62244 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 205 / Monday, October 25, 2004 / Notices 

Hinkle, at the address shown above, no 

later than noon, October 25, 2004. It is 

requested that 50 copies of the written 

statement be submitted at the time of 

the meeting for distribution and 

placement in the official file. 

Persons with comments or 

suggestions should provide Mr. Hinkle, 

at the address shown above, with a 

written copy of their comments no later 

than October 25, 2004.

Signed at Washington, DC: October 15, 

2004. 

James R. Little, 

Administrator, Farm Service Agency.

[FR Doc. 04–23831 Filed 10–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan, Manti-La Sal 

National Forest, Utah

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for a 

revised Land and Resource Management 

Plan for the Manti-La Sal National 

Forest, with portions of the Forest 

located in Utah, Juab, Emery, Carbon, 

Sanpete, Grand, San Juan and Sevier 

Counties in Utah and Mesa and 

Montrose Counties in Colorado. 

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). 

This notice describes the needs for 

change in the current Forest Plan that 

have been identified by Manti-La Sal 

National Forest Supervisor, Alice B. 

Carlton, to be revised; the 

environmental issues to be considered 

in the revision; the estimated dates for 

filing the EIS; 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 December 21, 2004. The 

agency expects to file a Draft EIS in the 

fall of 2005 and a Final EIS in the late 

winter of 2006 or early spring of 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: 

Alice B. Carlton, Forest Supervisor, 

Manti-La Sal National Forest, 599 West 

Price River Drive, Price, Utah 84501.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marlene DePietro, Recreation and 

Planning Staff Officer, Manti-La Sal 

National Forest, (435) 636–3539. 

Responsible Official: Jack Troyer, 

Intermountain Regional Forester, 324 

25th St., Ogden, Utah 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 Manti-La Sal 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 November 5, 1986. 

The Regional Forester gives notice 

that the Manti-La Sal National Forest is 

beginning an environmental analysis 

and the decision-making process for this 

proposed programmatic action to revise 

the Manti-La Sal Forest Plan. 

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. 

Needs for Change in the Current Forest 

Plan 

The current Forest Plan was approved 

17 years ago and has been amended 18 

times. 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. 

• Public involvement has identified 

new information and public values. 

• Monitoring and scientific research 

has identified new information and 

knowledge gained. 

• Forest Plan implementation has 

identified management concerns to find 

better ways for accomplishing desired 

conditions. 

• Changes have occurred in Agency 

policy and direction (i.e., Four Threats, 

Forest Service Strategic Plan). 

In addition to changing public views 

about how these lands should be 

managed, information and the scientific 

understanding of these ecosystems have 

evolved. 

Each need for change was placed into 

one of three categories: required by law, 

requiring immediate attention; or able to 

be postponed and addressed later 

through the continuous assessment 

process. 

Proposed Action 

The following topics are being 

proposed for revision in the Forest Plan. 

Needs for change are addressed in the 

following sections, with a short 

description of what each change entails 

and why it is necessary. The proposed 

action for each topic is identified by 

italics. 

1. Goals and Objectives, Standards and 

Guidelines, and Identification of 

Suitable Uses 

• We propose to clarify and expand, 

where necessary, the description of the 

desired conditions for all physical, 

biological, social, and economic 

components associated with the Forest, 

including addressing the unique 

components of each geographic area. 

The desired conditions will be utilized 

to clarify overall Forest-wide resource 

management goals and facilitate 

development of objectives to reach those 

goals and desired conditions. 

Additionally, these desired conditions 

will identify the Forest’s niche, describe 

how the Forest contributes to the 

broader vision for the Intermountain 

Region and the Forest Service as a 

whole, and provide a vision of the 

Forest’s contribution to the human 

dimension. 

• We propose to identify objectives 

that when implemented will take the 

Forest resources and uses toward 

desired conditions. These objectives 

will be developed considering realistic 

future budget expectations and will be 

based on expected personnel 

availability to implement projects to 

meet the objectives. 

• We propose to redefine the 

management boundaries, identifying 

geographic areas that will provide a 

sense of place for the local publics and 

communities, as well as other recreating 

publics, when discussing activities and 

uses within them. Forest-wide and 

geographic area suitable uses will be 

identified. 

2. Monitoring and Evaluation 

Requirements 

Evaluation and monitoring provide 

knowledge and information to keep the 

Forest Plan viable. The appropriate 

selection of indicators, and monitoring 

and evaluation of key results helps 

determine if Forest Plan management 

direction is being met. Evaluation and 

monitoring also helps determine if there 

should be changes made to the goals 

and objectives, or monitoring methods. 

