[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11107-11111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4931]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Revision of Land Management Plan for the George Washington
National Forest, Virginia and West Virginia
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
and revised land management plan using the provisions of the 1982
National Forest System land and resource management planning
regulations for the George Washington National Forest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Area: Alleghany, Amherst, Augusta, Bath, Botetourt,
Frederick, Highland, Nelson, Page, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Shenandoah
and Warren counties, Virginia and in Hampshire, Hardy, Monroe and
Pendleton counties, West Virginia.
SUMMARY: As directed by the National Forest Management Act, the USDA
Forest Service is preparing the George Washington National Forest
(GWNF) revised land and resource management plan (Forest Plan) and an
environmental impact statement (EIS) for this revised plan. This notice
briefly describes the purpose and need for change, some proposed
actions in response to the need for change, preliminary issues, and
preliminary alternatives for the plan revision based on what has been
identified from internal and external discussions since the revision of
the Forest Plan began in 2007. It also provides information concerning
public participation, estimated dates for filing the EIS, the names and
addresses of the responsible agency official, and the individuals who
can provide additional information. Finally, this notice briefly
describes the applicable planning rule and how work done on the plan
revision under the 2008 planning rule will be used or modified for
completing this plan revision.
The revised Forest Plan will supersede the land and resource
management plan previously approved by the Regional Forester on January
21, 1993 and as amended nine times from 1993 to 2002. Those amendments
include: The availability of oil and gas leasing in Laurel Fork Special
Management Area; the designation of Mount Pleasant National Scenic
Area; the Biological Opinion for the Indiana bat; and the helicopter
application of liming for the St. Mary's River within the St. Mary's
Wilderness. The amended Plan will remain in effect until the revision
takes effect.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of this analysis as presented here
and on
[[Page 11108]]
the Internet Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj will be most useful
in the development of the draft Forest Plan and draft Environmental
Impact Statement if received by May 7, 2010. Public meetings to discuss
the need for change, issues for analysis, a range of alternatives and
further plan development are planned in March and April 2010 at several
locations. The dates, times and locations of these meetings will be
posted at the Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj. The agency expects
to release a draft revised Forest Plan and draft EIS for formal comment
by December 2010 and a final revised Forest Plan and final EIS by
September 2011.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: George Washington Plan Revision,
George Washington & Jefferson National Forests, 5162 Valleypointe
Parkway, Roanoke, Virginia 24019-3050. Electronic comments should
include ``GW Plan Revision'' in the subject line and be sent to:
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Overcash, Planning Team Leader,
Ken Landgraf, Planning Staff Officer, or JoBeth Brown, Public Affairs
Officer, George Washington & Jefferson National Forests, (540) 265-
5100. Information on this revision is also available at the George
Washington & Jefferson National Forests revision Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj.
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD)
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Name and Address of the Responsible Official
The responsible official who will approve the Record of Decision is
Elizabeth Agpaoa, Regional Forester, Southern Region, 1720 Peachtree
Road, NW., Atlanta, Georgia 30309.
B. Nature of the Decision To Be Made
The George Washington National Forest is preparing an EIS to revise
the current Forest Plan. The EIS process is meant to inform the
Regional Forester so that she can decide which alternative best meets
the diverse needs of the people while protecting the forest's
resources, as required by the National Forest Management Act and the
Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act. The Revised Forest Plan will
establish management direction for the next 10 to 15 years and will
address the needs for change described below. Forest Plans typically do
not make site-specific decisions but they do establish limitations on
what actions may be authorized and what conditions must be met as part
of project-level decision-making. The authorization of site-specific
activities within a plan area later occurs through project decision-
making that must comply with NEPA procedures and must include a
determination that the project is consistent with the Forest Plan. The
exception to this for the GWNF Forest Plan will be the site-specific
designation of those lands administratively available for oil and gas
leasing. The environmental analysis for this site-specific decision
will be included within the Forest Plan EIS.
