[Federal Register: May 3, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 22393-22396]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03my02-19]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Monongahela
National Forest: Barbour, Grant, Greenbrier, Nicholas, Pendleton,
Pocahontas, Preston, Randolph, Tucker, and Webster Counties, WV
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service intends to prepare an environmental
impact statement for revising the Monongahela National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5)
and USDA Forest Service National Forest System Land and Resource
Management Planning regulations. The revised Forest Plan will supersede
the Forest Plan previously approved by the Regional Forester in January
1986, and Forest Plan amendments 1 through 5; dated June 24, 1988,
April 20, 1990, June 28, 1991, October 1992, and August 27, 1992,
respectively. The 1986 Forest Plan will remain in effect until this
revision effort is completed. This notice identifies the topics that
will help focus our revision effort, lists possible changes to the
Forest Plan, displays the estimated dates for filing the EIS, provides
information concerning public participation, and provides the names and
addresses of the responsible agency official and the individuals who
can provide additional information.
DATES: We need to receive your comments on this Notice of Intent in
writing within 90 days after this notice is published in the Federal
Register. The draft EIS should be available for public review by
December 2004. The final EIS and revised Forest Plan are expected to be
completed by December 2005.
ADRESSES: Send written comments to: NOI--FP Revision, Monongahela
National Forest, 200 Sycamore Street, Elkins, West Virginia 26241, or
direct electronic mail to: r9_monong_website@fs.fed.us and ``ATTN:
Forest Plan Revision'' in the subject line.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Adamo, Forest Planner; or Kate
[[Page 22394]]
Goodrich, Forest Public Affairs Officer at the address listed in the
previous section, or by calling (304) 636-1800, fax number (304) 636-
1875.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: The Responsible Official for this action is
Donald L. Meyer, Acting Regional Forester, Eastern Region, 310 W.
Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Regional Forester for the Eastern Region
gives notice of the agency's intent to prepare an EIS to revise the
Land and Resource Management Plan for the Monongahela National Forest
(Forest Plan) pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5) and USDA Forest Service
National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning
regulations. The Regional Forester approved the original Forest Plan in
January 1986. This Forest Plan, and the aforementioned plan amendments,
guide the overall management of the Monongahela National Forest.
Forest Plan Decisions
We make six primary decisions in the Forest Plan, including:
1. Forest-wide multiple-use goals and objectives. Goals describe a
desired condition to be achieved sometime in the future. Objectives are
concise, time-specific statements of measurable planned results that
respond to goals.
2. Forest-wide management requirements (standards and guidelines).
These are limitations on management activities, or advisable courses of
action that apply across the entire forest.
3. Management area direction applying to future activities in each
management area. This is the desired future condition specified for
certain portions of the forest, and the accompanying standards and
guidelines to help achieve that condition.
4. Lands suited and not suited for resource use and production
(such as timber management and grazing).
5. Monitoring and evaluation requirements needed to gauge how well
the plan is being implemented.
6. Recommendations to Congress, if any (such as Wilderness or Wild
and Scenic River designation).
The scope of this revision is limited to changing only those
portions of the current Forest Plan that need revision, update, or
correction. We propose to narrow the scope of revising the Forest Plan
by focusing on topics identified as being most critically in need of
change. The six decisions listed above will be revisited only in how
they apply to the revision topics that are identified.
Purpose and Need for Action
There are three compelling reasons to revise the 1986 Forest Plan:
(1) 15 years have passed since the Regional Forester approved the
original Forest Plan for the Monongahela National Forest and national
forests must revise the forest plan at least every 15 years according
to requirements of the National Forest Management Act [U.S.C. 1604
(f)(5)]; (2) agency goals and objectives, along with other national
guidance for strategic plans and programs, have changed more than can
effectively be covered by additional forest plan amendments; and (3)
new information and changed conditions need to be taken into
consideration.
Setting
Throughout the mid-Atlantic region, including the Potomac Highlands
of the Appalachian Mountains, people value the opportunities public
forests provide. These opportunities include enjoyment of recreation,
solitude, nature study and scenic beauty. In addition to such
opportunities, the public expects important benefits from managed
forests. Benefits provided by the Monongahela National Forest include a
natural, forested setting for hunting and fishing; commercial
recreation events, relaxation with family and friends, a place to learn
about West Virginia history and culture, and wilderness experience, as
well as providing wood products, and natural gas and minerals. These
benefits and opportunities, coupled with its proximity to population
centers, make the Monongahela National Forest integral to the sense of
place for communities across West Virginia, as well as for the entire
mid-Atlantic region.
