[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