[Federal Register: May 2, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 85)]
[Notices]
[Page 22039-22043]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Finger Lakes
National Forest, NY
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
and a revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Finger Lakes
National Forest located in Schuyler and Seneca Counties, New York.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service intends to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for revising the Finger Lakes 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 Finger Lakes National Forest
Plan has been amended three 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.
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-FL 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 Finger
Lakes National Forest Plan revision, mail correspondence to Michael
Dockry, Assistant Forest Planner, 5218 State Route 414, Hector, NY
14841-9707 or call 607-546-4470 ext. 316 TTY 607-546-4476; or send
electronic mail to: mdockry@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
Finger Lakes National Forest Plan. A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS
legally marks the beginning of the planning process.
As explained in this notice, the Finger Lakes 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 Finger Lakes National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan--A 15 Year Retrospective'' for more information.
The Finger Lakes National Forest Plan guides the overall management
of the Finger Lakes 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)
[[Page 22040]]
3. Management area direction (36 CFR 219.11 [c])
4. Lands suited and not suited for timber management (36 CFR 219.14, 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 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
Finger Lakes 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 all Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and
guidelines for desired direction, relevance, consistency and accuracy.
(3) 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 to 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 eighteen issues were identified through this
process. 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 Finger Lakes 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 by 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 Finger Lakes National Forest Land
and Resource Management Plan--A 15 Year Retrospective.'' You are
encouraged to review this document before commenting on this 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 Finger Lakes National Forest: The Finger Lakes National
Forest is integral to the sense of place for communities across Central
New York. There are different views of the role of the Finger Lakes
National Forest.
Whatever the view, however, the role of the Forest should be
evaluated in a regional context. The role of the Finger Lakes National
Forest outlined in the 1987 Forest Plan emphasizes:
(1) Providing opportunities to observe and enjoy nature
(2) Providing opportunities to roam around in a large unrestricted land
area
(3) Providing wood, forage, and other products
(4) Demonstrating multiple uses of the land without destroying long
term productivity
(5) Balancing the production of commodities like timber and forage with
important non-economic benefits like high quality recreation, diverse
wildlife habitat and rare plants
[[Page 22041]]
(6) Demonstration and education
(7) Providing stewardship of the land for present and future
generations
(8) Promoting an awareness of natural resource management and a strong
conservation ethic
Some people believe that the role of the Finger Lakes National
Forest is to provide unique opportunities like, continuous blocks of
habitat, old growth, and biodiversity. Others believe that role of the
National Forest is to provide high quality saw timber, grazing forage
and wildlife habitat. Others believe that the Forest should focus on
demonstration forestry and education. Still others believe that the
role of the Finger Lakes National Forest should be a mixture of all of
the above. People have different views about the role of the Finger
Lakes National Forest and these will need to be explored.
It is important to note that each revision topic to follow will
show specific areas of concern, and that they are all related to the
role of the Forest. As stated previously, each issue is related and the
role of the Finger Lakes National Forest is an over-arching issue that
will guide decisions regarding other issues.
Major Issues Expected To Vary by Alternative
(1) Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management
This includes the issues of wildlife management, range and grazing,
and fire management. These issues have to do with providing different
types of habitat for different species, the conservation of
biodiversity, management of threatened, endangered and sensitive
species, and invasive species.
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 FLNF's management indicators including
Management Indicator Species.
(2) Recreation Management
The recreation issue centers on the mix of recreation opportunities
including the number, location, and acceptable uses of trails,
developed campsites, dispersed campsites, facilities, and
accessibility. Some people believe that recreation opportunities and
facilities could be improved or expanded. There has also been concern
about the maintenance of existing trails and recreation information. It
has been suggested that the revised Forest Plan outline a trail system
that provides for the best mix of trail types in order to meet the
needs of various users.