The tie between monitoring and 

Forest Plan desired conditions, goals, 

and objectives needs to be strengthened. 

Priorities need to be established for 

monitoring elements to ensure that 

important items are accomplished with 

available funding. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 205 / Monday, October 25, 2004 / Notices 62245

Federal Regulations (36 CFR 219.19) 

require forests to select management 

indicator species (MIS). Management 

indicator species in the current Forest 

Plan were selected because their habitat 

requirements encompass a diverse range 

of conditions. Monitoring and 

management experience with MIS since 

the Plan was implemented indicate that 

some species may not be the best 

indicator for the habitat they were 

chosen to represent; their population 

trends may be affected by factors other 

than forest management; they are 

difficult to monitor accurately; and/or 

monitoring techniques were so complex 

they could not be adequately completed 

within present forest budgets. A revised 

list will better indicate the effects of 

management activities on fish and 

wildlife habitats. 

• We propose to develop a 

meaningful, realistic, and 

implementable monitoring and 

evaluation program, focusing 

monitoring activities on required 

monitoring items (meet intent of law), 

eliminating duplicate monitoring 

requirements, and developing 

reasonable reporting schedules. 

• We propose to revise the list of 

Management Indicator Species (MIS).

3. Recommendations to Congress of 

Areas Eligible for Wilderness 

Designation 

The regulations implementing the 

National Forest Management Act (36 

CFR 219.17) require that ‘‘roadless areas 

* * * shall be evaluated and considered 

for recommendation as potential 

wilderness areas during the forest 

planning process.’’ The 1984 Utah 

Wilderness Act (Pub. L. 98–428) also 

requires that a roadless inventory be 

completed during forest plan revision. 

Further requirements for evaluation and 

designation of wilderness are in the 

Forest Service Manual (FSM 1923, FSM 

2320) and Handbook (FSH 1909.12, 

Chapter 7). The Manti-La Sal National 

Forest has completed the draft roadless 

area inventory. 

The awareness of ecological and 

social values associated with roadless 

areas has increased since the 

development of the current Forest Plan. 

Roadless areas meeting the criteria for 

potential wilderness recommendation 

will be evaluated accordingly. Suitable 

uses will be determined for areas not 

recommended to Congress for 

wilderness designation. 

• We propose to evaluate inventoried 

roadless areas for wilderness potential 

and make wilderness recommendations 

as appropriate. 

• We propose to develop management 

direction and identify suitable uses for 

roadless areas that are not 

recommended for wilderness 

designation. 

4. Re-evaluation of Lands Not Suited for 

Timber Production 

• We propose to review all forested 

lands to determine those lands deemed 

not suited for timber production as 

required by NFMA (36 CFR 219.14). 

• We propose to review and adjust as 

necessary the long-term sustained yield 

capacity, and in turn the allowable sale 

quantity as appropriate, in response to: 

a. Changes in forest growing stock 

resulting from insect-related mortality. 

b. Proposed changes in management 

direction for forest resources, as 

appropriate. 

c. Final identification of lands suited 

for timber production. 

5. Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 

1968 (Pub. L. 90–542) was enacted to 

protect and preserve, in their freeflowing 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 March 2003, the 

Manti-La Sal National Forest, in 

consultation with tribal governments 

and State and other Federal agencies, 

completed an eligibility determination 

of all of the rivers on the Forest. 

Fourteen rivers segments were found to 

be free-flowing and to possess at least 

one outstandingly remarkable value, 

making them eligible for a suitability 

analysis and potential recommendation 

for designation into the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System. 

• We propose to complete the 

suitability analysis on the Fish Creek 

and Gooseberry Creek, lower left fork of 

Huntington Creek, Huntington Creek, 

Hammond Canyon, and the north fork of 

Whiskers (including Whiskers Draw) 

eligible river segments during Forest 

Plan revision. We propose to develop 

interim direction for management of 

activities and uses that have the 

potential to affect the outstandingly 

remarkable values for the remaining 

nine eligible river segments. This 

interim direction will be utilized for 

management of each river segment until 

the suitability analysis can be 

completed (post-revision), at which time 

the segment will either be 

recommended for inclusion in the Wild 

and Scenic River System or not. 

6. Areas Where Change May Be Needed 

The Forest Supervisor, Forest 

Leadership Team, and Forest Plan 

Interdisciplinary team have identified 

four major topics the Forest proposes to 

address during Forest Plan revision. 