Proposed Action
The revision of the Monongahela Forest Plan will focus on
management direction and other areas identified as most critically in
need of change. The revision topics will be refined, and additional
topics may be identified, through the public comment process, through
monitoring and evaluation, and experience with implementation of the
Forest Plan since 1986. The following preliminary revision topics and
associated subtopics have been identified:
1. Watershed Health
Establish management area goals, and standards and
guidelines, to improve watershed health in terms of ecological
sustainability, including: Ecological functions, riparian area
management, erosion and sedimentation control, flood and flood damage
control, and restoration of aquatic ecosystems.
Establish standards and guidelines to mitigate any adverse
impacts on watersheds from acid deposition.
2. Ecosystem Health
Maintain red spruce, northern hardwood, and oak-hickory
ecosystems at sustainable levels.
Identify appropriate conditions for use of prescribed fire
to restore ecosystems, reduce hazardous fuels, maintain healthy forests
and provide wildlife habitat.
Update the current list of management indicator species.
Replace some of the game species on the current list with non-game
species that better represent habitats and species.
Establish guidelines to reduce negative impacts to forest
health from plant and animal pests, including insect infestations and
non-native invasive plant species.
3. Vegetation Management
Set the Forest Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ).
Update standards and guidelines to accommodate appropriate
silvicultural methodologies.
Establish vegetation management goals to better represent
ecosystems at appropriate scales.
Establish appropriate harvest levels to maintain the
ecological function and supply of special forest products (i.e.,
mosses, medicinal herbs, mushrooms, firewood).
4. Visitor Opportunities and Access
Establish direction for the Forest trail systems.
Update road and trail density guidance to maintain a
variety of visitor experiences.
Establish guidance to maintain dispersed and developed
recreation settings that provide customer satisfaction.
5. Land Allocations
Adjust Management Area boundaries where needed to
incorporate ecological land types, current social demands, and
management practicalities.
Establish Management Area(s) and appropriate standards and
guidelines to protect rivers eligible for inclusion in the National
Wild and Scenic River system.
Determine whether any areas are appropriate for
recommendation to Congress for Wilderness designation.
Determine the most appropriate use for inventoried
roadless areas.
When making decisions to revise the Forest Plan, we will examine
economic
[[Page 22395]]
and social impacts, as well as environmental impacts at local and sub-
regional levels. Based on the above-mentioned preliminary revision
topics and associated sub-topics, the Forest planning team is gathering
information for an analysis of current and projected uses, demand, and
capabilities of the Forest. Data gathering and analyses that are either
underway or planned include a recreation feasibility study, a social
assessment, evaluation of potential roadless areas, special forest
products inventories and species viability evaluations. Collectively,
this information and analysis will contribute to our Analysis of the
Management Situation. The Analysis of the Management Situation,
studies, and related references compiled by the planning team, will be
made available for public review upon completion.
In addition to the preliminary revision topics, we propose to
revise the Forest Plan to:
Make minor changes throughout the Forest Plan for new or
updated information;
Update the monitoring and evaluation strategy; and
Incorporate the Scenery Management System (SMS) in place
of the current system to evaluate visual resources.
Topics Not Addressed in This Revision
Forest plan decisions do not change laws, regulations or rights.
The revised Forest Plan will only make decisions that apply to National
Forest System lands. The Forest Plan will make no decisions regarding
management or use of privately owned lands or reserved and outstanding
mineral estates. Further suitability studies of Wild and Scenic Rivers
will not be completed as a part of this Forest Plan revision. Topics
related to implementing projects or enforcing regulations are also
beyond the scope of what can be decided in a forest plan.
The management guidelines related to the federally listed
(endangered) Indiana Bat and West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel are
not included as a revision topic because the Forest is currently
amending the existing Forest Plan for these species based on formal
consultation with the U.S. Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife
Service. Information about these species will be brought forward into
the revised Forest Plan and does not need to be duplicated during the
revision process. The alternatives in the final EIS will be analyzed
for their effects on Threatened and Endangered Species.
Public comments received on topics that will not be addressed in
the revised Forest Plan will be forwarded to the managers responsible
for that topic area. The comments will be considered as managers
develop information and proposals related to those topics. Such
proposals may result in future plan amendments, changes in
implementation, changes in program emphasis, or various other means of
addressing concerns related to a particular topic. Implementation of
proposals will be addressed as budget priorities allow.
Possible Alternatives
We will consider a range of alternatives when revising the Forest
Plan. Alternatives will be developed to address different options to
resolve issues raised about the proposed action, and the revision
topics and proposals listed above, and to fulfill the purpose and need
described earlier in this document. A ``No Action'' alternative is
required and will be considered. For this analysis, the No Action
alternative means that management would continue under the existing
Forest Plan as amended.
