Record of Decision 

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Revised 

Land and Resource 

Management Plan 

CCrrooaattaann NNaattiioonnaallFFoorreesstt

United States 

Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Southern Region 

Asheville, NC 

December 2002 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color,

national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information 

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint 

of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, 

SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Management Bulletin Number R8-MB-108D December 2002 

 

2
Record of Decision 

for the 

Revised Land and Resource Management 

Plan 

Croatan National Forest 

Carteret, Craven, and Jones Counties of North Carolina 

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Responsible Official: Bob Jacobs 

Regional Forester 

Southern Region 

1720 Peachtree Road, NW 

Atlanta, GA 30367-9102

For More Information: John Ramey 

Forest Supervisor 

USDA Forest Service 

National Forests in 

North Carolina 

P.O. Box 2750 

Asheville, NC 28802 

828-257-4200 

December 2002 

3
Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 6 

My Decision .................................................................................................................... 7 

Components of the Decision ....................................................................................... 7 

Establishment of forestwide multiple-use goals and objectives (36 CFR 219.11 (b)) ... 8 

Establishment of forestwide management requirements (standards) (36 CFR 219.27) 8 

Establishment of management prescriptions and where they should be applied. (36 

CFR 219.11 (c)).............................................................................................................. 8 

Determination of land that is suitable for timber production (36 CFR 219.14) and 

establishment of the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) of timber (36 CFR 219.16)........... 9 

Recommendations for non-wilderness allocations and recommendations for wilderness 

status (36 CFR 219.17) ................................................................................................... 9 

Recommendations for wild and scenic rivers or other special use designations as 

appropriate (36 CFR 219.17).......................................................................................... 9 

Designation of lands suitable for grazing and browsing (36 CFR 219.20) .................. 10 

Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR 219.11 (d))......... 10 

Additional Decisions................................................................................................... 10 

Determination of lands administratively available for oil and gas leasing (36 CFR 

228.102 (d))................................................................................................................... 10 

Regionwide Plans and Direction.............................................................................. 10 

Rationale for Decision ................................................................................................ 10 

Issue #1: Biological Diversity and Issue #4: Silviculture, Forest Products, and Forest 

Health............................................................................................................................ 11 

Issue #2: Recreation Opportunities.............................................................................. 14 

Issue #3: Special Land Allocations.............................................................................. 15 

Issue #4 Fire Management............................................................................................ 17 

Issue #5: Access and Issue #6: Local Communities.................................................... 18 

Management Concerns............................................................................................... 20 

Alternatives.................................................................................................................... 20 

Alternative A................................................................................................................. 21 

Alternative B................................................................................................................. 21 

Alternative C................................................................................................................. 21 

Alternative C modified ................................................................................................. 21 

Alternative D................................................................................................................. 22 

Alternative E................................................................................................................. 22 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study ........................ 22 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative................................................................. 22 

Net Public Benefits...................................................................................................... 23 

Compatibility with Goals of Other Public Agencies and Indian Tribes......... 24 

Environmental Justice................................................................................................. 24 

Implementation Schedules And Budgets............................................................... 24 

Monitoring And Evaluation....................................................................................... 25 

Mitigation....................................................................................................................... 26 

4
Endangered Species Act Section 7: Consultation............................................... 27 

Plan Amendments........................................................................................................ 27 

Appeal Information...................................................................................................... 27 

5
Record of Decision 

Introduction 

This public Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision and rationale for 

approving the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Revised Forest Plan) for 

the Croatan National Forest (CNF). Previously, there was one Land and Resource 

Management Plan for both the Croatan and the Uwharrie National Forests, which was 

approved in 1986. However, I have chosen to prepare separate Revised Forest Plans for 

these two National Forests. This Revised Forest Plan will guide all resource management 

activities on just the Croatan National Forest for the next 10 to 15 years. 

The CNF is located on the eastern coastal plain of North Carolina. It covers small 

portions of three counties: Craven, Carteret, and Jones. In comparison with other national 

forests, the Croatan is relatively small—it covers about 161,000 acres. The forest’s 

unusual biological features, topographic features, and location on the Atlantic Coast, 

however, make it far more interesting and important than its acreage might suggest. 

The Croatan National Forest began with the New Deal Programs initiated during the 

Great Depression. These programs were designed to remove submarginal land from crop 

production and convert them to timber production. Due to agricultural use and 

abandonment, many acres were available in the tidewater region of North Carolina. 

Under the provisions of the Weeks Act of 1911 and the Clark-McNary Act of 1924, the 

Forest Service was given the authority to acquire land needed for timber production as 

well as protecting flows of navigable streams. In 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt 

created the CNF. 

Perhaps the most interesting topographic features are the pocosins. The pocosins are 

concentrated at the center of the CNF. A few miles to the south of the central lakes and

pocosins are sandy ridges that support old and very large longleaf pines, which have 

become rare in much of the South. The scarcity of mature longleaf pines does much to 

explain the endangered status of the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW), which is an 

important resident of the CNF. The longleaf pine-wire grass ecosystem is globally rare 

and currently represents only 3% of the historical range for the ecosystem. 