Those major topics are: 

• Recreation Management 

• Watershed Health 

• Minerals Management 

• Fire/Fuels Management 

The needs for change in these 

resource areas are evident. Because the 

solutions may generate some 

controversy or multiple solution 

possibilities, alternatives will be 

developed to determine the type and 

amount of change. 

a. Recreation Management 

By mid-century our Nation’s 

population is projected to increase by 

nearly 50 percent. Simultaneously, 

public access to privately owned 

forestland is expected to continue to 

decline. This situation will increase the 

pressure on public lands to provide 

recreational opportunities. If public 

lands are to meet increased demand for 

recreational opportunities without 

experiencing unacceptable impacts to 

resources, emphasis must be placed on 

effective management solutions. In 

particular, it is critical that management 

of off-highway vehicle access and use 

on National Forest System lands is 

improved to preserve high-quality 

experiences for all recreational users. 

The Forest Plan stated that over the 

planning period new developed sites 

would be constructed on average of 

about 20 PAOTS (people at one time) 

each year. In actuality, new construction 

occurred in the form of hardened 

dispersed sites that provide the social 

setting people desire while providing 

the resource protection needed to allow 

intensive use of these areas. The current 

Forest Plan predicted the demand for 

developed recreation facilities would 

occasionally exceed supply. The 

capacity of developed recreation 

facilities has not been exceeded. The 

public’s demand for an unconfined 

camping experience has resulted in 

more and larger dispersed recreation 

sites across the Forest.

Beyond the issue of developed and 

dispersed recreation, the Forest Plan 

does not discuss the necessity of 

providing a broad range of recreation 

opportunities that would ensure the 

breadth of recreational experiences in a 

natural setting would be available for 

future generations. 

62246 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 205 / Monday, October 25, 2004 / Notices 

Current Forest Plan direction focused 

on construction issues and occasionally 

on overall capacities using Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes to 

set limits for both dispersed recreation 

and trail use. The Plan did not 

anticipate dispersed recreation and offhighway vehicles as dominant forms of 

recreation on the Forest. Current 

direction focuses on recreation 

management units (Developed 

Recreation Sites, Undeveloped 

Motorized Areas, Semi-Primitive 

Recreation Areas) and does not provide 

guidance for ROS classes currently 

available on the Forest. The current ROS 

map is outdated and does not reflect 

opportunities available on the Forest. A 

new ROS inventory is needed to ensure 

that all recreation settings available are 

maintained to provide a variety of 

opportunities into the future. 

The Forest Plan does not provide 

adequate recreation guidelines or 

direction for the management of winter 

recreation activities. Increased winter 

use of the Forest has led to conflicts 

between motorized users and 

nonmotorized recreationists. The best 

areas for motorized winter use are also 

the best areas for nonmotorized use. 

Resource damage often takes place 

when unauthorized motorized or 

mechanized use occurs off designated 

routes. Current trail definitions (FSH 

2309.18) do not distinguish width 

requirements for the range of offhighway vehicles. Off-highway vehicle 

routes can range from singletrack to 

doubletrack to roads depending on the 

vehicle type. 

The Forest has issued numerous 

Outfitter and Guide (O&G) permits 

covering a variety of activities including 

guided hunts, mountain bike and OHV 

touring, and other recreation related 

activities. A demand for additional 

permits exists. A capacity study will be 

completed later as a Continuous 

Assessment and Planning (CAP) project 

to determine the need and capacity for 

outfitted recreational activities. 

• We propose to emphasize 

management of dispersed recreation 

opportunities to address user conflicts 

and minimize resource impacts, while 

providing the recreational opportunities 

sought by the public. 

• We propose to identify desired 

recreation environments using the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

(ROS). Management direction would be 

expanded for recreation opportunities 

and settings in both winter and summer 

seasons that balance current and 

anticipated visitor needs while 

sustaining or enhancing resources. 

Suitable recreational opportunities 

would be identified within each 

geographic area. 

• We propose to clarify management 

direction for roads, off-highway vehicle 

routes, and hiking/biking trail systems. 

• We propose to develop direction to 

facilitate the determination of how 

outfitter/guide operations may be 

utilized to provide recreational 

opportunities for that segment of the 

recreating public who require such 

services to experience the variety of 

recreational opportunities available on 

the Forest. 

b. Watershed Health 

Conservation of the soil and water 

resources of forest ecosystems is vital to 

all aspects of sustainable resource 

management. These resources, the 

building blocks of all ecosystems, are 

also the most complex elements in the 

landscape to consistently and 

comprehensively assess. 

