Dakota Prairie Grasslands; North Dakota and South Dakota; Dakota Prairie Grasslands Noxious Weed Management Strategy EIS, 34442-34444 [05-11683]

Download as PDF 34442 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 14, 2005 / Notices Lead and Cooperating Agencies USDA Forest Service, Carson National Forest will serve as the lead agency for this analysis. Responsible Official The Forest Supervisor for the Carson National Forest of the Southwestern Region of the USDA Forest Service is the Responsible Official. Nature of Decision To Be Made Forest Plans define the direction for managing the National Forests. This amendment will provide the management direction for the Valle Vidal and provide the foundation for future activities. The amendment defines the overall management vision of the Valle Vidal and identifies specific standards and guidelines that will help move management of the Valle Vidal towards this vision. The decision made through this amendment would serve as Forest Plan direction until the Forest Plan is further amended or revised. Other analyses may be completed in the future to determine the appropriate level of activities to occur by a specific program. The Leasing Analysis required to determine whether to make certain lands available to development of natural gas resources is an example of possible future analyses. Future decisions would have to be consistent with the management direction provided through this current analysis or would have to amend this direction. Comment Requested The Forest Service would like to know of any issues, concerns, and/or suggestions the public, Native American tribes, or other government agencies have about the proposal. Comments should be as fully formed as possible to assist in the analysis. If you have any questions, or if something is unclear, contact David Seesholtz at 505–758– 6210 before submitting your comments. Although comments are welcome at any time, they will be most effective if received by September 15, 2005. Send comment to: Carson National Forest, ATTN: Valle Vidal Plan Amendment, 208 Cruz Alta Road, Taos, NM 87571. Alternately, e-mail your commentsto comments-southwesterncarson@fs.fed.us. ‘‘Valle Vidal Forest Plan Amendment’’ must be in the subject line of the e-mail. Reviewer’s Obligation: Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and VerDate jul<14>2003 20:14 Jun 13, 2005 Jkt 205001 considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR parts 215 or 217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27 (d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency’s decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within seven days. 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 the 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 stage but that are not raised nolil 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., 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wise. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at the time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. PAuthorization: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321–346); Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508); U.S. Department of Agriculture NEPA Policies and Procedures (7 CFR part 1b). Dated: June 8, 2005. Martin D. Chavez Jr., Forest Supervisor, Carson National Forest. [FR Doc. 05–11702 Filed 6–13–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–11–M PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Dakota Prairie Grasslands; North Dakota and South Dakota; Dakota Prairie Grasslands Noxious Weed Management Strategy EIS Forest Service, USDA. Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) proposes to use an integrated approach to treat and control noxious weeds on approximately 35,000 acres of existing infestation sites, and 8,000 acres of new or previously unknown acres in a manner consistent with Dakota Prairie Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan direction and applicable laws. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will analyze the methods to be used in an integrated approach, and disclose the environmental effects of the proposal and alternatives. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The draft EIS is expected by September 2005 and the final EIS is expected by February 2006. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Sheila McNee, Noxious Weed EIS, Dakota Prairie Grasslands, 240 W. Century Ave., Bismarck, ND 58503 or email your comments to commentsnorthern-dakota-prairie@fs.fed.us. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila McNee, Project Leader, Dakota Prairie Grasslands, USDA Forest Service at the above address or call (701) 250– 4443. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action An aggressive and effective weed control program is dictated by U.S. Forest Service policies (FSM 2080), the DPG Land and Resource Management Plan (Grasslands Plan), other Forest Service objectives, and by the February 3, 1999 Executive Order 13112 ‘‘to prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological and human health impacts that invasive species cause.’’ The DPG has been treating noxious weeds on each Ranger District under previous NEPA decisions including the 1986 Custer National Forest Noxious Weed Environmental Impact Statement; however, an updated noxious weed control analysis is needed to address newly listed noxious weeds species, to identify additional acres of noxious E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM 14JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 14, 2005 / Notices weed infestations, to ensure we are complying with the revised Grasslands Plan, and to incorporate the use of new, more effective herbicides, technologies, and biological controls as appropriate. Proposed Action The Dakota Prairie Grasslands consists of four National Grasslands and two experimental forests. The Forest Service proposes to treat noxious weeds using an integrated approach on approximately 14,500 acres of existing infestation sites distributed across the Little Missouri, Cedar River and Grand River National Grasslands and the Denbigh and Souris Experimental Forests. This proposal also allows up to 15 percent or about 2,000 additional acres of new or previously unknown infestations to be treated as they are discovered. On the Sheyenne National Grassland, all 20,500 acres of existing infestation sites are proposed for treatment. The proposal would allow treatment up to 30 percent more or 6,000 acres of new or previously unknown infestations on the Sheyenne Ranger District. Some acres may need annual treatments while others may only need to be treated once. An integrated management approach would be used to control noxious weeds. This approach may combine methods where it is deemed appropriate and effective. Proposed methods include the following: (1) Mechanical methods, such as hand pulling, mowing, or burning. (2) Revegetation, where competitive native vegetation is seeded to reduce noxious species, possibly after other treatments to remove the noxious weeds. (3) Grazing with livestock such as goats or sheep. (4) Biological control through the use of predators, parasites, and pathogens. (5) Herbicide control using ground-based and aerial based application methods. Possible Alternatives A No Action alternative will be analyzed. No treatments would occur, except for those biological controls already in place on the ground. Using public and internal input, the Forest Service team will identify additional action alternatives to the proposed action, and determine which ones need to be fully analyzed. Responsible Official David M. Pieper, Grasslands Supervisor, is the responsible official. See address under the ADDRESSES section above. Nature of Decision To Be Made The Responsible Official will decide what level of weed control to VerDate jul<14>2003 20:14 Jun 13, 2005 Jkt 205001 