Its special landscape features and the species they support make the CNF one of 

America’s most valued forests. This Revised Plan outlines a strategy for conserving its 

treasures while allowing visitors to enjoy them wisely. 

This Forest Plan is part of the long-range resource planning framework established by the 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA), the 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), and the 2000 Revision of the 

USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 

(NFMA) requires all forests in the National Forest System to develop plans that direct 

6
resource management activities on the forests. These plans are to be revised when 

conditions have changed significantly, or on a 10- to 15-year cycle. 

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Revised Forest Plan were 

developed according to the NFMA, its implementing regulations at 36 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 219 (dated September 30, 1982 and as amended), the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and the Council of Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508. The FEIS discloses the environmental 

consequences of the alternative management strategies and how they respond to issues 

and concerns. 

This decision applies only to National Forest System lands on the Croatan National 

Forest, located in Carteret, Craven, and Jones Counties of North Carolina. It does not 

apply to any other Federal, State, or private lands, although the effects of these lands and 

the effects of my decision on lands surrounding the Forest are also considered. 

My Decision 

I selected Alternative E from the FEIS for the Revised Land and Resource Management 

Plan for the Croatan National Forest. By selecting Alternative E, I am approving the 

Revised Forest Plan that describes the goals, objectives, standards, management 

prescriptions, and lands suitable for timber production for Alternative E. 

Among the goals outlined in the Revised Plan we intend to: 

• Conserve biological diversity, by recovering threatened and endangered species, 

maintaining rare communities, and concentrating on restoring habitats that have 

been lost over the last century; 

• Increase recreational opportunities, especially those water-based camping 

opportunities in semi-primitive settings; 

• Restore the longleaf pine/wiregrass community and expand populations of the 

endangered red cockaded woodpecker; 

• Protect private and public lands from catastrophic wildfire by managing a 

wildland urban interface corridor as a defensible space; 

• Use prescribed fire to reduce wildfire risks and restore the land more closely to its 

ecological potential; 

• Adjust the pattern of motorized access by eliminating illegal access routes, clearly 

designating where off highway vehicles can be used, and identifying what roads 

are open for motorized public use; 

• Collaborate with local communities and their governments to enhance the local 

economies and the attributes that make the CNF a special place to so many. 

Components of the Decision 

Components of forest plan decisions are outlined in the National Forest Management Act 

(1976). A forest plan establishes a framework for future decision-making by outlining a 

7
broad, interdisciplinary program for achieving the desired goals, objectives, and future 

conditions of the Forest. A forest plan does not make a commitment to the selection of 

any specific project and does not dictate day-to-day administrative activities needed to

carry on the Forest Service’s internal operations. However, by applying forestwide 

management direction, the forest plan is implemented through the design, execution, and 

monitoring of site-specific activities.

The decisions I am making in this ROD for the Revised Forest Plan are: 

Establishment of forestwide multiple-use goals and objectives (36 CFR 

219.11 (b)) 

These are found in Chapter 2 of the Revised Forest Plan. The goals and objectives focus 

on achieving the desired future conditions (DFCs) of the Forest. The goals focus on 

direction for ecosystem restoration, conservation of biodiversity, sustainable forest 

management responsive to recovery needs of the red cockaded woodpecker, maintenance 

and enhancement of wildlife habitats, providing recreational opportunities, and 

contributing to social and economic health of local communities. The objectives provide 

specific outcomes for accomplishing the goals. 

Establishment of forestwide management requirements (standards) (36 

CFR 219.27) 

Forestwide standards are found in Chapter 4 of the Revised Forest Plan. Standards are 

limitations on actions or thresholds not to be exceeded. I believe that the standards 

provide adequate direction for management, provide for resource protection, and serve to 

illustrate the intent of the Revised Forest Plan. To simplify the planning document, 

direction that would duplicate laws, policies, Forest Service Manual, and Forest Service 

Handbook direction or other regional directives is not included. 

Establishment of management prescriptions and where they should be 

applied. (36 CFR 219.11 (c)) 

Management prescriptions are found in Chapter 3 of the Revised Forest Plan. Each 

prescription outlines a reference or desired condition, the likely future management 

practices to achieve the desired conditions, and standards. Twelve distinct management

prescriptions will guide the design and implementation of future actions. Where these 

management prescriptions should be applied are shown on the Forest Plan Management 

Prescription Map. In some areas, such as wilderness, legal boundaries are specified by 

congressional acts. In others, boundaries are identified using ecological units, 

administrative boundaries, or other physical features. Two management prescriptions, 

special interest areas and old growth, are embedded within the broader context of the 12 

management prescriptions cited above, in order to clarify management of smaller and 

unique lands. 

