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

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

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