Water Resources 

Streams: Management direction for 

mineral resources, in part, emphasizes 

protection for perennial sections of the 

drainage network that support aquatic 

life. The Plan does not address 

management of activities or permitted 

uses within intermittent and ephemeral 

stream reaches and springs, the source 

areas for perennial stream segments. 

Streambank trampling, in areas of 

concentrated livestock and recreational 

use, is resulting in soil compaction, the 

loss of stabilizing vegetation, 

streambank erosion, increased sediment 

delivery, and changes in channel 

structure and function. 

Springs: In some instances, uses of 

and activities that occur around spring 

developments (by wildlife, livestock, 

and recreation activities) are resulting in 

undesirable effects to soil, vegetation, 

wildlife habitats, and riparian 

ecosystems. In addition, spring 

developments involving flow diversions 

are affecting the dependent, associated 

riparian ecosystem as surface flows are 

reduced and/or diverted. 

Wetlands: Wetlands are included in 

the general definition and management 

direction for riparian areas. The Plan 

does not separate wetlands from other 

riparian areas to reflect their unique 

soils, vegetation, landform, sensitivity to 

disturbances, recovery potentials, and 

legal protections.

Proper Use Criteria: The proper use 

criteria for rangelands in the current 

Plan lacks the specificity recommended 

by the Regional Office to provide for the 

desired resource conditions on lands 

affected by grazing and browsing 

animals. 

Concerns have arisen over the 

sustainability of riparian and upland 

browse species due to browsing 

pressure on young plants, the effects of 

streambank trampling, the physiological 

differences of hydric and non-hydric 

species in the greenline, and the 

inconsistency in definition and 

terminology for soil disturbance in the 

riparian zone. 

Soil Productivity: Increasing 

knowledge and understanding has led to 

a greater emphasis on long-term soil 

productivity. Management direction in 

the current Plan does not address the 

role of effective ground cover and above 

ground organic matter, which protects 

and/or contributes nutrients to the soil 

resource. 

Water Quality/Quantity: Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) have 

been developed in cooperation with the 

Utah Department of Environmental 

Quality and other State and Federal 

agencies as part of a statewide NonPoint Source Management Plan for 

Silvicultural Activities. This plan 

identifies standard management 

practices to reduce non-point source 

pollution from silvicultural activities. 

These standard practices, which are not 

addressed in the current Plan, can 

provide similar soil/water protection 

from other management activities and 

permitted uses. 

Since the current Plan was approved, 

some stream segments on the Forest 

have been identified as water quality 

impaired under the Clean Water Act. 

These impaired stream segments are 

known as 303d waterbodies. The 

current Plan does not address 303d 

waterbodies. 

The Forest Plan is too general to 

secure favorable water flow to meet 

Forest purposes and to sustain 

ecological functions. Forest specialists 

have identified concerns regarding 

continued water depletions and/or 

diversions and their effects on highvalue aquatic sites such as riparian 

areas, recreational streams, Colorado 

cutthroat conservation/recovery 

watersheds, wetlands, wild and scenic 

rivers, research natural areas, and other 

water dependent sites. 

Municipal Watershed Management 

Numerous municipalities depend on 

the Forest for all or a portion of their 

culinary water. The Plan currently 

identifies only a small fraction of the 

actual municipal water sources under 

the municipal water supply (MWS) 

management prescription. The Plan is 

inconsistent in its identification and 

management direction for municipal 

water supply areas. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 205 / Monday, October 25, 2004 / Notices 62247

As per the 1996 amendment to the 

Safe Drinking Water Act, all 

municipalities are required to identify 

their drinking water source areas, 

evaluate the risk of accidental 

contamination, and develop source 

protection plans accordingly. Drinking 

water source protection plans have not 

been evaluated to ensure Forest Service 

management activities or permitted uses 

do not jeopardize drinking water source 

areas. 

While Forest Plan direction seems 

generally adequate, it does promote 

vegetation management for the 

protection of municipal water supply 

areas from catastrophic events, such as 

wildland fire, which may result in largescale impacts to vegetation, soil, and 

ultimately, water quality and water 

supply system infrastructure. 

• We propose to clarify desired 

conditions and strengthen existing 

direction for management of activities 

and uses within stream-side riparian 

areas, wetlands, and springs, including 

emphasizing the need to provide for 

water quality/quantity needs for 

ecosystems and threatened and 

endangered species. Specific items we 

propose to address include: 

(a) Clarify appropriate protections for 

perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral 

stream reaches, with an emphasis on 

management of activities and uses 

within habitat associated with aquatic 

environments. 