8
Determination of land that is suitable for timber production (36 CFR 219.14) 

and establishment of the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) of timber (36 CFR 

219.16) 

The designation of lands suitable for timber production is found in Chapter 4 and 

Appendix I of the Revised Forest Plan. Approximately 25,700 acres or 16 percent of the 

Forest are designated suitable for timber production. 

The ASQ is found in Chapter 4 and Appendix I of the Revised Forest Plan. The Revised 

Forest Plan projects an average annual ASQ of 8.76 MMCF (million cubic feet) for the 

next 10 years. The present budget levels, along with a projected slight increase in 

operational costs should provide sufficient funds to meet this ASQ. 

Recommendations for non-wilderness allocations and recommendations 

for wilderness status (36 CFR 219.17)

Three additions to wilderness areas, Catfish Lake South Additions A & B and the 

Pocosin Addition, totaling 691 acres will be recommended for wilderness designation. 

These areas involve boundary adjustments to existing wilderness areas and include recent 

land acquisitions. The existing 4 wilderness areas will be maintained. Appendix C of the 

FEIS presents a description and effects analysis of roadless areas on the Forest for 

potential wilderness designation. 

The remaining roadless areas will be allocated to Black Bear, RCW Habitat Management, 

and Wildland Urban Interface Management Prescriptions. While some management 

practices may occur within these areas, such activities would not change the areas’ 

roadless characteristics, and would be consistent with the Roadless Area Conservation 

Rule published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2001. In implementing the 

Roadless Rule, road construction/reconstruction and timber cutting in inventoried 

roadless areas would only be allowed under the conditions specified in 36 CFR 294.12 

and 294.13. 

About 31,221 acres (19 percent) are currently designated as wilderness. They consist 

primarily of pocosin habitats. The roadless areas also consist of the same ecological 

landtypes. 

Recommendations for wild and scenic rivers or other special use 

designations as appropriate (36 CFR 219.17) 

White Oak River and Brices Creek are eligible for designation as wild and scenic rivers, 

however, no additional wild and scenic rivers are being recommended at this time. Due to 

the limited amount of CNF land along the White Oak River and Brices Creek, the State 

of North Carolina would be the appropriate agency to lead the suitability analysis of these 

river corridors. The Forest Service will cooperate with the state agencies if such analyses 

are undertaken. The outstandingly remarkable values of the White Oak River and Brices 

Creek on CNF land will be protected. Appendix D of the FEIS documents the values 

within these river corridors. 

9
Designation of lands suitable for grazing and browsing (36 CFR 219.20) 

No grazing permits are planned for the CNF. 

Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR 219.11 

(d)) 

These are found in Chapter 5 of the Revised Forest Plan. Specific monitoring questions 

are identified and directly linked to the Revised Forest Plan goals, desired conditions, 

objectives, standards, and specific regulatory requirements. These requirements ensure 

that my approach is adaptive and sustainability is being achieved or adjustments will be 

made. 

Additional Decisions 

Determination of lands administratively available for oil and gas leasing (36 

CFR 228.102 (d)) 

Studies indicate there is no potential for oil and gas development on the CNF. 

Regionwide Plans and Direction 

The management requirements found in the following documents are being incorporated 

by reference and shall apply to the management of the CNF: 

Record of Decision, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of the

Red-cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitat on National Forests in the Southern Region 

(RCW ROD)(USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, June 1995) 

Record of Decision, Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Management 

in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont (VM ROD)(USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, 

February 1989), as Supplemented (October 2002) 

Record of Decision, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Suppression of the 

Southern Pine Beetle (SPB ROD)(USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, February 

1987) 

Rationale for Decision 

I have decided to select Alternative E as the Revised Forest Plan for the CNF. I believe 

the Revised Forest Plan is within the physical and biological capability of the land and 

that this alternative can be implemented without reducing that capability. The Revised 

Plan is responsive to the Forest Service’s National Strategic Plan (2000), and it meets our 

legal obligations to the people and environment that surrounds them. The optimal 

implementation rate for the Revised Forest Plan could require higher funding levels in 

10
some areas than those currently allocated; however, I believe the management direction 

changes envisioned in the Revised Plan can be implemented under current budget levels. 

The attainment of desired conditions and outputs in some areas, however, may be 

prolonged or reduced if future budgets decrease. 

The following discussions summarize many of the important factors that I considered. 

They explain why I believe Alternative E, as described in the FEIS, will maximize net 

public benefits when compared to the other alternatives. 

The response of each alternative to the 7 significant issues was a major consideration in 

the decision to select Alternative E. The reasons for choosing the Selected Alternative are 

discussed below on an issue-by-issue basis. Chapter 3 of the FEIS describes in detail the 

effects of expected management actions on the various Forest resources. 

Issue #1: Biological Diversity and Issue #4: Silviculture, Forest Products, 

and Forest Health 

The responses to these issues are linked and will be discussed together. 

Overview: For biological diversity, the overall goal is to maintain the native species and 

the ecosystems on which they depend. The Plan outlines the use of the coarse filter/fine 

filter approach for accomplishing these interests (Plan, Chapter 2, Section 2.1). 