A Forest Plan developed under the 1982 planning rule procedures
will make the following primary decisions:
1. Establishment of forestwide multiple-use goals and objectives
(36 CFR 219.11(b));
2. Establishment of forestwide management requirements (36 CFR
219.13 to 219.27);
3. Establishment of multiple-use prescriptions and associated
standards for each management area (36 CFR 219.11(c));
4. Determination of land that is suitable for the production of
timber (16 U.S.C. 1604(k) and 36 CFR 219.14);
5. Establishment of the allowable sale quantity for timber within a
time frame specified in the plan (36 CFR 219.16);
6. Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR
219.11(d));
7. Recommendations concerning roadless areas that Congress could
designate as wilderness (36 CFR 219.17); and
8. Where applicable, designation of those lands administratively
available for oil and gas leasing (36 CFR 228. 102). The 1993 GWNF
Forest Plan contains the designation of those lands administratively
available for oil and gas leasing. This designation will be analyzed
again in the EIS and addressed in the revised Forest Plan.
C. Background
1. Applicable Planning Rule
Notification of initiation of the plan revision process for the
George Washington National Forest was provided in the Federal Register
on February 15, 2007 [72 FR 73901]. The plan revision was initiated
under the planning procedures contained in the 2005 Forest Service
planning rule (36 CFR 219 (2005)) and one series of public meetings was
held. On March 30, 2007, the federal district court for the Northern
District of California enjoined the Forest Service from implementing
the 2005 planning rule and the revision of the GWNF Forest Plan under
the 36 CFR 219 (2005) rule was suspended in response to the injunction.
On April 21, 2008 the Forest Service adopted a new planning rule that
allowed resumption of the revision process if it conformed to the new
planning rule (36 CFR 219.14(b)(3)(ii), 2008). Notification of
adjustment for resuming the land management plan revision process under
the 36 CFR 219 (2008) rule for the GWNF was provided in the Federal
Register on June 24, 2008 [73 FR 35632]. A series of five topical
public meetings were held between July 2008 and February 2009. On June
30, 2009, the 2008 planning rule was enjoined by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California (Citizens for
Better Forestry v. United States Department of Agriculture, No. C 08-
1927 CW (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2009)) and the revision of the GWNF Forest
Plan was again suspended. The Department has determined that the 2000
planning rule is now back in effect. The 2000 Rule's transition
provisions (36 CFR 219.35), amended in 2002 and 2003 and clarified by
interpretative rules issued in 2001 and 2004, and reissued on December
18, 2009 [74 FR 67059-67075] allow use of the provisions of the
National Forest System land and resource management planning rule in
effect prior to the effective date of the 2000 Rule (November 9, 2000),
commonly called the 1982 planning rule, to amend or revise plans. The
GWNF has elected to use the provisions of the 1982 planning rule,
including the requirement to prepare an EIS, to complete its plan
revision.
2. Relationship to the Southern Appalachian Assessment and the Revised
Land and Resource Management Plan for the Jefferson National Forest
The George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, along with
four other national forests, participated in the preparation of the
Southern Appalachian Assessment, which culminated in a final summary
report and four technical reports (atmospheric, social/cultural/
economic, terrestrial, and aquatic) that were published in July, 1996.
The Assessment facilitated ecologically based approaches to public
lands management in the Southern Appalachian region by collecting and
analyzing broad scale biological, physical, social and economic data.
It addressed the sustainability of Southern Appalachian Mountain public
lands in light of increasing urbanization,
[[Page 11109]]
changing technologies, forest pests, and other factors. The Assessment
supported the revision of five Forest Plans within the Southern
Appalachian Mountains, with the exception of the recently revised GWNF
Forest Plan, by describing how the lands, resources, people and
management of the National Forests are interrelated within the larger
context of the Southern Appalachian region.
The Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Jefferson
National Forest was approved January 15, 2004. Although the Jefferson
National Forest was administratively combined with the George
Washington National Forest in 1995, the forests still retain separate
Forest Plans.
3. Prior Plan Revision Effort
Although the 2008 planning rule is no longer in effect, the
information gathered from public collaboration efforts and most of the
analysis conducted prior to the court's injunction in June 2009 is
useful for completing the plan revision using the provisions of the
1982 planning regulations. The GWNF has concluded that the following
material developed during the plan revision process to date is
appropriate for continued use:
--The inventory and evaluation of potential wilderness areas that was
previously published on August 21, 2008 is consistent with the 1982
planning regulations, and will be brought forward into this plan
revision process.