It is believed that there have been increases in many recreational
uses during the life of the Forest Plan. People want to ensure that the
Forest continues to place high emphasis on providing recreation
opportunities. However, the appropriate mix of primitive, low-density
recreation opportunities, more developed, higher density recreation
opportunities, motorized (snow mobile and OHV) and un-motorized trail
(ski, hike, mountain bike and horse) use is debatable. Some people want
new or improved facilities for particular recreation activities and
improved signage and information about recreation opportunities.
The revised Forest Plan should consider the effects of recreational
use on the ecosystem as well as conflicting recreational uses.
Furthermore, the analysis for the Forest Plan should consider current
and projected use, carrying capacity and the economic value of
recreation. 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 an off-highway vehicles.
Provide guidance for the number, general location, and
acceptable uses of trails, including separation of conflicting uses and
accessibility.
(3) Timber Management
The current Finger Lakes 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 Finger Lakes National Forest has been below
that necessary to create 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 should 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 not Expected to Vary by Alternative
1. Socio-Economic Concerns
The Finger Lakes National Forest Plan states that the Forest should
promote economic stability of local communities. The Forest Plan also
has the goal of providing a consistent flow of goods and services,
which local communities depend on, and to minimize disruptions to local
economics that may result from forest management decisions. The current
Forest Plan was drafted, in part, to maximize net public benefits (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.
Some people believe that the Forest Service should recognize and
address community concerns and opportunities, 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, impacts and benefits will be
considered and evaluated in the analysis of each alternative. It may
also influence the development of some alternatives.
2. Mineral Management--Oil and Gas Availability
Oil and gas leasing is an intended use of the National Forests, as
stated in a number of public land laws. In 1987, Congress passed the
Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act (FOOGLRA), setting forth
the procedures by which the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management
[[Page 22042]]
(BLM) will carry out their statutory responsibilities in the issuance
of oil and gas leases. The Forest Service developed implementing
regulations for FOOGLRA, which defined the procedures and a three
staged process to be used for the analysis and issuance of leases. The
stages include:
(1) The determination of lands available for leasing
(2) The decision whether to lease specific lands
(3) An Application for Permit to Drill for exploratory wells
The decision for stage 1, availability, was made in the 1987 Finger
Lakes National Forest Forest Plan. The decision for stage 2 was made in
December 2001 when the Finger Lakes National Forest did not consent to
lease the Forest for oil and gas development. The Forest can be
``available to lease'' as determined in the Forest Plan and the Forest
can still make the subsequent decision ``not to consent to lease''
based upon the situation at the time.
During the Forest Plan revision process we propose to revise the
1987 decision as to whether or not the Finger Lakes National Forest
will be available for oil and gas leasing (stage 1). Because this issue
can be addressed through goals, objectives, standards, and/or
guidelines, it is not likely 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.
3. Land Adjustment
There has been concern about the acquisition of land for inclusion
in the Finger Lakes National Forest. The issue of land adjustment may
be discussed during the Forest Plan revision, however they have little
effect on how the land will be managed. The Forest Plan can set goals
for land acquisition but cannot determine whether or not land is
acquired.
4. Special Use Management
This includes things like communication towers, large group
gatherings, and special non-timber forest products. These uses can be
addressed through goals, objectives, standards and guidelines in the
Forest Plan. There may also be management areas devoted to special
uses.
5. Areas of Significance--Special Designation Areas
Areas of significance, or special designation areas include things
like Research Natural Areas, and special management areas.
6. 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 and management of open
wells, will be addressed during Forest Plan revision.
7. Information and Education
There is concern that the Finger Lakes National Forest provide more
information, increase public involvement, conduct better education
programs and increase partnerships and volunteers. There is also a
concern for improved law enforcement.
8. 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.
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.
Scoping Process and Public Involvement
The Forest Service would like to create a collaborative
relationship between the various stakeholders and themselves 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 Finger Lakes 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 will be held on 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
[[Page 22043]]
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) Verifying and refining potential issues listed in this notice
(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 2004. Review of the
Draft EIS is another step where 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 Finger Lakes 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. 02-10822 Filed 5-1-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 2002/05/02 EST