Woven into the theme of biological diversity is the amount and rate of restoration efforts 

for longleaf pine, and the methods used to restore these communities. Therefore, the 

silvicultural systems and the types of forest products are connected with the biological 

diversity issue. 

 

About two-thirds of the CNF are pocosin and pond pine habitats, which are relatively 

intact to support native species, such as black bear. Prescribed fire is the primary tool for 

improving conditions of these habitats. The alternatives in the FEIS vary by the level of

prescribed fire over the next 10 years. 

About 20 percent of the landscape (around 30,000 acres) have potential longleaf pine 

ecosystems. About half of that potential longleaf is currently in loblolly pine or mixed 

loblolly and other pines. The alternatives vary by the amount and rate of the restoration of 

longleaf pine habitat and the methods used to restore that system. Since RCW expansion 

is linked to this habitat, the amount and rate of expansion of the RCW habitat 

management area and population vary for each alternative. 

About 8 percent of the CNF are hardwood wetlands, lakes, streams, or ponds, which do 

not vary significantly among the alternatives. Except for hardwood restoration (1%), the 

remaining 6 percent of CNF are developed areas and off highway vehicle areas, which

are discussed in subsequent issues. 

11
Criteria: My criteria for addressing this issue and reviewing the alternatives are: 1) make 

reasonable efforts to implement recovery plans, particularly for RCW, 2) restore habitat 

at a pace where we can monitor and make adjustments in a timely manner, 3) use natural 

processes to restore or maintain habitat wherever possible, such as using prescribed fire 

rather than mechanical or chemical treatments, 4) restore longleaf pine, and during 

restoration, consider the development of the understory, specifically wiregrass, as well as 

the overstory system, 5) assure habitats are adequate for MIS species; 6) develop 

strategies for maintaining rare species, and 7) be responsive to comments on the Draft 

EIS and Proposed Plan. 

Evaluation: All alternatives have long-term RCW population objectives (FEIS, Table 

2.1). However, only Alternatives C, C-modified and E make reasonable progress in 

population levels over the next 10 to 15 years, with increases from 20 to 30 additional 

clusters. 

Longleaf restoration is not emphasized in Alternatives A, B and D (FEIS, Table 2.7), and, 

therefore, the long-term RCW population goals may not be attainable (FEIS, Section 

3.2.3). Alternatives C and C-modified provide a stark contrast by planning 4,000 acres of 

restoration, which means that nearly 1/3 of the total amount of longleaf pine restoration 

needs would be accomplished this planning period. In my opinion, this rate of restoration 

is too rapid to monitor, evaluate success, and make adjustments. Alternative E has a 

slower rate of longleaf restoration, about 15 percent of the total restoration needs, which 

would allow reasonable time to monitor success and make adjustments. This does mean, 

however, that longleaf restoration will continue for 60 years or more before full 

restoration potential is achieved. 

Alternative B uses uneven-aged management to restore longleaf, but it is not likely that 

pure loblolly stands could be converted using uneven-aged techniques. Loblolly is an 

aggressive competitor and would outcompete longleaf without fire. Uneven-aged 

management techniques could be useful for regenerating pure longleaf stands. However, 

during this planning period, existing longleaf stands need only prescribed fire treatments, 

not regeneration. 

Alternatives A, C, C-modified, and D propose clearcutting as the dominant method for 

restoring longleaf and regenerating mixed pines. Clearcutting and subsequent bedding of

wetter sites are needed to assure stand regeneration; however, on drier sites, other 

techniques could be used. Using methods other than clearcutting would enhance other 

resource values, such as, retaining structure for wildlife species. 

I believe the strategy for restoration that provides the highest net public benefit is 

Alternative E. First, it focuses on restoration of longleaf pine, not the regeneration of 

mixed pine during this planning period. The regeneration method to be used on drier sites 

in mixed pines is shelterwood with reserves, which retains some larger trees for RCW to 

use for nesting or foraging. On these drier sites, less intensive site preparation methods 

would be used in order to retain or restore the wiregrass component of the system. 

12
Prescribed fire could be used on nearly 70 percent of the land base. While it is technically 

not feasible to prescribed burn all the longleaf, pond pine or pocosin habitats, I believe 

the higher levels of prescribed fire would sustain habitats by using natural processes 

rather than mechanical or chemical treatments. Alternatives A and B have levels that

maintain less than one-third of the land base on a short prescribed fire return interval.

Without additional prescribed fire, the pond pine and pocosin habitats would likely 

produce heavy shrub vegetation and decline in habitat value. Alternatives C, C-modified, 

D and E have prescribed fire levels that would reduce hazardous fuels and sustain 

longleaf pine, pocosin, and pond pine habitats (FEIS, Section 3.2.1). 

