[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55021-55022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22340]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest; Wisconsin, Grub Hoe 
Vegetation and Transportation Management Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Eagle River-Florence Ranger District intends to prepare an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental 
consequences of proposed vegetation and transportation management 
activities. The Grub Hoe Vegetation and Transportation Management 
Project (Grub Hoe Project) area is approximately 11,640 acres in size; 
about 8,500 acres of this is National Forest System land. The project 
area is located in Florence County, 15 miles southwest of Florence, 
Wisconsin. The legal description is T39N, R15E, Sections 1, 2, 8-17, 
22-24; T39N, R16E, Sections 5-7, 18, 19. See the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section for the purpose and need for the action.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
by October 24, 2008, to receive timely consideration. The draft 
environmental impact statement is expected January 2009, and the final 
environmental impact statement is expected March 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to District Ranger Joel Skerven, Eagle 
River-Florence Ranger District, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, 
1247 East Wall Street, Eagle River, WI 54521. For further information, 
mail correspondence to Christine Brunner, NEPA Coordinator, Eagle 
River-Florence Ranger District, 1247 East Wall Street, Eagle River, WI 
54521.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Action

    The overall purpose of the Grub Hoe Project is to implement land 
management activities consistent with the direction in the 2004 
Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 
(Forest Plan). One purpose for this proposal is to maintain or restore 
upland forest communities and opening to their desired conditions as 
described in Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan; a second purpose is to 
provide an efficient road system. Based on the Forest Plan desired 
future conditions for the area, the following nine needs were 
identified: (1) Increase the diversity of northern hardwood forest 
structure and composition; (2) reduce fragmentation in larger patches 
of northern hardwood forest; improve aquatic ecosystems; (4) improve 
upland forest type composition; (5) improve the aspen age class 
distribution; (6) promote healthy forests; (7) improve habitat for 
early-successional forest dependent wildlife species; (8) contribute 
toward satisfying the demand for wood products; (9) provide a safe, 
efficient, and effective transportation system.

Proposed Action

    In order to address the needs identified above, approximately 3326 
acres of various forest types would be harvested using selection, 
removal, shelterwood, patch clearcut, clearcut, and thin harvest 
methods. As a result of clearcutting three contiguous aspen stands, 
this alternative would result in a temporary opening of approximately 
73 acres. This deviates from a Forest Plan guideline to limit temporary 
openings to 40 acres.
    The second purpose for this proposal is to provide an efficient 
road system that meets the long-term transportation needs of the 
Forest. In order to address need 9 above, approximately 20.8 miles of 
unclassified roads would be decommissioned; 3.9 miles would be 
reconstructed and classified; and 1.4 miles of new road would be 
constructed but closed after project activities are completed.

Possible Alternatives

    Two alternatives to the Proposed Action have been developed in 
response to public comments received. One alternative would result in 
the following changes to the Proposed Action: Eliminate aspen 
conversions to other forest types in all but three stands, clearcutting 
and regenerating them to aspen instead; clearcut and regenerate the two 
stands identified for patch

[[Page 55022]]

clearcutting under the Proposed Action; clearcut and regenerate an 
additional three aspen stands. This alternative would also result in a 
temporary opening of approximately 73 acres.
    Under a second alternative the following activities would be 
deferred: harvesting stands of aspen forest type; potential salvage 
harvesting; harvesting within 124 acres of historic or current goshawk 
or red-shouldered hawk nest sites (the Forest Plan requires at minimum 
a 30-acre nest buffer); road construction and reconstruction.

Responsible Official

    The responsible official for this project is Joel Skjerven, Eagle 
River-Florence District Ranger, 1247 E. Wall Street, Eagle River, WI 
54521.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The decision will be limited to answering the following questions 
based on the environmental analysis: (1) What actions would be used to 
address the purpose and need; (2) where and when will these actions 
occur; and (3) what mitigation measures and monitoring requirements 
would be required.

Scoping Process

    The Chequamegon-Nicolet Forest began the scoping process for this 
project as an environmental assessment during May 2008. Persons and 
organizations on the District's mailing list were sent information 
packages, and a notice was placed in the newspaper of record. The 
project is listed in the Chequamegon-Nicolet Schedule of Proposed 
Actions, and is viewable on the Forest Web page at http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/cnnf/. Click on ``Project Proposals and Decisions,'' 
then ``Grub Hoe Vegetation and Transportation Management Project.''

Preliminary Issues

    The following issues will be analyzed in the EIS: Effects of the 
proposed activities on soils, water, Regional Forester Sensitive 
Species plants and wildlife, and non-native invasive species.

Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides 
the development of the environmental impact statement.
    Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be 
prepared for comment. 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 Corp. 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.
    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 21.

    Dated: September 15, 2008.
Jeanne M. Higgins,
Forest Supervisor.
 [FR Doc. E8-22340 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P