``McCaslin Project'', Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, WI, 30058-30059 [05-10405]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 25, 2005 / Notices
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 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:52 May 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Revision of Land Management Plan,
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and
Gunnison National Forests, Located In
West-Central Colorado
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Grand Mesa,
Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National
Forests (GMUG) will exercise its option
to adjust its land management plan
revision process from compliance with
the 1982 planning regulations, to
conformance with new planning
regulations adopted in January 2005.
This adjustment will have the following
effects:
1. The new rule redefines forest plans
to be more strategic and flexible to
better facilitate adaptive management
and public collaboration.
2. The new rule focuses more on the
goals of ecological, social, and economic
sustainability and less on prescriptive
means of producing goods and services.
3. The Responsible Official who will
approve the final plan will now be the
Forest Supervisor instead of the
Regional Forester.
4. The GMUG will establish an
environmental management system (per
ISO 14001:2004(E)) prior to completion
of the revised forest plan.
5. Upon completion of final
rulemaking, the planning and decisionmaking process may be categorically
excluded from analysis and
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30059
documentation in an environmental
impact statement and record of decision
(see draft rule at 70 FR 1062, January 5,
2005.
6. The emphasis on public
involvement will shift from public
comment on a range of alternative plans,
to an iterative public-Forest Service
collaboration process intended to yield
a single broadly supported plan.
7. Administrative review has changed
from a post-decision appeals process to
a pre-decision objection process.
Public Involvement: There has been a
great deal of public participation and
collaborative work on this planning
process over the past few years,
including more than 60 public meetings.
Results of this work and a detailed
proposed action are available for review
and comment. Current information and
details of upcoming public participation
opportunities are posted on our Web
site: https://www.fs.fed.us/r2/gmug/
policy/plan_rev/.Contact Anne Janik at
(970) 874–6637, or e-mail at,
ajanik@fs.fed.us to be placed on our
mailing list.
ADDRESSES: Physical location: GMUG
Forest Planning, 2250 Highway 50,
Delta CO, 81416; or by e-mail:
r2_GMUG_planning@fs.fed.us.
Gary
Shellhorn, Analysis Team Leader,
GMUG National Forest, (970) 874–6666
or e-mail: gshellhorn@fs.fed.us; or view
our Web site at https://www.fs.fed.us/r2/
gmug/policy/plan_rev/.
DATES: Transition is effective
immediately upon publication of this
notice in the Federal Register.
Responsible Official: Charles S.
Richmond, Forest Supervisor, Grand
Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison
National Forest, 2250 Highway 50, Delta
CO, 81416.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Grand
Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison
National Forests (GMUG) are managed
as a single administrative unit. In
September of 1999, the GMUG formally
initiated its land management plan
revision process with publication of a
notice of intent to prepare and
environmental impact statement for
plan revision (64 FR 52266, September
28, 1999). After the initiation, several
delays were experienced due to budget
and administrative matters. When plan
revision began in earnest in 2002, the
GMUG began an extensive ‘‘pre-NEPA’’
public participation and collaboration
process. In addition, the planning team
has been working on comprehensive
geographic area analyses of conditions
and trends for the ecological, social and
economic components of the plan area.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM
25MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30058-30059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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