For alternatives that do not emphasize longleaf pine restoration or prescribed burning, it 

is anticipated that MIS habitat would decline, and therefore, population trends would be 

static to decreasing. For example, black bear trends over the long term would likely be 

static to decreasing for Alternative A, due to decline in habitat from insufficient 

prescribed fire. Expectations are that Alternatives A, B and D would not provide habitat 

quality sufficient to sustain increasing trends for black bear, RCW, and longleaf 

pine/wiregrass system. Alternatives C, C-modified and E would provide conditions for 

trends to increase over the short and long terms. 

The FEIS, Table 2.2 shows the percent of rare species within special interest areas, which 

vary by alternative. These areas act as a refuge for rare species and afford special 

consideration before any actions would be taken there. This strategy was formed to 

sustain rare communities and species. Alternatives A and D do not employ this strategy. 

Alternatives B, C, C-modified, and E all employ the strategy for conserving rare 

communities and species by capturing 70 to 72 percent of them within the special interest 

areas. 

Response to Comments: The FEIS contains nearly 30 pages of text responding to 

concerns raised about biodiversity during the review of the DEIS and Proposed Plan. 

Please refer to FEIS, Appendix A, Section A.1 for details. However, I do want to expand 

the explanation about selection of Management Indicator Species (MIS). 

Some comments received referred to the selection of MIS and discussed how few species 

were listed. Many additions to the list were recommended. However, the FEIS and Plan 

now show fewer species being selected than were in the DEIS and Proposed Plan. 

In determining the species to be selected as MIS, we examined the list of proposed MIS 

and questioned how well each species would indicate effects of management practices. 

To address this question, CNF lands were aggregated into two groups: 1) Most affected 

landtypes where active management practices would occur, and 2) Least affected 

landtypes where no active management is planned, or activities are so infrequent and low 

impact that population changes would not be the result of effects from management 

practices. 

The strategy was then to select species representing the most affected landtypes for 

monitoring population trends. Several species were chosen to monitor population 

13
changes. On the least affected landtypes, effects of management practices are not 

believed to cause population changes. Therefore, species associated with these landtypes 

will be monitored through habitat conditions. This strategy is appropriate given the low 

level of risk to species in these least affected landtypes. As a result, the species that are 

now selected as MIS are those species deemed optimal for addressing the effects of 

management practices. Refer to the FEIS, Appendix G for more information on MIS 

selection. 

Issue #2: Recreation Opportunities 

Overview: The key interests of this issue are the types of recreational opportunities that 

should be emphasized on the CNF over the next 10 years. 

The CNF is uniquely bounded by the following waterways: the Neuse, Trent and White 

Oak Rivers, and the forest is close to the Atlantic Ocean. A highly developed tourist 

market exists along the beaches of the Atlantic Ocean. 

Over the past decade, the primary recreational uses have been hunting and fishing. 

Activities that are currently on the increase include biking, horseback riding, and wildlife 

viewing. There continues to be high demands for water-based, dispersed camping 

opportunities. With over 200 miles of open roads, the CNF is considered fully roaded and 

accessible for motor vehicles. 

There are highly developed recreational camping sites on the CNF, but few designated 

dispersed sites. The current trail system does not clarify the types of uses, including 

where off highway vehicles (OHV’s) are allowed. More than 70 miles of user-created, 

unauthorized trails are being used by off highway vehicles. The alternatives vary by the 

capacity of developed sites in rural and semi-primitive settings, the amount and types of 

trails offered, and how to manage the unauthorized roads and trails and OHV use. 

Criteria: My criteria for evaluating alternatives for this issue are: 1) increase water based 

recreation opportunities in areas with least impacts to other natural resources; 2) establish 

a trail system to accommodate a variety of uses; 3) apply the criteria of Executive Order 

11644 - Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the public lands to determine the amount and 

location of OHV use; 4) close out unauthorized roads and trails, 5) be responsive to 

comments on the DEIS and Proposed Plan. 

Evaluation: Table 2.3 (FEIS, Chapter 2) displays differences by alternatives for 

developed recreational capacities and trail opportunities. Alternatives A and B do not 

emphasize recreational use and have much fewer opportunities than the other alternatives. 

Alternatives C, C-modified, D, and E meet my expectations for planned increases in the 

amount and types of recreational opportunities. 

Alternative D is designed to provide additional access. That means some of the 

unauthorized roads would need to be put on the transportation system. Since the Forest is 

14
considered fully roaded, it is my opinion that the additional access provided in 

Alternative D would saturate the CNF with road use. 

Executive Order 11644 requires designations of areas and trails to: minimize damage to 

soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources of public lands; to minimize harassment of 

wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats; and minimize conflicts among users. 

It is my opinion that Alternatives B and E provide OHV opportunities while protecting 

the other resources. Alternatives A, C, C-modified, and D, however, would not minimize 

damage to other resources of public lands. 

Response to Comments: Refer to the FEIS, Appendix A, Section A.2 for comments and 

responses on the DEIS and Proposed Plan. I will elaborate on comments and responses 

related to OHV use. 