--A Comprehensive Evaluation Report (CER) was developed under the 2005
and 2008 rule provisions, and it has been available for public comment.
This analysis will be updated with additional information to meet the
requirements of the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS)
provisions of the 1982 rule. The information from this analysis was
used to help identify the need for change and the preliminary proposed
actions that are identified in this notice. Comments received during
the scoping process will be used to further update the need for change
analysis. Other AMS requirements will also continue to be worked on as
the planning process proceeds.
--Information on the life history, threats, habitat needs and
population trends for a number of terrestrial and aquatic species
contained in the forest planning records for the ecosystem and species
diversity assessments will continue to be used as a reference in the
planning process as appropriate to meet the requirements of the 1982
planning regulations. This is scientific information and is not
affected by the change of planning rule. This information will be
updated with any new available information.
--Public comments previously submitted in writing, or recorded at past
public meetings, related to the revision of the GW Forest Plan since
2007 will be used to help identify issues and concerns and to help
develop alternatives to address these issues and concerns.
As necessary or appropriate, the above listed material will be
further adjusted as part of the planning process using the provisions
of the 1982 planning regulations.
D. Issues, Need for Change, and Proposed Actions
According to 36 CFR 219.10(g) (1982 rule), land management plans
are ordinarily revised on a 10 to 15 year cycle. The existing Forest
Plan for the George Washington National Forest (GWNIF) was approved on
January 21, 1993. Since then, changes have occurred in resource
conditions, environmental stresses and threats, societal demands and
our current state of scientific knowledge. Also since then, the
Jefferson National Forest was administratively combined with the George
Washington National Forest in 1995. Together, both forests cover almost
1.8 million acres of National Forest system lands in Virginia, West
Virginia and a small portion in Kentucky. The Forest Plan for the
Jefferson National Forest was approved January 15, 2004 and was
prepared in conjunction with four other National Forests in the
Southern Appalachians, using the best available science from the
Southern Appalachian Assessment. A desire for both the GWNF and JNF
Forest Plans to provide some level of consistent management direction
has been expressed by members of the public, our state agency partners
and our forest employees. This will improve efficiency in plan
implementation and monitoring and in responding to regional or
landscape level analysis of issues that cross broad landscapes.
Therefore, consideration of the management direction in the JNF Revised
Forest Plan is important in the revision of the GWNF Forest Plan.
Previous public collaboration efforts with individual members of
the public, organizations, user groups, industry representatives, local
and state government representatives, state agency partners and forest
employees have identified a number of items that should be addressed in
the Forest Plan. These include questions about how the Forest will
manage terrestrial plants, terrestrial animals, rare species (including
threatened, endangered, sensitive and locally rare species), old
growth, riparian areas, water quality, drinking water, aquatic animals,
wood products, scenery, recreation opportunities in a variety of
settings (hiking, mountain biking, All-Terrain Vehicle use, Off-Highway
Vehicle use, horseback riding), roadless areas, wilderness, forest
health, roads, minerals, fire, subsurface mineral rights, lands, air
quality, special uses and the contributions of the forest to local
economies. A number of concerns involved issues related to impacts to
the Forest from outside the Forest boundary. These include climate
change, nonnative invasive species, increasing development adjacent to
the Forest, increasing demands for use of Forest (e.g., wind energy
development), increasing demands for access to the Forest, and
increasing law enforcement problems with illegal access. Most of these
concerns are multi-faceted, interconnected and frequently involve
conflicting viewpoints. However, from all of the previous public
interactions, there appeared to be three prominent areas of discussion:
Vegetation management (where, how much, what types); access management
(roads and trails); and management of roadless areas, other remote
areas, and wilderness.
