[Federal Register: May 2, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 85)]
[Notices]
[Page 22043-22048]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Green Mountain
National Forest, VT
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
and a revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Green Mountain
National Forest located in Addison, Bennington, Rutland, Washington,
Windham, and Windsor counties, Vermont.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service intends to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for revising the Green Mountain National Forest
Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan or Plan) pursuant to 16
U.S.C. 1604[f] [5] and USDA Forest Service National Forest System Land
and Resource Management Planning regulations 36 CFR 219.12. The revised
Forest Plan will supersede the current Forest Plan, which the Regional
Forester approved January 15, 1987. The Green Mountain National Forest
Plan has been amended nine times. This notice describes the focus areas
of change, estimated dates for filing the EIS, information concerning
public participation, and names and addresses of the responsible agency
official and the individual who can provide additional information.
[[Page 22044]]
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received
by 60 days after the date it is published in the Federal Register.
Comments should focus on (1) the proposal for revising the Forest Plan
and (2) possible alternatives for addressing issues associated with the
proposal. The Draft EIS is expected January 2004 and the Final EIS and
revised Forest Plan are expected December 2004.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:NOI-GM Forest Plan Revision, Green
Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forest, 231 North Main Street,
Rutland, VT 05701.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the Green
Mountain National Forest Plan revision, mail correspondence to Melissa
Reichert, Forest Planner, 231 North Main Street, Rutland, VT 05701-2417
or call 802-747-6754, TTY 802-747-6765; or send electronic mail to:
mmreichert@fs.fed.us>. For general information on the Forest Plan
revision process, access the forest Web page at: www.fs.fed.us/r9/
gmfl>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Regional Forester for the Eastern Region
gives notice of the agency's intent to prepare an EIS to revise the
Green Mountain National Forest Forest Plan. A Notice of Intent to
prepare an EIS legally marks the beginning of the planning process.
As explained in this notice, the Green Mountain National Forest is
planning to revise their Land and Resource Management Plan. The scope
of the decision is limited to topics that need revision, updates, or
corrections. In addition, changes in goals, objectives, management area
descriptions, standards and/or guidelines, definitions, and monitoring
requirements may be necessary. Some items are beyond the scope of what
can be changed in a Revised Forest Plan. See the document titled
``Implementing the Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan--A 15 Year Retrospective'' for more information.
The Green Mountain National Forest Plan guides the overall
management of the National Forest. A Forest Plan is analogous to a
county, city or municipal zoning plan. Forest Plans establish overall
goals and objectives (or desired future resource conditions) that a
National Forest will strive to achieve. This is done in order to
contribute toward ecological sustainability as well as contribute to
the economic and social sustainability of local communities affected by
National Forest management activities. Decisions made in the Forest
Plan do not compel the agency to undertake particular site-specific
projects and thus do not normally make any irreversible or
irretrievable commitment of resources. Forest Plans also establish
limitations on what actions may be authorized, and what conditions must
be met during project decision-making. The following six decisions are
made in a Forest Plan:
1. Forest-wide multiple-use goals and objectives (as required by 36
CFR 219.11[b]).
2. Forest-wide management requirements (36 CFR 219.27).
3. Management area direction (36 CFR 219.11 [c]).
4. Lands suited and not suited for timber management (36 CFR 219.14
and 36 CFR 219.11[b]).
5. Monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR 219.11 [d]).
6. Recommendations to Congress (such as wilderness), if any (36 CFR
219.17).
Purpose and Need for Action
By the requirements of the National Forest Management Act, National
Forests must revise their Forest Plan every 10 to 15 years, when
conditions or demands in the area covered by the plan have changed
significantly, when changes in agency policies, goals, or objectives
would have a significant effect on forest level programs, or when
monitoring and evaluation indicate that a revision is necessary (36 CFR
219.10[g]). At this time, there are three main reasons to revise the
1987 Forest Plan:
(1) It has been 15 years since the Regional Forester approved the
original Forest Plan.
(2) Agency goals and objectives, along with other national guidance
for strategic plans and programs, have changed.