Comments on the Proposed Plan about OHV use were focused on decreasing the amount 

of use and potential damage to other resources. There were no comments that called for 

increasing OHV use. In the Proposed Plan, OHV trails would be designated in 2 

geographic areas: Black Swamp Road area and Deep Sand Road area. The Deep Sand 

Road area has sandy soils that resist erosion. However, there is evidence that OHV users 

are going off trails and widening out areas, thus stripping the vegetative cover. The 

habitats of the Deep Sand Road area support many rare plant and animal species. 

Therefore, I believe Alternative E, which eliminates the Deep Sand road area from OHV 

use, meets the intent of EO 11644 to minimize the damage to other resources of public 

lands. 

The Black Swamp road area will continue to serve OHV users. The travel routes are 

dikes made in the 1960’s. Riders are encouraged to stay on the travel routes by natural 

constraints. The wet mucky soils in the adjacent areas restrict access. However, I realize 

that the Black Swamp road area may not provide the very best location for OHV use 

because maintenance costs would be expensive and users may want different riding 

experiences. Therefore, I encourage the Forest Supervisor to work with the local 

community of users and other interest groups to monitor the Black Swamp Road area and 

determine if the amount and type of OHV use is acceptable, or if there is a need for other 

OHV areas. 

Issue #3: Special Land Allocations 

Overview: There are 2 components to special land allocations: 1) management of existing 

wilderness and recommendations of roadless areas for wilderness, and 2) 

recommendations of river corridors eligible for wild and scenic river status. 

There are 31,221 acres in 4 designated wilderness areas on the CNF. They are comprised 

primarily of pocosin habitat with small portions of pond pine. Maintaining pocosin and 

pond pine habitat in wilderness is a management concern due to the restrictions on 

management practices. With the absence of fire in these ecological systems, fuels will 

accumulate and raise the risk of catastrophic wildfire. 

15
Many of the wilderness boundaries are directly adjacent to private lands. When planning 

a defensible space (wildland urban interface zone) to protect adjacent landowners from 

possible catastrophic wildfires (approximately 2,500 acres along wilderness boundaries 

fall into this zone) there will be conflicts between the management objectives of wildland 

urban interface and wilderness. To minimize potential future conflicts, standards in the 

plan require site-specific proposals to use the Minimum Requirement Decision Guide 

(Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center 2002) for treatment options in 

wilderness areas. 

There are 6 roadless areas (about 20,000 acres) evaluated for potential wilderness (FEIS, 

Appendix C). The roadless areas are primarily pocosin and pond pine habitat, which is 

similar to the existing wilderness areas. The recommendations of roadless areas for 

wilderness vary by alternative. 

Two rivers corridors are eligible for wild and scenic designation, the White Oak River 

and Brices Creek. The final classifications of these rivers are pending. Since the CNF 

land comprises less than 20 percent of the White Oak River Corridor, and less than 35 

percent of Brices Creek Corridor, the State of North Carolina would be the appropriate 

agency to lead efforts to study the suitability of these corridors for wild and scenic status. 

The Forest Service would cooperate if these studies are undertaken. The alternatives in 

the FEIS vary by whether or not measures are stipulated for protecting the outstandingly 

remarkable values of these river corridors eligible for wild and scenic river status. 

Criteria: My criteria for evaluating alternatives for this issue are: 1) recommend roadless 

areas for wilderness when there are demonstrated needs, and 2) protect outstandingly 

remarkable values of river corridors eligible for wild and scenic river status until the State 

of North Carolina, with the Forest Service as a cooperator, completes the suitability 

analyses, and 3) be responsive to comments on the DEIS and Proposed Plan. 

Evaluation: The total acreage of existing wilderness and recommendations of roadless 

areas for wilderness area vary by alternative (FEIS, Chapter 2, Table 2.4). Alternative B 

recommends all roadless areas for wilderness, C-modified recommends 1 roadless area, 

and Alternatives C, D, and E recommend only the small additions due to recent land 

acquisitions. No additional wilderness is recommended in Alternative A. 

Alternatives C, D and E set the course of action that deliver the highest net public benefit 

on this issue. No compelling need for recommending roadless areas for wilderness has 

been raised. Adding the small inclusion of new acquisitions, about 691 acres is 

reasonable. However, there are no advantages to managing the other roadless areas as 

wilderness. There are no unique ecological types, or special places for recreating, or areas 

for research needs of wilderness management that cannot be met within the existing 

wilderness. I believe that additional wilderness allocations would detract from other 

needs that exist in the area. For example, wilderness management places restrictions that 

affect both fire management and military over flights. The precedent of these needs has 

been established over the past several decades. Without any evidence that further 

16
wilderness recommendations are needed, I believe it is in the best public interest to allow 

fire management and military over flights to proceed in roadless areas. 

Protection measures of river corridors eligible for wild and scenic recommendations vary 

by alternative (FEIS, Table 2.5). Alternatives B, C, C-modified and E meet the criteria of 

protecting the values of these river corridors, until further studies are completed. 

