[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22393-22396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-10971]


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

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: [email protected] 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