implement, where and what kind of weed controls will be used, what mitigation measures will be required, what monitoring will be required to ensure that project objectives are being met and what, if any, Grassland Plan amendments are required. Scoping Process The Forest Service mailed scoping packages on the proposed action to approximately 177 potentially interested or affected individuals, organizations, local and state governments, and local, State and Federal agencies on March 31, 2004, with a request for responses by April 30, 2004. Eleven comments were received. In the cover letter, it was stated that the Forest Service may prepare either an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement, but that if aerial spraying was considered, and/or scoping results or further analysis indicated that the project might have significant environmental impacts, an environmental impact statement would be prepared. With the inclusion of aerial spraying, the Forest Service has decided to prepare an environmental impact statement. This notice of intent invites additional public comment on the proposal and initiates the preparation of the environmental impact statement. Due to the scoping effort already conducted, no further scoping meetings or mailings are planned. The public is encouraged to take part in the process and to visit with Forest Service officials any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. While public participation in this analysis is welcome at any time, comments received within 30 days of the publication of this notice will be especially useful in the preparation of the draft environmental impact statement. Two minor changes have been made since the original scoping. The total number of acres proposed to be treated has increased 2,000 acres and the no action alternative is now no treatment instead of continuing the existing management. Preliminary Issues The following are the preliminary issues identified for this project: (1) Treatments may have adverse effects on the prairie fringed orchid, a federally threatened plant species that occurs on the Sheyenne National Grassland. (2) Treatments may have adverse effects to soil and water quality. (3) Treatments may have adverse effects on sensitive butterfly species or their habitats. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 34443 (4) Treatments may have adverse effects on fish species or their habitats. (5) Aerial application of herbicides may have adverse effects on non-target species. (6) The use of herbicides for invasive weed control may cause acute (short term) or chronic (long term) health problems for people who come into contact with the herbicides and/or treated areas. 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 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 E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM 14JNN1 34444 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 14, 2005 / Notices 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: May 31, 2005. Thomas J. Turck, Planning Staff Officer. [FR Doc. 05–11683 Filed 6–13–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–11–M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Glenn/Colusa County Resource Advisory Committee Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. AGENCY: The Glenn/Colusa County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Willows, California. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Introductions, (2) Approval of Minutes, (3) Public Comment, (4) Project Proposal/Possible Action, (5) Web site Update, (6) General Discussion, (7) Next Agenda. DATES: The meeting will be held on June 27, 2005, from 1:30 p.m. and end at approximately 4:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Mendocino National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988. Individuals wishing to speak or propose agenda items must send their names and proposals to Jim Giachino, DFO, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobbin Gaddini, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, P.O. Box 164, Elk Creek, CA 95939. (530) 968–1815; e-mail ggaddini@fs.fed.us. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after SUMMARY: VerDate jul<14>2003 20:14 Jun 13, 2005 Jkt 205001 the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by June 24, 2005 will have the opportunity to address the committee at those sessions. Dated: June 7, 2005. James F. Giachino, Designated Federal Official. [FR Doc. 05–11677 Filed 6–13–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–11–M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Lincoln County Resource Advisory Committee Meeting Forest Service, USDA. Notice of meeting. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106– 393) the Kootenai National Forest’s Lincoln County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on Wednesday June 29, 2005 at 6 p.m. at the Supervisor’s Office in Libby, Montana for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public. DATES: June 29, 2005. ADDRESSES: Kootenai National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, 1101 U.S. Hwy 2 West, Libby, Montana. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Edgmon, Committee Coordinator, Kootenai National Forest at (406) 293–6211, or e-mail bedgmon@fs.fed.us. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda topics include acceptance of project proposals until July 1, for funding in fiscal year 2006, review of submitted proposals, and receiving public comment. If the meeting date or location is changed, notice will be posted in the local newspapers, including the Daily Interlake based in Kalispell, Montana. Dated: June 6, 2005. Mark Romey, Acting Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 05–11698 Filed 6–13–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–11–M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory Committee Meeting Forest Service, USDA. Notice of meeting. AGENCY: ACTION: PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106– 393), the Boise and Payette National Forests’ Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory Committee will conduct a business meeting, which is open to the public. DATES: Thursday, June 16, 2005, beginning at 10:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: Idaho Counties Risk Management Program Building, 3100 South Vista Avenue, Boise, Idaho. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda topics will include review and approval of project proposals, and is an open public forum. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Gochnour, Designated Federal Officer, at 208–392–6681 or e-mail dgochnour@fs.fed.us. Dated: June 8, 2005. Richard A. Smith, Forest Supervisor, Boise National Forest. [FR Doc. 05–11700 Filed 6–13–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–11–M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service Rehabilitation of Floodwater Retarding Structure No. 18A of the Little Elm and Laterals Watershed of the Trinity River Watershed, Collin County, TX Natural Resources Conservation Service, Agriculture. ACTION: Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact. AGENCY: SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the rehabilitation of Floodwater Retarding Structure (FRS) No. 18A of the Little Elm and Laterals Watershed of the Trinity River Watershed, Collin County, Texas. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry D. Butler, Ph.D, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 101 South Main, Temple, Texas 76501–7682, Telephone (254) 742–9800. E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM 14JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34442-34444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11683]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Dakota Prairie Grasslands; North Dakota and South Dakota; Dakota 
Prairie Grasslands Noxious Weed Management Strategy EIS