The need for change topics and proposed actions highlighted here
represent efforts to integrate and balance many of the issues and
concerns that have been identified to date. They are a starting point
for framing future discussions in proceeding with the GWNF Forest Plan
revision; discussions that could lead to additional issues and needs
for change, different alternatives, different land allocations, changes
in objectives, changes in suitable uses and different levels of
analysis needed. Every concern or issue is not necessarily mentioned
below but more details on the need for change and proposed actions can
be found on the forest's Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj.
Need for Change Topic 1--Ecological Health, Restoration and
Sustainability
Changes are needed in management direction for maintaining or
restoring healthy, resilient forest ecosystems due to the recognition
that: Vegetation conditions (structure, composition, and function) for
some ecosystems have declined (e.g., oak regeneration, fire dependent
pine regeneration); forest conditions indicate a substantial departure
from natural fire regimes; stresses and threats from insects, disease,
and nonnative invasive plant
[[Page 11110]]
and animal species are increasing; and potential effects from climate
change are uncertain. By restoring and maintaining the key
characteristics, conditions, and functionality of native ecological
systems, the GWNF should also provide for the needs of the diverse
plant and animal species on the forest. The issue of vegetation
management (where, how much, what type) is closely related to this
topic because it is one of the tools by which the desired conditions
and objectives for ecological health and sustainability can be
accomplished.
Proposed Actions
1. Identify desired conditions and objectives to maintain the
resilience and function of nine identified ecological systems and
determine the desired structure and composition of those ecosystems.
2. Incorporate management direction to provide habitat for
maintaining species viability and diversity across the forest. For
example, specify objectives to address the many species that need
habitat management in some form of opening, open woodland or early
successional habitat.
3. Combine the existing management prescriptions for remote
wildlife habitat, mosaics of wildlife habitat, early successional
habitat and timber management into one broader area for management that
will allow better implementation of desired conditions and objectives
for ecosystem and species diversity and viability at a larger landscape
level.
4. Add about 23,000 acres of new and expanded existing Special
Biological Areas to protect and restore rare communities and species.
5. Recognize the role of fire as an essential ecological process.
Substantially increase the objective for using prescribed fire for
ecosystem restoration to around 12,000 to 20,000 acres per year.
Incorporate the use of unplanned natural ignitions for achieving
ecological objectives.
6. Incorporate management direction for controlling, treating or
eradicating nonnative invasive plant and animal species.
7. Update the Management Indicator Species (MIS) list to use the
same species as in the Jefferson NF Forest Plan, except the Cow Knob
salamander will replace the Peaks of Otter salamander. MIS are species
whose population changes are believed to indicate the effects of
management activities.
8. Update the direction for management of old growth to meet
guidance for the Southern Region. Provide for small, medium and large
patches of old growth with an adequate representation and distribution
of the old growth community types. Because an inventory of existing old
growth does not exist to the degree it did for the Jefferson NF, manage
old growth through the use of forest-wide desired conditions and
standards, rather than as a separate management prescription as in the
Jefferson NF Forest Plan.
9. Incorporate adaptive management strategies for addressing
climate change.
10. Identify five reference watersheds for monitoring of baseline
conditions.
Need for Change Topic 2--Roadless Area, Backcountry and Wilderness
Management
The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule used the roadless
inventory from the 1993 GWNF Forest Plan to identify the inventoried
roadless areas covered by the Rule. These Inventoried Roadless Areas,
updated to reflect subsequent designations of Wilderness and a National
Scenic Area, now include 24 areas for a total of about 242,000 acres.
The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule has been litigated, enjoined,
and reinstated for part of the U.S., but it is currently not in effect
for the GWNF. In 2008, an inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas was
completed that identified 37 areas (totaling about 370,000 acres) that
meet the definition of wilderness in section 2(c) of the 1964
Wilderness Act. This inventory included almost all of the remaining
2001 Inventoried Roadless Areas. A draft evaluation that is based on
the capability (degree to which each area contains the basic natural
characteristics that make it suitable for wilderness designation), the
availability (value of and need for the wilderness resource compared to
the value of and need of each area for other resources) and the need
(degree that the area contributes to the local and national
distribution of wilderness) for additional wilderness has been
conducted for each of these areas.