(b) Clarify direction limiting 

streambank alteration to levels which 

minimize effects to streambank soils 

and vegetation, allowing streams to 

maintain normal channel morphology 

and function. 

(c) Clarify and update direction for 

spring developments to include 

protection for wildlife, the spring source 

area, and the associated riparian area. 

(d) Clarify direction, as appropriate, to 

sustain and protect wetland function 

and values. 

(e) Revise proper use criteria to ensure 

livestock grazing is managed to meet 

desired conditions for browse species, 

hydric and non-hydric species in the 

greenline, and ensure sufficient ground 

cover in riparian zones. 

(f) Incorporate description and role of 

effective ground cover and above 

ground organic matter. 

(g) Incorporate direction from Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) for soil 

and water resources, as appropriate. 

(h) Incorporate direction for 303d 

listed waterbodies to ensure 

management activities or permitted uses 

do not contribute to further degradation 

or new listings. 

(i) Include direction for qualifying 

and quantifying consumptive and nonconsumptive water needs for instream 

flows, in-place standing water, and 

conservation pools. To facilitate 

identification of suitable uses, we 

propose to develop criteria to identify 

sites where water developments, 

diversions, and occupancy to divert may 

be prohibited, or situations where 

mitigation may be required to protect 

and provide for National Forest 

resources and uses. 

(j) Clarify direction for management of 

suitable uses within those areas where 

municipal water sources areas exist.

c. Minerals Management 

Oil and Gas Leasing: The Nation’s 

forests play a significant role in meeting 

America’s need for the production and 

transmission of energy. Unless 

otherwise restricted, National Forest 

System lands are available for energy 

exploration and development. The Oil 

and Gas Leasing FEIS made a 

determination of areas not available for 

leasing (NAL) and identified a number 

of sensitive resources that require 

protection through stipulations. The 

Record Of Decision on Oil and Gas 

Leasing stated decisions that designated 

lands as not available for leasing would 

be revisited. Current leasing stipulations 

should be reviewed relative to current 

laws and agency roles. 

Coal Suitability: Federal regulations 

(43 CFR 3420.1–4) require: (1) 

identification of areas acceptable for 

further consideration for coal leasing 

take place during forest planning or in 

a land use analysis, and (2) a land use 

plan contain an estimate of the amount 

of coal recoverable by either surface or 

underground mining operations or both. 

Coal unsuitability criteria and changes 

in other resources (such as additional 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species) require a review of 

unsuitability, and management 

direction revised based on the review. 

Common Variety Minerals: Demand 

for common variety minerals (gravel, 

sand, and stone) is expected to increase. 

Because of limited supplies of common 

variety mineral sources, Forest Service 

and local government needs should be 

considered over commercial uses by 

private developers. Criteria for issuing 

free-use permits to other agencies, local 

governments, and the public for noncommercial uses of common variety 

minerals are not discussed in the Plan. 

Mine Reclamation: Several abandoned 

uranium/vanadium mines and other 

mining area sites have been inventoried 

for reclamation. These abandoned mines 

present a hazard and are sources of 

potentially polluting materials. 

Gypsum: The existence of gypsum 

deposits is not acknowledged in the 

1986 Forest Plan. 

Paleontological Resources: The MantiLa Sal National Forest contains a large 

variety of invertebrate and vertebrate, as 

well as plant fossils. Regulations 

provide for protection of paleontological 

resources (e.g., fossils). The Forest Plan 

does not provide direction for issuing 

permits or for the documentation and 

curation of discoveries. 

• We propose to review areas 

currently identified as Not 

Administratively Available for Leasing 

(NAL), review oil/gas (including 

coalbed methane) leasing and 

occupancy stipulations, and clarify/

update as needed. 

• We propose to review coal leasing 

unsuitability criteria and determine if 

any additional lands are unsuitable for 

leasing or if any previously identified 

suitable areas are now unsuitable. We 

also propose to: 

(a) Incorporate estimates of remaining 

recoverable coal reserves. 

(b) Review and clarify/update coal 

stipulations. 

(c) Identify areas for withdrawal as 

appropriate. 

• We propose to focus management of 

common variety minerals for Forest, 

local government, or small/limited 

personal use, and limit commercial use 

or development. 

• We propose to emphasize 

reclamation of abandoned mines. 

• We propose to update locatable 

minerals definition and management 

direction to include gypsum. 