(3) New issues and trends have been identified that could change
the management goals; management areas; standards and guidelines; and
monitoring and evaluation in the current Forest Plan.
Several sources have highlighted needed changes in the current
Forest Plan:
(1) Public involvement has identified new information and public
values.
(2) Monitoring and scientific research have identified new
information and knowledge gained.
(3) Forest Plan implementation has led to the identification of
management concerns and a need or desire to find better ways to
accomplish desired future conditions.
(4) Changes in law, regulations and policies have taken place. In
addition to changing public views about how these lands should be
managed, a significant change in the information and scientific
understanding of these ecosystems has occurred. Some new information is
a product of research, while other information has resulted from
changes in technology. Furthermore, the agency's Government Performance
and Results Act Strategic Plan (2000) has adjusted the agency program
to focus on four goals: ecosystem health, multiple benefits to people,
scientific and technical assistance, and effective public service.
These goals come with new objectives and outcome-based measures that
should to be recognized and incorporated into the Plan revision
process.
An interdisciplinary team is conducting the environmental analysis
and will prepare an environmental impact statement associated with
revision of the Forest Plan. This interdisciplinary team will also
prepare the revised Forest Plan. In order to address these changes, the
interdisciplinary team will work with the public to develop a list of
forest wide goals, standards and/or guidelines; develop descriptions
and definitions of management areas, desired condition statements,
management area-specific standards and/or guidelines and identify draft
management areas. These will then be used to develop alternatives to
the proposed action for the Forest Plan.
Issues, Proposed Action, and Possible Alternatives
Through the Green Mountain National Forest Plan revision process we
propose to:
(1) Explore management issues in order to draft a wide range of
alternative ways to manage the National Forest.
(2) Review the Management Areas in the current Forest Plan and look
at alternative ways to organize the management of the National Forest,
for example management areas based on watersheds or ecological
groupings.
(3) Review all Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and
guidelines for desired direction, relevance, consistency and accuracy.
(4) Fix minor inconsistencies in the current Forest Plan.
We propose to narrow the scope of the Forest Plan revision by
focusing on issues identified as being most critically in need of
change. Issue topics tol be addressed during the Forest Plan revision
were identified through extensive work with the public, scientists,
Forest Service employees, monitoring, evaluation, and review of
regulations. A total of thirty-two issues were identified through this
process.
[[Page 22045]]
The issues were grouped together to form a number of larger more
comprehensive issues where possible. Each issue and the criteria used
for grouping and sorting are fully described in the companion document,
``Implementing the Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan--A 15 Year Retrospective.''
Issues in this notice are separated into two categories:
(1) Major issues that are likely to vary by alternative.
(2) Issues that will be addressed during Forest Plan revision but
are not likely to vary for each alternative.
Issues were considered likely to vary by alternative based on the
analysis of the effect the issues will have on the Forest Plan, the
level of concern and those issues having the most pervasive impact on
the management of the forest and direction of the Forest Plan (e.g.
management area designations, goals, objectives, standards and/or
guidelines). These issues were also those where the Forest Service and
the public expressed the greatest need and/or desire for change.
Issues that were not considered likely to vary by alternative were
those having a significant impact on management but having less of an
effect on over all direction and management area designation. Many of
these issues had a high to moderate level of interest and concern;
however, they could be addressed the same under various alternatives
through goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, or management areas.
Due to the holistic nature of natural resource planning, it is
important to address all of the issues together during the planning
process, and not isolate individual issues. All issues are interrelated
and affect each other. The challenge will be to look at the
interrelationships among the issues that follow.
Additional detail is available on request, in the form of a
document titled ``Implementing the Green Mountain National Forest Land
and Resource Management Plan--A 15 Year Retrospective.'' You are
encouraged to review this document before commenting on the Notice of
Intent. You may request additional information by calling the phone
number listed in this notice, by writing or e-mailing to the addresses
listed in this notice, or by accessing the forest Web page at
www.fs.fed.us/r9/gmfl>.
