[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30058-30059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-10405]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
``McCaslin Project'', Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, WI
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a supplement to the environmental
impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to Federal District Judge Adelman's March 31, 2005
order regarding the ``McCaslin'' environmental impact statement and
Record of Decision, I am preparing a Supplement to the September 2003
``McCaslin Project'' Final Environmental Impact Statement. Consistent
with the Court's findings, this supplement will clarify and add more
detail to the cumulative effects regarding analysis area boundaries and
other activities as they relate to specific Regional Forester Sensitive
Species that may be affected by the actions considered in the original
Environmental Impact Statement.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received
by June 27, 2005 in order to be fully considered in preparing this
supplemental statement. The draft supplemental environmental impact
statement is expected July, 2005 and the final supplemental
environmental impact statement is expected September, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Anne F. Archie, Forest Supervisor
(Responsible Official), Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, 1170 4th
Avenue S, Park Falls, WI 54552.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Quinn, Forest Environmental
Coordinator, (see address above).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 29, 2003, Deputy Forest
Supervisor Larie Tippin signed a record of decision (ROD) and released
the final EIS for the McCaslin Project. This EIS and ROD were
challenged in federal district court by the Habitat Education Center,
Inc. The plaintiffs raised several issues including the adequacy of the
cumulative effects analysis in the FEIS. On March 31, 2005, United
States Eastern District of Wisconsin Judge Adelman issued his order
granting plaintiff's motion with respect to sufficiency of the
cumulative impacts analysis and affirming the Forest Service's motion
regarding all other issues raised by plaintiffs. After review of the
court's findings, CEQ regulations, Forest Service policy, and a review
of the McCaslin FEIS/ROD and administrative record, I have decided that
the court order and the public can
[[Page 30059]]
best be served by preparing a Supplement to the FEIS.
This notice begins the public involvement process. I will use the
public response plus interdiscplinary team analysis to decide whether
to revise, amend or reaffirm the original McCaslin Record of Decision.
The proposed action and purpose and need of the McCaslin Project
remains unchanged from the October 2003 FEIS. The purpose is to move
the structure and cover of the existing forest closer to desired
conditions described under Forest Plan management direction, and to
provide forest products while doing so. A concurrent purpose is to
eliminate unneeded roads and manage needed roads in a more efficient
and effective way.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review: A draft supplement to the environmental impact
statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft
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 Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,
553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the
draft supplemental environmental impact statement stage but that are
not raised until after completion of the final supplemental
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.
Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who
comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal
and will be available for public inspection.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, Section 20)
Dated: May 19, 2005.
Anne F. Archie,
Forest Supervisor, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.
[FR Doc. 05-10405 Filed 5-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P