• We propose to clarify direction for 

management of paleontological 

resources (such as research 

opportunities and interpretation). 

d. Fire and Fuels Management 

New policy and legislation has been 

enacted since the Utah Fire Amendment 

updated fire management direction in 

the Forest Plan. The amendment was 

approved prior to the National Fire Plan 

(2001), the 10-Year Comprehensive 

Wildland Fire Strategy (2001), the 

Healthy Forests Initiative (2000), and 

the Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

(2003). 

Residential communities and 

recreation residences continue to 

expand into areas within and around 

the boundaries of the Manti-La Sal 

National Forest. This boundary zone 

between forestland and developed, 

private lands is known as the wildlandurban interface. The wildland-urban 

interface has been recognized as a high 

priority area for fire and fuels 

management given the risks to life and 

property from wildfire. The current 

62248 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 205 / Monday, October 25, 2004 / Notices 

Forest Plan does not address 

management of the wildland-urban 

interface to provide a defensible space 

from wildland fire.

• We propose to review and update 

the Forest Plan, as necessary, to reflect 

current policy, legislation, and 

terminology for fire and hazardous fuel 

management. This will include a fire 

regime/condition class assessment and 

identification of management direction 

for vegetation and fuel treatments 

within the wildland-urban interface. 

Criteria may be developed to facilitate 

identification of priority treatment areas 

in coordination with the local 

communities. 

Topics Where Existing Direction Does 

Not Fully Convey the Intent of Forest 

Plan, Ecosystem Management, Four 

Threats, and Strategic Plan Goals 

How management of each of these 

resource areas contributes to addressing 

Forest Plan, Ecosystem Management, 

Four Threats, and Forest Service 

Strategic Plan goals were considered in 

identifying specific items associated 

with each resource area to be addressed 

through revision. 

Forest and Rangeland Health/Condition 

Invasive Species: Invasive species 

such as cheat grass and tamarisk are 

present on the Forest. Forest users and 

management activities have the 

potential to introduce or spread invasive 

species. The current Plan does not 

address invasive species. 

Noxious Weeds: Current Plan 

direction focuses more heavily on 

noxious weed control than prevention. 

Forest users and management activities 

continue to contribute to the 

establishment and spread of noxious 

weeds. 

Native Seed Collection: The Manti-La 

Sal National Forest offers several 

permits for the collection of native seed, 

much of which is used for revegetation 

projects on State and Federal lands. 

Forest resource specialists have voiced 

concerns regarding the collection of 

native seed such as collection in 

protected areas, timing and method of 

harvest, plant and seed depletions from 

continuous harvesting, and accuracy in 

seed source identification. The current 

Plan does not provide direction 

regarding the collection of native seed. 

• We propose to incorporate 

objectives for invasive species and 

noxious weeds that focus on prevention, 

early detection, and control to restrict 

their colonization and expansion on the 

Forest. 

• We propose to incorporate direction 

for the collection of native seed to 

address protection of Forest resources. 

Terrestrial and Aquatic Species 

The current Forest Plan addresses 

many of the key indicators of biological 

diversity. These indicators are largely 

described and analyzed as separate 

functional entities. There is little 

information as to how these indicators 

interact with one another and with 

natural processes, particularly at the 

broad, forest-level scale. 

The Northern Goshawk Amendment 

provided specific direction for activities 

occurring around active goshawk nests. 

The current Plan does not provide 

standards for habitat management or 

protection measures for other raptor 

species. Under the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act, Eagle Protection Act, and 

Endangered Species Act, the Forest is 

required to protect raptors, their nests, 

or eggs. 

• We propose to clarify/update 

management direction for species and 

communities in which they occur (the 

whole instead of pieces). As 

appropriate, management direction will 

be incorporated from approved 

conservation agreements and strategies 

for threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive terrestrial and aquatic species 

found on the Forest. 

• We propose to provide direction 

that contributes to the maintenance/

improvement of native species habitat 

on National Forest System lands. 

• We propose to incorporate guidance 

for management activities and permitted 

uses around active raptor nest sites (for 

species other than northern goshawk) 

from nest site selection to fledging. 

Topics Where Existing Direction is 

Inconsistent With Meeting Agency 

Direction 

This topic represents inadequate or 

outdated Forest Plan direction that 

should be updated to bring the Forest 

Plan current with national direction. 

Scenery Management 

The current Forest Plan includes 

Forest-wide standards that were 

developed under the Visual 

Management System (1974). In 1995, the 

Forest Service adopted the Scenery 

Management System (SMS). The new 

system is designed to incorporate 

ecological concepts and valued cultural 

features to better address and 

complement other resource needs and 

management strategies. In response to 

an appeal on November 18, 1993, an 

agreement between the Forest Service, 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and 

Owen Severance was reached stating 

that the Forest Service would complete 

a visual resource inventory for the 

Monticello Ranger District prior to 

revision of the Forest Plan. 

