``Northwest Howell Project'', Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, WI, 30057-30058 [05-10403]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 25, 2005 / Notices
and aesthetic values and fish and
wildlife habitat and otherwise protect
the environment.
Proposed Action: The proposed action
is to re-issue a special use authorization
to Water Supply and Storage to allow
the continued use of Long Draw
Reservoir and Dam.
Lead and Cooperating Agencies: Lead
Agency: USDA Forest Service,
Cooperating Agency: USDI National
Park Service, Rocky Mountain National
Park.
Responsible Official: James S.
Bedwell, Forest Supervisor, Arapaho
and Roosevelt National Forests and
Pawnee National Grassland, 2150 Centre
Avenue, Building E, Fort Collins, CO
80526.
Nature of Decision To Be Made: The
deciding officer will decide whether to
implement the proposed action, take an
alternative action that meets the
purpose and need, or take no action.
Scoping Process: The project will be
included in the Arapaho and Roosevelt
National Forests and Pawnee National
Grasslands quarterly schedule of
proposed actions. Information on the
proposed action will also be posted on
the Forest Web site, https://
www.fs.fed.us/r2/arnf/projects/eaprojects/clrd/index.shtml and will be
advertised in the Denver Post. A scoping
letter will be mailed to a Forest wide
mailing list, known to be interested in
Forest management. Comments
submitted in response to this NOI will
be most useful if received within 30
days from the date of this notice.
Response to the draft EIS will be sought
from the interested public beginning in
September 2006.
Preliminary Issues:
Local Impacts to Stream Flows, Aquatic
Dependent Species and Fish
Directly below the reservoir, changes
in stream channel morphology and
water quantity affect the aquatic
ecosystem and fish habitat. Fish
abundance is often dictated by habitat
conditions that occur during base flow
(winter) periods. Over-winter survival
defines fish population for many
streams. The amounts of stream flow
that occurs during these critical periods
can affect fish densities, biomass species
composition and distribution. The
extended periods of zero flow below
Long Draw Reservoir and the resulting
reduction in habitat represent total loss
of habitat in some locations. These
habitat conditions preclude the
maintenance of self-sustaining fish
populations immediately downstream of
Long Draw Dam.
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:52 May 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
Downstream Impacts to Threatened,
Endangered, Sensitive and Management
Indicator Species
Several threatened and endangered
species found downstream in Colorado
and Nebraska, including fish, birds,
plants and an insect, would likely be
affected based on the previous EIS. The
list of species to be assessed will be
developed with concurrence by the
U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Other species dependent or closely
associated with water from the Rocky
Mountain Region’s Sensitive Species list
and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National
Forests and Pawnee National Grassland
Management Indicator Species list will
also be evaluated for effects due to the
proposed action. Combined with effects
of the many other water development
projects in the North and South Platte
drainages, the project contributes to the
cumulative dewatering of the Platte
River system, which has jeopardy
implications to downstream threatened
and endangered species as identified in
the previous EIS.
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 of 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
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30057
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 503.3 is 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: May 11, 2005.
James S. Bedwell,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05–10377 Filed 5–24–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
‘‘Northwest Howell Project’’,
Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest,
WI
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare a
supplement to the environmental
impact statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: In response to Federal District
Judge Adelman’s April 1, 2005 order
regarding the ‘‘Northwest Howell’’
environmental impact statement and
Record of Decision, I am preparing a
Supplement to the April 2003
‘‘Northwest Howell 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
E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM
25MYN1
30058
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 25, 2005 / Notices
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), ChequamegonNicolet 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 April
14, 2003, District Ranger Butch
Fitzpatrick signed a record of decision
(ROD) and released the final EIS for the
Northwest Howell Project. This EIS and
ROD were challenged in federal district
court by the Habitat Education Center,
Inc. The plaintiffs raised several issues
including the adeqaucy of the
cumulative effects analysis in the FEIS.
On April 1, 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
plaintiff’s. After review of the court’s
findings, CEQ regulations, Forest
Service policy, and a review of the
Northwest Howell FEIS/ROD and
administrative record, I have decided
that the court order and the public can
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
Northwest Howell Record of Decision.
The proposed action and purpose and
need of the Northwest Howell Project
remains unchanged from the April 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:52 May 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 45day 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. 05–10403 Filed 5–24–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
‘‘McCaslin Project’’, ChequamegonNicolet National Forest, WI
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare a
supplement to the environmental
impact statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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), ChequamegonNicolet 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
E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM
25MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30057-30058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-10403]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
``Northwest Howell 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 April 1, 2005
order regarding the ``Northwest Howell'' environmental impact statement
and Record of Decision, I am preparing a Supplement to the April 2003
``Northwest Howell 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
[[Page 30058]]
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 April 14, 2003, District Ranger Butch
Fitzpatrick signed a record of decision (ROD) and released the final
EIS for the Northwest Howell Project. This EIS and ROD were challenged
in federal district court by the Habitat Education Center, Inc. The
plaintiffs raised several issues including the adeqaucy of the
cumulative effects analysis in the FEIS. On April 1, 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 plaintiff's. After review of the
court's findings, CEQ regulations, Forest Service policy, and a review
of the Northwest Howell FEIS/ROD and administrative record, I have
decided that the court order and the public can 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 Northwest Howell Record of
Decision.
The proposed action and purpose and need of the Northwest Howell
Project remains unchanged from the April 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. 05-10403 Filed 5-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
