[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52766-52771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25016]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