Decision Framework
The Responsible Official will decide on the management direction
for the Monongahela National Forest. The Responsible Official's choices
will include:
1. The No Action Alternative, which would continue management under
the current Forest Plan as amended; and
2. Alternatives developed during the revision process to address
issues raised about the Proposed Action.
Inviting Public Participation
Following publication of this Notice of Intent, we will provide
opportunities for public involvement including: a 90-day formal comment
period, public meetings, written comments, website and e-mail. The
Forest Service will host a series of public meetings to: (1) Establish
multiple opportunities for the public to generate ideas, concerns, and
alternatives; (2) present and clarify proposed changes to the Forest
Plan; (3) describe ways that individuals can respond to this Notice of
Intent; and (4) invite comments from the public on this proposal for
revising the Forest Plan.
The table below presents the schedule of initial meetings that will
be held during the 90-day public comment period. If you need special
accommodations, please contact Doug Adamo, Forest Planner; or Kate
Goodrich, Forest Public Affairs Officer, by calling (304) 636-1800, fax
number (304) 636-1875.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Location Time
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 15, 2002....................... Seneca Rocks Discovery, Center, Two Meetings:
Intersection of State Routes 28 and 9 a.m.-12 noon.
33, Seneca Rocks, Pendleton County, 1 p.m.-4 p.m.
West Virginia.
June 17, 2002....................... Graceland Inn and Conference Center, 4 p.m.-7 p.m.
Davis and Elkins College, 100 Campus
Drive, Elkins, West Virginia 26241.
June 18, 2002....................... Richwood Public Library, White Avenue, 4 p.m.-7 p.m.
Richwood, West Virginia 26261.
June 20, 2002....................... McClintic Public Library, 500 Eighth 4 p.m.-7 p.m.
Street, Marlinton, West Virginia
24954.
June 24, 2002....................... Blackwater Falls State Park, Harr 4 p.m.-7 p.m.
Conference Center, Davis, West
Virginia 26260.
June 25, 2002....................... White Sulphur Springs City Hall, White 4 p.m.-7 p.m.
Sulphur Springs, West Virginia 24986.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From mid-2002 through mid-2004, we will validate issues and develop
alternatives. We will provide many types of public involvement in
support of alternative development, including public workshops,
collaborative meetings, and website, as well as acceptance of written
comments via regular mail and e-mail.
Late in the year 2004, we will release our proposed revised Forest
Plan and a draft EIS. We will again provide many types of public
involvement opportunities including a 90-day formal comment period,
public meetings, and website, as well as acceptance of written comments
via regular mail and e-mail.
In 2005, we will address the comments and revise the draft EIS
based on those comments and further analysis. By mid-2005, we will
release the decision, final revised Forest Plan, final EIS, and record
of decision. We will provide informational meetings to explain these
documents and decision on the final Forest Plan.
[[Page 22396]]
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.
Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any persons may request
the agency to withhold a submission from the record by showing how the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons
requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA,
confidentiality may be granted in only 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 if 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.
Comment Requested
This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process, which assists
the Forest Service in the development of the EIS. Comments will be most
helpful if they are written and are specific in nature, stating not
only the area of concern, but also the reason for the concern.
The Forest Plan revision will include a social impact analysis,
which will include considerations of potential effects to environmental
justice concerns and individual civil rights. Comments regarding these
topics are also requested.
Proposed New Planning Regulations
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published new planning
regulations in November of 2000. Concerns regarding the ability to
implement these regulations prompted a review with probable revision of
these regulations. On May 10, 2001, USDA Secretary Veneman signed an
interim final rule allowing Forest Plan amendments or revisions
initiated before May 9, 2002, to proceed either under the new planning
rule or under the 1982 planning regulations. The Monongahela National
Forest revision process will be initiated under the 1982 planning
regulations, pending future direction in revised regulations.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review
A draft EIS will be prepared for comment. The comment period for
the draft EIS will be 90 days from the date the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal
Register.
The Forest Service believes it is important to provide 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. NRDS, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978)]. Also,
environmental objections that could be raised at the draft
environmental impact 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 F2d 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 90-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 environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives
formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer
to the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations (http://
ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm) for implementing the procedural
provision of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in
addressing these points.
Dated: April 26, 2002.
Donald L. Meyer,
Acting Regional Forester.
[FR Doc. 02-10971 Filed 5-2-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 2002/05/03 EST