• We propose to develop scenery 

management objectives as part of the 

desired conditions, which will utilize 

an inventory of landscape character, 

visual sensitivity, and scenic integrity. 

These attributes, along with the 

objectives, will provide the framework 

for the Scenery Management System.

Heritage Resources 

While Forest Plan direction is 

adequate and appropriate to meet the 

basic requirements of section 106 of the 

law, new legislation, agency direction, 

and trends in public use warrant review 

and revision of current Forest Plan 

direction. Forest-wide direction does 

not address changes in the areas of tribal 

consultation and provide emphasis on 

the requirements of Section 110 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

• We propose to clarify objectives for 

cultural resource areas and provide 

direction for the proactive 

identification, preservation, and 

nomination to the National Register of 

Historic Properties of historical and 

archeological properties on lands within 

the Forest’s jurisdiction. 

Topics Where Corrections Would Not 

Require Significant Revision Resources 

Addressing the following topics 

during revision would simplify and 

clarify the intent of the Forest Plan and 

would likely not require significant 

resource expenditures. 

• Remove administrative or 

procedural direction to reduce 

redundancy of agency requirements. 

• Correct typographical and 

description errors. These editorial 

corrections, clarifications, and updates 

will result in more accurate Forest Plan. 

• Eliminate objectives and 

implementation schedules that are not 

required. Many of the objectives and 

schedules in the existing Forest Plan are 

not required and are quickly out-of-date. 

• Eliminate redundant monitoring 

requirements. 

• Update acreages and other ‘‘Current 

Situation’’ data in the Forest Plan. 

• Move management direction for 

paleontological resources from the 

Heritage program to the Minerals 

program. 

• Clarify direction to allow for 

flexibility in determining a grazing 

system strategy dependent on allotment 

needs. 

• Assess rangeland capability as per 

current national and regional direction 

using current data and technology. 

• Clarify timber management 

direction to provide for the protection of 

aspen regeneration projects. 

• Update special designations list 

with research natural areas and special 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 205 / Monday, October 25, 2004 / Notices 62249

interest areas designated since current 

Forest Plan implementation and 

incorporate management direction for 

these areas as found in establishment 

records. 

Topics Not Addressed in the Forest 

Plan Revision That Will Be Addressed 

Through the Continuous Assessment 

and Planning (CAP) Process 

The following topics are areas where 

existing management direction needs to 

be clarified, refined, or changed. 

Addressing these topics during Forest 

Plan revision would require significant 

resources. These topics are better 

addressed at a later time and may need 

to be analyzed at a different scale.

CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING PROJECTS (CAP) 

Lands .................................................................... • Review and update guidance for long-term use or occupancy, such as utility corridor designations and communication sites. Evaluate and designate new sites as appropriate. 

• Develop a Land Adjustment Plan. 

• Prepare a Rights-of-Way Acquisition Plan. 

Recreation ............................................................ • Complete a capacity analysis for the land to accommodate outfitter and guide services. 

• Establish use capacity in some areas of the forest to minimize conflicts and ensure quality 

experiences. 

• Develop a recreation facilities master plan. 

• Develop a recreation and trails business plan. 

Watershed health ................................................. • Review municipal drinking water source protection plans and develop management direction as appropriate. 

Special interest areas ........................................... • Evaluate potential Special Interest Areas (SIAs). 

Æ Maple Canyon, White Mountain, Maloy Park, and Little Dry Mountain have been identified by Forest specialists for potential SIA designation. 

• Evaluate proposed expansion of Mont E Lewis Botanical Area. 

• Identify and review archeological resource sites for potential SIA designation. 

Research natural areas ........................................ • Evaluate potential and proposed research natural areas (RNAs). Sinbad Ridge has been 

proposed by the Nature Conservancy for RNA designation. 

Transportation ....................................................... • Update the travel management plan. system management 

• Complete watershed scale roads analyses. 

Wilderness management ...................................... • Develop a wilderness plan for Dark Canyon Wilderness. 

• Analyze capacity study and set group size limits to mitigate the impacts on wilderness resources. 

Wild and scenic rivers suitability .......................... • Complete suitability analysis for the nine remaining eligible river segments. 

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 public 

comments. 

Involving the Public 

The Forest Service is seeking 

information, comments and assistance 

from individuals, organizations, tribal 

governments, and Federal, State, and 

local agencies that 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. Public participation activities 

include 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). Five 

public collaborative forums will be 

scheduled in early November 2004. The 

locations and exact dates/times have yet 

to be determined. When locations, dates 

and times have been arranged, the 

public will be notified through mailings, 

news releases, and public notices. 