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) proposes to use an 
integrated approach to treat and control noxious weeds on approximately 
35,000 acres of existing infestation sites, and 8,000 acres of new or 
previously unknown acres in a manner consistent with Dakota Prairie 
Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan direction and applicable 
laws. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will analyze the methods 
to be used in an integrated approach, and disclose the environmental 
effects of the proposal and alternatives.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. 
The draft EIS is expected by September 2005 and the final EIS is 
expected by February 2006.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Sheila McNee, Noxious Weed EIS, 
Dakota Prairie Grasslands, 240 W. Century Ave., Bismarck, ND 58503 or 
e-mail your comments to comments-northern-dakota-prairie@fs.fed.us.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila McNee, Project Leader, Dakota 
Prairie Grasslands, USDA Forest Service at the above address or call 
(701) 250-4443.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Action

    An aggressive and effective weed control program is dictated by 
U.S. Forest Service policies (FSM 2080), the DPG Land and Resource 
Management Plan (Grasslands Plan), other Forest Service objectives, and 
by the February 3, 1999 Executive Order 13112 ``to prevent the 
introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to 
minimize the economic, ecological and human health impacts that 
invasive species cause.'' The DPG has been treating noxious weeds on 
each Ranger District under previous NEPA decisions including the 1986 
Custer National Forest Noxious Weed Environmental Impact Statement; 
however, an updated noxious weed control analysis is needed to address 
newly listed noxious weeds species, to identify additional acres of 
noxious

[[Page 34443]]

weed infestations, to ensure we are complying with the revised 
Grasslands Plan, and to incorporate the use of new, more effective 
herbicides, technologies, and biological controls as appropriate.