Role of the Green Mountain National Forest
The Green Mountain National Forest is integral to the sense of
place for communities across Vermont. There are different views of the
role of the Green Mountain National Forest. Whatever the view, however,
the role of the Green Mountain National Forest should be evaluated in a
regional context. The role of the Green Mountain National Forest
outlined in the 1987 Forest Plan emphasizes:
(1) Resources and values not provided on private land in the
Northeast.
(2) Maintenance of management options for present and future
generations.
(3) Opportunities for back country recreation and Wilderness.
(4) Maintenance of scenery in areas visible to visitors.
(5) Providing a wide variety of wildlife and fish.
(6) Maintenance of soil productivity.
(7) Keeping streams free of sediments and pollutants.
(8) Maintenance of vegetative diversity.
(9) Maintenance of viable populations of wildlife species.
(10) Production of high quality sawtimber on productive and
accessible lands.
(11) Research and demonstration of management techniques.
Some people believe that the role of the Green Mountain National
Forest is to provide unique opportunities like Wilderness, backcountry
recreation, continuous blocks of habitat, old growth, and biodiversity.
Others believe that the role of the National Forest is to provide high
quality sawtimber for the Vermont forest products industry as well as
provide high quality wildlife habitat. Some people believe that in the
face of decreasing access to private lands, the access and pressure on
public lands needs to be addressed. Finally, many believe that the role
of the Green Mountain National Forest should be a mixture of all of the
above.
People have different views about the role of the Green Mountain
National Forest and these will need to be explored. The role of the
Green Mountain National Forest will be assessed during the Forest Plan
revision process and will guide the formation of alternatives. Each
issue is related and the role of the Green Mountain National Forest is
an over-arching issue that will guide decisions regarding other issues.
Major Issues Expected To Vary By Alternative
(1) Special Designations
Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Recreation Areas and
Research Natural Areas, among others, are all allocations of lands to
specific uses; some requiring Congressional designation. These
specially designated lands may not allow for or may have reduced levels
of timber and wildlife management and may limit some forms of
recreational access. The concern is while many people may want to see
more land allocated to these areas, others may oppose such allocation
and may even desire a reduction in the quantities currently
established. Some believe that allocating lands for these special areas
will negatively impact other resource areas. Existing Congressionally
designated areas and existing Research Natural Areas will not be
revisited during the Forest Plan revision.
We propose to:
Determine the most appropriate mix of specially designated
areas to promote ecological, social, and economic sustainability.
Make recommendations to Congress on special area
designations such as Wilderness.
Make designations that are within the authority of the
Forest Service such as Research Natural Areas.
(2) Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management
This issue concerns the restoration, protection, maintenance and
enhancement of biological and ecological diversity by conservation of
species, plant and animal communities, and ecosystems at a variety of
scales. This includes topics such as old growth, wildlife and fisheries
management, soils, air, botany, fire management, invasive species
management, pest management and pesticides, and biological reserves.
Biological diversity will be considered on a regional (New England/
Adirondacks) or sub-regional (Northern New England) scale that includes
other National Forests and public lands. The issue involves examining
regional coordination between National Forests, neighboring lands and
conservation partners to determine which ecosystems the Green Mountain
National Forest can provide to best serve the conservation of
biological and ecological diversity in the Northeast.
Some views expressed by the public on this issue include:
protection of biological diversity, protection of ecological systems
and processes,
[[Page 22046]]
maintenance of wildlife habitat for biological diversity, conservation
of remote and unfragmented habitat to meet wildlife needs, maintenance
of species population viability, defining the role of the Forest in
biological diversity, increasing levels of protection for ecological
integrity and complexity and biological diversity, and managing at the
landscape level using principles of conservation biology including core
areas, corridors and buffers. Still others are concerned that efforts
to protect biological diversity may result in lower levels of timber
production, limits on motorized access to some areas, or lower
populations of some game animals.