Proposed Actions
1. Identify one new area and three additions to existing wilderness
areas (about 20,400 acres) as recommended wilderness study areas.
2. Expand the current remote backcountry management area allocation
to include more of the Inventoried Roadless Areas and update the
management direction for these remote backcountry areas to contain
management restrictions on road construction and timber harvest that
are similar to those described in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation
Rule.
3. Areas in the potential wilderness area inventory that are
currently assigned an active management prescription, and that are not
recommended for wilderness study, would remain in active management.
Many of these areas are long and skinny and surrounded by roads that
are suitable for some management activities without additional
permanent road construction.
Need for Change Topic 3--Responding to Social Needs
Changes are needed in management direction for some of the tangible
and non tangible goods and services offered by various forest
resources. The issue of road and trail access is most closely related
to this topic.
Proposed Actions
1. Identify the importance of maintaining the high quality of water
for drinking water and for aquatic life. Increase the riparian corridor
distance definition. Update the standards for riparian area protection
to incorporate the best available science. Strengthen the management
direction for groundwater and karst areas (two of the nine ecological
systems for focusing management direction to maintain or restore
sustainability are ones that emphasize the need for protection of
surface water and groundwater).
2. Re-evaluate the oil and gas leasing availability designations.
3. Identify uses suitable for specific areas of the forest (e.g.,
timber production, road construction, wind energy development,
prescribed fire).
4. Determine the allowable sale quantity of timber.
5. Re-evaluate road access needs.
E. Preliminary Alternatives
A range of alternatives will be considered during the plan revision
process that will propose different options to resolve issues
identified in the scoping process. The draft EIS will examine the
effects of implementing a reasonable range of alternatives and will
identify a preferred alternative. Previous public collaboration efforts
have been used to identify the following preliminary alternatives;
however, there will be future opportunities to refine and/or develop
additional alternatives.
1. Proposed Action-- The proposed actions identified to date in
order to respond to the need for change formulate the basis for an
alternative to be evaluated.
2. No Action--Management would continue under the existing Forest
Plan.
3. Increased Emphasis on Remote Recreation and Remote Habitats--
This
[[Page 11111]]
alternative would recommend additional areas for wilderness study and
allocate a backcountry recreation management prescription to more of
the potential wilderness areas currently in active management.
F. Documents Available for Review
A number of documents are available for review at the George
Washington and Jefferson National Forests' Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj. Additional documents will be added to this site
throughout the planning process.
G. Lead and Cooperating Agencies
The lead agency for this proposal is the USDA Forest Service. We
expect the USDI Bureau of Land Management will be a cooperating agency
in the designation of lands available for oil and gas leasing.
H. Scoping Process
When the GWNF Forest Plan revision process initially started,
public workshops were held in March of 2007 where participants were
asked to describe what they thought was working well on the Forest and
what needed to be changed. In July of 2008 another round of public
workshops was held where participants were asked to work on District
maps and identify areas of the Forest they would like to see managed in
a different way. Public workshops were held on various topics
(vegetation management, access, roadless areas and wilderness) to have
discussions on how we should change the Forest Plan to address
concerns. In January and February of 2009 additional workshops were
held where preliminary opinions were presented on how the Forest could
respond to the information that had been received up to that point. The
need for change, issues, proposed actions and alternatives identified
in this Notice of Intent reflect those preliminary discussions and
opinions as a starting point for proceeding with this revision.
It is important that reviewers provide their comments on what is
presented in this notice and on the Web site at such times and in such
a way that they are useful to the Agency's preparation of the revised
plan and the EIS. Comments on the need for change, proposed actions,
issues and preliminary alternatives will be most valuable if received
by May 7, 2010 and should clearly articulate the reviewers' concerns.
The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer's
ability to participate in any subsequent administrative or judicial
review. At this time, we anticipate using a pre decisional objection
process for administrative review.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including the
names and addresses of those who comment will be part of the public
record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be
accepted and considered.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614; 36 CFR 219.35 (74 FR 67073-
67074).
Dated: March 2, 2010.
Henry B. Hickerson,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2010-4931 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M