![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Dixie National Forest, Utah, Long Deer Vegetation Management Project
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: August 21, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 54164-54166]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21au02-29]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Dixie National Forest, Utah, Long Deer Vegetation Management
Project
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental Environment Impact
Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service will prepare a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to the South Spruce Ecosystem
Rehabilitation Project EIS (1999) to implement vegetation management
treatments in the spruce/fir forests within the Cedar City Ranger
District, Dixie National Forest, Utah. The agency gives notice of the
full environmental analysis and decision-making process that will occur
on the proposal so that interested and affected people may become aware
of how they can participate in the process and contribute to the final
decision.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received
by thirty days after publication of this Notice of Intent in the
Federal Register. The draft supplemental environmental impact statement
is expected in September 2002. The final supplemental environmental
impact statement is expected in December 2002.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Long Deer Interdisciplinary Team
Leader, Cedar City Ranger District, Dixie National Forest, 1789
Wedgewood, Cedar City, Utah 84720.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Long Deer Interdisciplinary Team
Leader, Cedar City Ranger District, Dixie National Forest, 1789
Wedgewood, Cedar City, Utah 84720.
[[Page 54165]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed project is located in a 10,436
acre analysis area in portions of the Tommy, Duck, and Upper Midway
Creek watersheds. Approximately 7,514 acres of the project area are
forested and 2,922 acres are non-forested. The proposed commercial
conifer treatment areas currently are infested with spruce beetle
(Dendroctonus rufipennis).
The purpose of the project is to harvest approximately 2,443 acres
of dead, dying, and high risk Engelmann spruce trees to recover wood
products that would otherwise be lost, while still meeting desired
resources objectives for the project area. Minor amounts of subalpine
fir trees (less than 15% of the total removed) would also be removed to
encourage open growth, spruce or subalpine fir regeneration, improve
residual stand vigor, or that will likely be damaged or killed during
the removal of the spruce trees.
Rehabilitation of areas heavily impacted by bark beetle mortality
through the completion of natural and artificial regeneration
activities would occur as needed. An estimated 1,000 acres would be
planted with spruce seedlings. Reforestation is essential to providing
for the most rapid progression toward the desired future condition for
forest cover in the project area.
Aspen regeneration of approximately 470 acres is also included in
this proposal. These areas are included with the 2,443 acres of
salvage/improvement treatments. Treatments would include tree removal
followed by burning or mechanical treatment (commercial harvest) with
or without burning.
Within the areas proposed for treatments, approximately 102 acres
would be machine piled and burned and 619 acres would be broadcast
burned to reduce fuels to the desired levels and to help stimulate the
regeneration of aspen.
Travel management is proposed for portions of the project area. The
purpose of this activity is to restore and rehabilitate ecological
values in areas where excessive numbers of open roads exist; primarily
to offset the loss of big game hiding cover from harvest activities.
Moving these portions of the project area toward or below the Land
Resource Management Plan guideline of two miles of open road per square
mile will reduce the adverse environmental impacts associated with
excessive numbers of open roads and loss of cover. A reduction in open
road density will also reduce long-term maintenance costs while
promoting safe, efficient public travel on the open road system. Road
closures would be accomplished with earth and rock barriers, fences, or
gates. The open road density for the analysis area would be reduced
from the current 2.39 miles per square mile to 1.70 miles per square
mile.
Vegetation management treatments involving commercial harvest,
aspen regeneration, and travel management would occur on National
Forest system lands located within portions of section 19, 30-32 of
Township (T) 37 South (S), Range (R) 8 West (W); sections 13, 14, 23-
26, 35, and 36 of T37S, R8\1/2\W; sections 11-14, 23-26, 35 and 36 of
T37S, R9W; sections 1 and 2 of T38S, R9W; and sections 4-6, and 8-10 of
T38S, R8W, Salt Lake City Meridian, Iron and Kane Counties, UT.
The transportation system required to access commercial harvest
areas is in place. All skid trails would be obliterated and may be
seeded upon completion of the project.
The proposed actions would implement management direction,
contribute to meeting the goals and objectives identified in the DNF-
LRMP, and move the project area toward the desired condition. This
project SEIS would be tiered to the Dixie National Forest LRMP EIS
(1986), which provides goals, objectives, standards and guidelines for
the various activities and land allocations on the Forest.
The Forest Service would analyze and document direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental effects for a range of alternatives. Each
alternative would include mitigation measures and monitoring
requirements. One alternative to the proposed action has been
identified at this time. Alternative A was developed to address an
issue identified during scoping. This alternative would close less
roads in order to maintain access to dispersed campsites and popular
off highway vehicle routes. The open road density would be reduced from
the existing 2.39 miles per square mile to 1.80 miles per square mile
under this alternative. All other actions would be identical to the
Proposed Action. No other issue has been identified beyond those
initially identified and analyzed under separate alternatives in the
South Spruce Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project EIS.
Responsible Official: Randy Swick, Acting Forest Supervisor, Dixie
National Forest, is the responsible official. He can be reached by mail
at 1789 Wedgewood, Cedar City, Utah, 84720.
Comments Requested: Comments will continue to be received and
considered throughout the analysis process. Comments received in
response to this notice and through scoping, including names and
addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public
record of this proposed action and will be available for public
inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and
considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have
standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR parts 215 or
217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request
the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing
how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality.
Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the
FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited
circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service
will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the
request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the
agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the
comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within a
specified number of days.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be
prepared for comment. The draft SEIS is expected to be filed with the
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and to be available for public
review. At that time the EPA will publish a notice of availability of
the draft SEIS in the Federal Register. The comment period for the
draft environmental impact statement will be forty-five days from the
date the EPA's notice of availability appears in the Federal Register.
Comments on the draft SEIS should be as specific as possible and may
address the adequacy of the statement or the merits of the alternatives
discussed (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).
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 reviewers' position and
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,
553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could have been raised
at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not
raised until after completion of the final environmental
[[Page 54166]]
impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of
Angoon v. Hodel, (9th Circuit, 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 the time 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 about the proposed action, comments on the draft
supplemental 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 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.
In the final SEIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to
substantive comments and responses received during the comment period
that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the draft
SEIS and applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in
making a decision regarding the proposal. The Responsible Official will
document the decision and rationale for the decision in a Record of
Decision. The final SEIS is scheduled for completion in December, 2002.
The decision will be subject to review under Forest Service Appeal
Regulations.
Dated: August 9, 2002.
Randall G. Swick,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Dixie National Forest.
[FR Doc. 02-21215 Filed 8-20-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M