The 1987 Forest Plan addressed biodiversity primarily at small
scales, such as tree and stand diversity (species, within-stand
features like snags, vegetation composition objectives, and age of
vegetation) and individual species (Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive
and Indicator). The Plan revision will consider biodiversity and
natural communities at a variety of landscape scales and landscape
patterns.
We propose to build on the 1987 Forest Plan to:
Provide for mixes of desired and viable plant and animal
species populations, natural communities, and landscape patterns.
Revise the GMNF's management indicators including
Management Indicator Species.
(3) Social and Economic Concerns
This issue involves people's desires for including, recognizing,
and addressing community concerns and opportunities, economic impacts
and benefits changing demographics in rural communities and providing
multiple use management. The 1987 Green Mountain National Forest Plan
states that the Forest should promote economic stability of local
communities. The Forest Plan also talks about the goal of providing a
consistent flow of goods and services on which local communities depend
and to minimize disruptions to local economics that may result from
forest management decisions.
The 1987 Forest Plan was created in part with a desire to
``maximize net public benefits.'' These benefits are both qualitative
and quantitative in nature. The benefits range from increasing
primitive and semi-primitive opportunities for recreation, to
maintaining the annual amount of wood cut at or below present levels.
The Forest Plan states that we need to consider the effects of
management on local communities.
Some people believe that the Forest Service should recognize and
address community concerns, opportunities, and sustainability
especially in the areas of tax loss from land acquisition, potential
revenues and employment that could be generated from the Forest through
resource management and regional tourism. Socio-economic concerns,
benefits and impacts will be considered and evaluated in the analysis
of each alternative. It may also influence the development of some
alternatives and may vary by alternative. We propose to:
Provide for a mix of quantitative and qualitative socio-
economic benefits provided by the Forest to the public and neighboring
communities.
(4) Recreation Management
This issue centers on the mix of recreation opportunities offered
on the Green Mountain National Forest including developed recreation
facilities, trails and accessibility. People want to ensure that the
Forest continues to place high emphasis on providing recreation
opportunities. The appropriate mix of primitive, backcountry, low-
density recreation opportunities, more developed, higher density
recreation opportunities, motorized and un-motorized trail use is a
concern. Some people want new or improved facilities for particular
recreation activities and improved signage and information about
recreation opportunities. It is believed that there have been increases
in many recreational uses during the life of the Forest Plan. The
effects of recreational use on the ecosystem as well as conflicting
recreational uses need evaluation. Furthermore, the analysis for the
Forest Plan should consider current and projected use, carrying
capacity and the economic value of recreation.
The 1987 Forest Plan includes a full range of high quality
recreation opportunities as a Forest goal. The Forest Plan also
identifies backcountry recreation (including Wilderness, Primitive and
Semi-primitive settings) as an emphasis for the management of the Green
Mountain National Forest. There is discussion in the Forest Plan
describing the role of the Forest in providing what private lands can
not, including large, remote, unroaded settings for backcountry
recreation, and the ever increasing demand for backcountry recreation
due to increasing populations and shrinking supply of land capable of
meeting backcountry demands. The Forest Plan does not, however, discuss
the use of mountain bikes or allow for the use of Off Highway Vehicles
on trails. We propose to:
Provide for the appropriate mix of primitive, dispersed-
use opportunities and more developed, higher density opportunities.
Provide guidance for the use of mountain bikes and the use
of motorized vehicles such as snowmobiles and off-highway vehicles.
Identify the areas with opportunities for future trail
development.
(5) Timber Management
The current Green Mountain National Forest Plan outlines that
timber management could be used to maintain and enhance vegetative
diversity, wildlife habitats, vistas, the health and condition of the
forest ecosystem, and to produce high quality sawtimber. Timber
harvesting could be done if it helps to achieve the recreation, visual,
wildlife, timber, forest health and other objectives assigned to
Management Areas.
Monitoring of the 1987 Forest Plan indicates that the amount of
timber harvested in the Green Mountain National Forest has been below
that necessary to create the desired future conditions outlined in the
Plan. In addition, other goals that use timber management as a tool to
achieve objectives, such as creation of habitat diversity for wildlife
species, have also been well below desired levels due to their link to
timber management.
