholdings, mechanical treatments in Inventoried Roadless Areas, 
effects on wildlife species, effects to watersheds and soils, effects 
on vegetation (i.e. impacts to old growth conifer stands, spruce 
plantations and aspen), effects from insects and disease, effects on 
livestock grazing management, overbrowsing of new aspen by domestic 
livestock and wild ungulates following treatments, effects on cultural 
resources, and effects from smoke from prescribed fire.
    Public Participation--This notice of intent initiates the scoping 
process, which will assist with the development of the environmental 
impact statement. The Forest Service is seeking comments from Federal, 
State, and local agencies, as well as local Native American tribes and 
other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or 
affected by the proposed actions. Comments received in response to this 
notice will become a matter of public record. While public 
participation is welcome at any time, comments on the proposed actions 
received within 45 days of this notice will be especially useful in the 
preparation of the draft EIS. Timely comments will be used to identify: 
potential issues with the proposed actions, alternatives to the 
proposed actions that respond to the identified needs and significant 
issues, and potential environmental effects of the proposed actions and 
alternatives considered in detail. In addition, the public is 
encouraged to contact and/or visit Forest Service officials at any time 
during the planning process.
    The decisions associated with the analysis of this project will be

[[Page 60375]]

consistent with the Fishlake Land and Resource Management Plan.
    Estimated Dates for Filing--The draft EIS is expected to be filed 
with the Environmental Protection Agency and available for public 
review in May 2013. A 45-day comment period will follow publication of 
a Notice of Availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register. 
Comments received on the draft EIS will be used in preparation of the 
final EIS, expected in August 2013. A Record of Decision (ROD) will 
also be issued at that time along with the publication of a Notice of 
Availability of the final EIS and ROD in the Federal Register.
    Reviewer's Obligation to Comment--The Forest Service believes it is 
important at this early stage 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 in such a way 
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, 513 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at 
the draft EIS stage but that 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 45-day comment period 
of the draft EIS in order that substantive comments and objections are 
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 in identifying and considering issues and concerns on 
the proposed action, comments should be as specific as possible. 
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: September 24, 2012.
 Jason Kling,
District Ranger, Richfield Ranger District, Fishlake National Forest, 
115 East 900 North, Richfield, Utah 84701.
[FR Doc. 2012-24317 Filed 10-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P