Proposed Action

    The Dakota Prairie Grasslands consists of four National Grasslands 
and two experimental forests. The Forest Service proposes to treat 
noxious weeds using an integrated approach on approximately 14,500 
acres of existing infestation sites distributed across the Little 
Missouri, Cedar River and Grand River National Grasslands and the 
Denbigh and Souris Experimental Forests. This proposal also allows up 
to 15 percent or about 2,000 additional acres of new or previously 
unknown infestations to be treated as they are discovered. On the 
Sheyenne National Grassland, all 20,500 acres of existing infestation 
sites are proposed for treatment. The proposal would allow treatment up 
to 30 percent more or 6,000 acres of new or previously unknown 
infestations on the Sheyenne Ranger District. Some acres may need 
annual treatments while others may only need to be treated once.
    An integrated management approach would be used to control noxious 
weeds. This approach may combine methods where it is deemed appropriate 
and effective. Proposed methods include the following: (1) Mechanical 
methods, such as hand pulling, mowing, or burning. (2) Revegetation, 
where competitive native vegetation is seeded to reduce noxious 
species, possibly after other treatments to remove the noxious weeds. 
(3) Grazing with livestock such as goats or sheep. (4) Biological 
control through the use of predators, parasites, and pathogens. (5) 
Herbicide control using ground-based and aerial based application 
methods.

Possible Alternatives

    A No Action alternative will be analyzed. No treatments would 
occur, except for those biological controls already in place on the 
ground.
    Using public and internal input, the Forest Service team will 
identify additional action alternatives to the proposed action, and 
determine which ones need to be fully analyzed.

Responsible Official

    David M. Pieper, Grasslands Supervisor, is the responsible 
official. See address under the ADDRESSES section above.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The Responsible Official will decide what level of weed control to 
implement, where and what kind of weed controls will be used, what 
mitigation measures will be required, what monitoring will be required 
to ensure that project objectives are being met and what, if any, 
Grassland Plan amendments are required.

Scoping Process

    The Forest Service mailed scoping packages on the proposed action 
to approximately 177 potentially interested or affected individuals, 
organizations, local and state governments, and local, State and 
Federal agencies on March 31, 2004, with a request for responses by 
April 30, 2004. Eleven comments were received. In the cover letter, it 
was stated that the Forest Service may prepare either an environmental 
assessment or an environmental impact statement, but that if aerial 
spraying was considered, and/or scoping results or further analysis 
indicated that the project might have significant environmental 
impacts, an environmental impact statement would be prepared.
    With the inclusion of aerial spraying, the Forest Service has 
decided to prepare an environmental impact statement. This notice of 
intent invites additional public comment on the proposal and initiates 
the preparation of the environmental impact statement. Due to the 
scoping effort already conducted, no further scoping meetings or 
mailings are planned. The public is encouraged to take part in the 
process and to visit with Forest Service officials any time during the 
analysis and prior to the decision. While public participation in this 
analysis is welcome at any time, comments received within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice will be especially useful in the 
preparation of the draft environmental impact statement. Two minor 
changes have been made since the original scoping. The total number of 
acres proposed to be treated has increased 2,000 acres and the no 
action alternative is now no treatment instead of continuing the 
existing management.

Preliminary Issues

    The following are the preliminary issues identified for this 
project:
    (1) Treatments may have adverse effects on the prairie fringed 
orchid, a federally threatened plant species that occurs on the 
Sheyenne National Grassland.
    (2) Treatments may have adverse effects to soil and water quality.
    (3) Treatments may have adverse effects on sensitive butterfly 
species or their habitats.
    (4) Treatments may have adverse effects on fish species or their 
habitats.
    (5) Aerial application of herbicides may have adverse effects on 
non-target species.
    (6) The use of herbicides for invasive weed control may cause acute 
(short term) or chronic (long term) health problems for people who come 
into contact with the herbicides and/or treated areas.

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

[[Page 34444]]

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: May 31, 2005.
Thomas J. Turck,
Planning Staff Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-11683 Filed 6-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M