There have been questions concerning the role of timber harvesting,
the amount of timber cut, harvest methods, and management intensity.
People have different views about these questions and these will all
need to be explored during the Forest Plan revision. Timber harvesting
may vary by alternative.
We propose to:
Determine the appropriate level for timber harvesting.
Establish methods and uses for vegetation management.
More clearly define the desired mix and location of
various vegetative age and composition.
Issues To Be Addressed But Not Expected To Vary by Alternative
The following issues will be explored during the Forest Plan
revision and may be addressed through goals, objectives, standards and
guidelines in the Forest Plan. There may also be management areas
devoted to the various issues. These issues are not likely to vary by
alternative, rather they are likely to be treated the same in each
alternative.
[[Page 22047]]
1. Special Use Management
Special use management on the Green Mountain National Forest
includes both recreational and non-recreational uses. These include
things like outfitter guides, communication towers, windmills, large
group gatherings, and special non-timber forest products.
2. Heritage Resources
Heritage resources include the archaeological sites, historic
structures, and cultural landscapes that inform us about past people,
environments, and their interactions. Management of heritage resources,
including consistency with new federal laws, will be addressed during
Forest Plan revision.
3. Road Management and Transportation Planning
This issue focuses on how the Green Mountain National Forest plans
for and manages roads and transportation systems. This includes road
maintenance, construction, usage, and closure.
4. Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring and evaluation are very important parts of a Forest
Plan. Through monitoring and evaluation we are able to see if we are
achieving the goals we set out to achieve. The outputs and monitoring
approaches in the Forest Plan should be revised along with evaluation.
5. Information and Education
There is concern that the Green Mountain National Forest provide
more information, increase public involvement, conduct better education
programs and increase partnerships and volunteers.
6. Visual Quality and Scenery Management
This issue centers on the fact that some people want to see more
emphasis on visual requirements during projects and some people want to
see less emphasis on visual requirements. National Forests have been
directed to incorporate the ``Scenery Management System'', a new method
for the management of scenic values, into their revised Forest Plan.
This system will be used to address this issue in the revised Forest
Plan.
7. Coordination and Partnerships
There has been concern that the GMNF should maximize partnerships
and cooperative efforts with federal, state, local agencies, local and
tribal governments, and the community in order to increase the quantity
and quality of resources available to manage and enjoy the National
Forest.
8. Water Resources
This issue includes water quality, fisheries, and watershed
planning. These are relatively new issues and should be explored during
Forest Plan revision. Some believe that the Green Mountain National
Forest should provide aquatic (fisheries) habitat to provide for viable
populations of species.
9. Land Acquisition
There has been concern about the acquisition of land for inclusion
in the Green Mountain National Forest. The Plan will guide priorities
for land acquisition. Standards and Guidelines will be developed to
place newly acquired lands into management areas.
Range of Alternatives
We will consider a wide range of alternatives when revising the
Forest Plan. The alternatives will address different options to resolve
issues over the revision topics listed above and to fulfill the purpose
and need. A ``no-action alternative'', meaning that management would
continue under the existing Forest Plan, will be considered. No other
alternative has been developed at this time, but other alternatives are
likely to be based on the issues listed above. Other alternatives will
provide different ways to address and respond to issues identified
during the public involvement phase called, scoping. Public input,
Forest Service input and information gathered in various assessments
will guide the creation of a wide range of alternatives, may change
forest goals, management areas, and monitoring and evaluation for a
revised Forest Plan.
In preparing the EIS for revising the Forest Plan, the Forest
Service will estimate the potential impacts of various management
alternatives on the Forest's physical and biological resources, as well
as the potential economic and social impacts on local communities,
disadvantaged individuals, disadvantaged communities and the broader
regional economy.