Response to Comments: Refer to the FEIS, Appendix A, Section A.3 for comments and 

responses on the DEIS and Proposed Plan. I will elaborate on comments and responses 

related to roadless area allocations. 

For Alternative E, more than 75 percent of the roadless areas are allocated to the Black

Bear Management Prescription. Desired conditions for this prescription (Plan, Section 

3.9) includes the following: “Public recreational use is low and infrequent. The area is 

mostly unroaded. Some existing roads may be closed to public motorized vehicle use. 

Recreation settings are semiprimitive. Management activities in the area are restricted to 

those that enhance natural community features. Users will experience a sense of isolation 

and remoteness, similar to that experienced in designated wildernesses.” Although some

of the sense of isolation could be compromised by military over flights, I believe that

most of the characteristics people want for wilderness would be maintained in the 

roadless areas. Similarly, about 9 percent of the roadless areas are designated to 

hardwood wetlands or small pocosin patches where management activities would be 

infrequent and low impact. 

About 13 percent of the roadless areas fall into prescriptions that could change the current 

condition: RCW Habitat Management Area (about 10 percent) and Wildland Urban 

Interfaces (about 3 percent). Yet, these prescriptions are primarily on the outer edges of 

the roadless areas and management practices for these prescriptions would not change the 

roadless characteristics. 

Issue #4 Fire Management 

Overview: The key interests related to this issue is: 1) how to protect the CNF and 

adjacent private lands from catastrophic wildfires, and 2) what level of prescribed fire is 

necessary to reduce hazardous fuel and maintain habitats. 

About 70 percent of the CNF is occupied by short interval fire-adapted ecosystems such 

as pine forest and pocosins. Without fire, these systems produce thick shrub 

environments that cause intense, and sometimes catastrophic wildfires. Also the thick 

brush may displace sensitive plants that require open conditions. 

Criteria: My criteria for evaluating alternatives include the following: 1) provide for 

human health and safety, 2) reduce risks to property and other resources, and 3) reduce 

risks of losing short interval fire adapted ecosystems, 4) responsive to comments on the 

DEIS and Proposed Plan, 5) implement the National Fire Plan. 

17
Evaluation: A wildland fire risk rating is provided in the FEIS, Section 2.3.5. 

Alternatives C, C-modified, D, and E provide the least risk of wildfire due to the 

establishment of 2 factors: 1) a defensible space called the Wildland Urban Interface 

(WUI) and 2) the relatively higher levels of prescribed fire to reduce fuel loadings. These 

alternatives would maintain a fire return interval suited for each ecological landtype. 

Alternatives A and B do not establish the protective zones, have relatively low levels of

prescribed fire, and are not acceptable because of their relatively high wildfire risks. 

Response to Comments: Refer to the FEIS, Appendix A, Section A.5 for comments and 

responses on the DEIS and Proposed Plan. I will elaborate on comments and responses 

related to mechanical preparations prior to prescribed fire. 

Using prescribed fire properly requires considerable skill. To minimize risk of escape, the 

fire specialist must evaluate whether ground conditions are suitable for using prescribed 

fire. In many cases, re-introducing fire into the ecosystem will be a 2-staged process: 1) 

reducing hazardous fuel loads through mechanical means, and 2) using prescribed fire 

thereafter to maintain the system. Each site, including the defensible space in the 

Wildland Urban Interface, will be evaluated for the need of treatments prior to using 

prescribed fire. 

Some commenters expressed concern over the width of the WUI zone, suggesting that 1⁄4-

mile would be too wide. The amount of the WUI that receives treatments depends on sitespecific information of ground conditions. We will rely on the expertise of fire specialists 

to help determine what conditions are necessary to control risks of catastrophic wildfires. 

Public opportunities to participate in the decisions on treatments in the WUI will be 

provided through the NEPA process. 

Issue #5: Access and Issue #6: Local Communities 

The responses to these issues are linked and will be discussed together. 

Overview: The key interests for these issues are: 1) how do local communities and 

governments, and state and federal agencies collaborate to sustain the special attributes of 

an area, including managing the processes of land adjustments and special uses, and 2) 

what is the balance between providing motorized access and protection of natural 

resources? 

The CNF lies within the counties of Craven, Carteret and Jones, and occupies about 15 

percent of the counties’ land base. The mix and types of residents offers a challenge to 

create a shared sense of place for the area. Long-term residents, new residents, seasonal, 

and the transient Marine Corps populations tend to view the local area in vastly different 

ways. To bring an awareness of the special cultural and environmental attributes of the 

area requires a collaborative effort. 

18
The CNF provides green space for the local communities and offers easy access to 

natural environments. However, there may be too much access since there are many short 

spurs off the main roads where trash dumping and illegal shooting are occurring. 