Release and Review of the EIS 

The Draft EIS is expected to be filed 

with the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and will be available for 

public comment in the late fall/early 

winter of 2005. 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 EPA publishes the 

Notice of Availability in the Federal 

Register, as required by 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 and 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 in 

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 to the Counsel on 

Environmental Quality Regulations for 

62250 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 205 / Monday, October 25, 2004 / Notices 

1See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 

69 FR 30874 (June 1, 2004)(‘‘Initiation Notice’’).

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/summer of 

2007. 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 Troyer, Intermountain 

Regional Forester, is the responsible 

official for this EIS.

Dated: October 8, 2004. 

Alice B. Carlton, 

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 04–23210 Filed 10–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

Eastern Washington Cascades 

Provincial Advisory Committee and the 

Yakima Provincial Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Eastern Washington 

Cascades Provincial Advisory 

Committee and the Yakima Provincial 

Advisory Committee will meet on 

Wednesday, November 10, 2004, at the 

Sunnyslope Fire Station, Rural County 

Fire District #1, 206 Easy Street, 

Wenatchee, Washington. The meeting 

will begin at 9 a.m. and continue until 

3 p.m. During this meeting we will 

share information on new developments 

relating to the Northwest Forest Plan, an 

update on Burned Area Recovery 

projects, report on fuels reduction and 

fuels accomplishments in 2004, discuss 

the Healthy Forest Restoration Act as it 

relates to the Okanogan and Wenatchee 

National Forest, and discuss future 

needs for a Snoqualimie Pass Adaptive 

Management Area Subcommittee. All 

Eastern Washington Cascades and 

Yakima Province Advisory Committee 

meetings are open to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions regarding this meeting 

to Paul Hart, Designated Federal 

Official, USDA, Wenatchee National 

Forest, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, 

Washington 98801, 509–664–9200.

Dated: October 19, 2004. 

Paul Hart, 

Designated Federal Official, Okanogan and 

Wenatchee National Forests.

[FR Doc. 04–23812 Filed 10–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

Glenn/Colusa County Resource 

Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Glenn/Colusa County 

Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) 

will meet in Willows, California. 

Agenda items to be covered include: (1) 

Introductions, (2) Approval of Minutes, 

(3) Public Comment, (4) Welcome New 

Members, (5) Web site Update, (6) 

General Discussion, (7) Next Agenda.

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

October 25, 2004, from 1:30 p.m. and 

end at approximately 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Mendocino National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office, 825 N. Humboldt 

Ave., Willows, CA 95988. Individuals 

wishing to speak or propose agenda 

items must send their names and 

proposals to Jim Giachino, DFO, 825 N. 

Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bobbin Gaddini, Committee 

Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino 

National Forest, Grindstone Ranger 

District, P.O. Box 164, Elk Creek, CA 

95939. (530) 968–5329; EMAIL 

ggaddini@fs.fed.us.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

meeting is open to the public. 

Committee discussion is limited to 

Forest Service staff and Committee 

members. However, persons who wish 

to bring matters to the attention of the 

Committee may file written statements 

with the Committee staff before or after 

the meeting. Public input sessions will 

be provided and individuals who made 

written requests by October 22, 2004 

will have the opportunity to address the 

committee at those sessions.

Dated: October 18, 2004. 

James F. Giachino, 

Designated Federal Official.

[FR Doc. 04–23811 Filed 10–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–845]

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

from Japan; Final Results of the 

Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: AGENCY:Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of 

Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless 

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 

Japan.

SUMMARY: On June 1, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

stainless sheet and strip in coils 

(‘‘SSSSC’’) from Japan pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). On the basis of 

a notice of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of domestic interested parties and 

inadequate response from respondent 

interested parties, the Department 

conducted an expedited (120–day) 

sunset review. As a result of this sunset 

review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

The dumping margins are identified in 

the Final Results of Review section of 

this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hilary E. Sadler, Esq., Office of Policy 

for Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4340.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background:

On June 1, 2004, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on SSSSC from Japan.1 On June 

16, 2004, the Department received a 

Notice of Intent to Participate from 

Nucor Corporation; Allegheny Ludlum 

Corporation; North American Stainless; 

the United Steelworkers of America, 

AFL–CIO; the local 3303 United Auto 

Workers; and Zanesville Armco 

Independent Organization, Inc. 

(collectively ‘‘domestic interested