The alternatives will display different mixes of recreation
opportunities and experiences. We will examine alternatives that
address the public's concerns for less timber harvest, for greater
timber harvest, and meeting currently planned harvest levels. We will
examine alternatives that address ecosystem approaches focused on
ecological processes and landscape patterns. The alternatives will
display different mixes of plant and animal communities across the
forest. The mix will vary by the objectives of the particular
alternative, though each alternative will contain the habitat necessary
to maintain viable populations of plant and animal species. Social and
Economic impacts will also be evaluated for each alternative.
The Forest Service may also make other minor changes to the Forest
Plan as needed. The USDA Forest Service proposal may change forest
goals, standards and/or guidelines, management areas, and monitoring
and evaluation.
Scoping Process and Public Involvement
The Forest Service would like to create a collaborative
relationship between the various stakeholders and the agency so that
contentious issues may be discussed and eventually addressed through
the revision of the Forest Plan. An atmosphere of openness is one of
the objectives of the public involvement process, in which all members
of the public have an opportunity to share information. To this end the
Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and assistance from
individuals, organizations, tribal governments, and federal, state, and
local agencies who are interested in or may be affected by the proposed
action (36 CFR 219.6). The Forest Service is also looking for
collaborative approaches with members of the public who are interested
in forest management. The range of alternatives to be considered in the
DEIS will be based on public issues, management concerns, resource
management opportunities and specific decisions to be made.
Public participation for the Green Mountain National Forest Plan
revision process will include (but will not be limited to) local
planning groups in communities in and around the forest, educational
forums various revision topics; field trips and other activities are
also planned. All of this will be done to keep the public informed
during the entire process and to gather public input on issues, the
formulation of alternatives, the scope and nature of the decisions to
be made, and to help address various management conflicts. Meeting
dates and locations will be announced in the media and on the forest
web page as well as through flyers, mailings, and personal contacts.
Public participation will be sought throughout the entire revision
process. The first formal opportunity to comment is during the scoping
process (40 CFR 1501.7). Scoping includes:
(1) Identifying potential issues.
[[Page 22048]]
(2) Identifying significant issues of those that have been covered
by prior environmental review.
(3) Exploring alternatives in addition to No Action.
(4) Identifying the potential environmental effects of the proposed
action and alternatives.
Although Scoping is the first formal opportunity to comment, we
chose to involve the public earlier in an effort to define the current
situation before issuing this notice. We trust this will lead to
improved information gathering and synthesis as well as provide more
concise and specific public comments. This, in turn, will make it
possible to develop more responsive alternatives to analyze in the
Draft EIS, which is expected to be completed in January 2004. Review of
the Draft EIS is another step where public participation is important.
Additional information concerning the scope of the revision will be
provided through future mailings, news releases, public meetings and
the Internet.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides
the development of the environmental impact statement. The Forest
Service is seeking information, comments, and assistance from
individuals, organizations, tribal governments, and federal, state, and
local agencies that are interested in or may be affected by the
proposed action. Comments on the revision topics or potential
additional issues, and possible solutions to these issues are
requested. Comments should focus on (1) the proposal for revising the
Forest Plan and (2) possible alternatives for addressing issues
associated with the proposal. Comments should be sent to the address
listed in this notice.
Availability of Public Comment
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. Persons may request the agency to withhold a submission
from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) permits such confidentiality pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d). 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 requester 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 90 days.
Proposed New Planning Regulations
The Department of Agriculture expects to publish new planning
regulations in 2003. Currently National Forests are operating under the
1982 planning regulations until the new ones are enacted. Therefore,
the Green Mountain National Forest Plan will be revised using the 1982
planning regulations.
Responsible Official
Randy Moore, Regional Forester, Eastern Region, 310 W. Wisconsin
Ave, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203.
Release and Review of the Draft EIS
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is expected to be
filed with the Environmental Protection Agency and to be available for
public comment in January 2004. At that time the EPA will publish a
notice of availability for the DEIS in the Federal Register. The
comment period on the DEIS will be 90 days from the date the EPA
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 60 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.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, Section 21).
Dated: April 26, 2002.
Donald L. Meyer,
Acting Regional Forester.
[FR Doc. 02-10826 Filed 5-01-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 2002/05/02 EST