[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 85 (Thursday, May 2, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22043-22048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-10826]


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

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: 
[email protected]>. 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