Criteria: My criteria for addressing this issue are: 1) collaborate with local communities 

and governments, other federal and state agencies to create a shared vision about the 

cultural and environmental attributes that make this area special, and 2) work with local 

area residents to determine which spurs to close, with priority on closing those where 

dumping is occurring, 3) be responsive to comments on the DEIS and Proposed Plan. 

Evaluation: For the first criterion, the alternatives do not show a wide variation. The 

alternatives do evaluate the numbers of jobs and expected income into the local 

communities resulting from CNF management. While this is helpful to local 

communities, it does not assure collaboration on sustaining the special cultural and 

environmental attributes. Therefore, the strategy of collaboration would be part of any 

alternative selected. The discussion on sustaining local communities is part of the final 

plan (Plan, Section 2.7). 

The amount of road closures varies by alternative (FEIS, Table 2.9). More roads are 

closed in Alternatives B (over 50 miles) and C than are required to address this issue. 

Alternatives A, D, and E allow for a modest, reasonable amount of future closures, that 

seem to fit with the culture of the local area. 

Responsive to Comments: Refer to the FEIS, Appendix A, Section A.6 and A.7 for 

comments and responses on the DEIS and Proposed Plan. I will elaborate on comments 

and responses related to land adjustments. 

There were several comments relating to the need for linking Marine Corp Base at Camp

Lejeune, Holly Shelter, Hoffman Forest, Marine Corp Air Station at Cherry Point and the 

CNF. With the rapid urbanization taking place, collaborations with other federal, state 

and local governments, local businesses and other interest groups to balance the rate of 

urbanization and sustaining natural environments are paramount. Therefore, I encourage 

the Forest Supervisor to engage in initiatives that take a regional approach to natural 

resource conservation, and to use these efforts as guides for land adjustment decisions. 

Conclusion: I believe Alternative E sets the framework for future decisions better than 

any other alternative because it: 

• Includes reasonable strategies to implement endangered species recovery plans, 

particularly for RCW;

• Restores habitats at a pace where we can monitor and make adjustments in a 

timely manner; 

• Uses natural processes to restore or maintain habitat wherever possible, such as 

using prescribed fire rather than mechanical or chemical treatments; 

• When restoring longleaf pine, considers the development of the understory as 

well as the overstory system by using less intensive site preparation methods; 

19
• Assures habitats are adequate to support trends for MIS species; 

• Develops strategies for sustaining rare communities and species by providing 

special interest areas as a refuge; 

• Increases water based recreation opportunities in areas with least impacts to other 

natural resources; 

• Establishes a trail system to accommodate a variety of uses; 

• Complies with the criteria of Executive Order 11644 - Use of off road vehicles 

on the public lands to determine the amount and location of OHV use; 

• Allows the closure of unauthorized roads and trails to motorized vehicles; 

• Provides a reasonable recommendation of roadless areas for wilderness based on 

physical, biological, and social needs. The areas recommended involve additions 

(691 acres) from recent land acquisitions, and will improve the manageability of 

the existing wilderness areas. The other roadless areas will be managed under 

management prescriptions that would not change their roadless characteristics; 

• Protects outstandingly remarkable values of river corridors eligible for wild and 

scenic river status. The State of North Carolina, with the Forest Service as a 

cooperator, would be the appropriate agency to conduct the suitability analyses of 

these rivers; 

• Provides for human health and safety from wildland fire; 

• Reduces risks to property and other resources from wildland fire; 

• Reduces risks of losing short interval fire adapted ecosystems; 

• Emphasizes the collaboration with local communities and governments, other 

federal and state agencies to create a shared vision about the cultural and 

environmental attributes that make this area special; 

• Provides emphasis to work with local area residents to determine which roads 

and spurs to close, especially where trash dumping and illegal shooting are 

occurring; 

• Adequately responds to comments on the Draft EIS and Proposed Plan. 

Management Concerns 

In addition to the planning issues and public comments, the following factors were 

considered in making my decision: 

• Consistency with applicable laws, policies, manual, and handbook direction that 

govern the development of a Forest Plan and management of national forest lands. 

• Promotion of rural economic development and a quality rural environment. 

• The effects on the people who use and depend on forest resources. 

• Consistency with plans and policies of local, State, and other national government 

agencies. 

• Operational and budget needs to fully implement the Plan decision. 

Alternatives 

Five alternatives were analyzed in detail in the DEIS. Six are considered in detail in the

FEIS, including Alternative E, the Revised Forest Plan. One additional alternative (FEIS, 

20
Chapter 2, Section 2.1) was considered but eliminated from detailed study for reasons 

given in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. The management theme for each of the alternatives is 

provided below. A discussion of the environmental effects for the alternatives considered 

in detail is included in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Alternative A 

This alternative would continue implementation of the original 1986 Forest Plan, as 

amended. It serves as a basis for comparison with the other alternatives. Under this 

alternative, the Forest would be intensively managed to provide a moderate output of 

commodity resources. Loblolly pine would be favored over longleaf pine on most sites. 

The RCW recovery would be slower and based on 1989 interim guidelines. 

Alternative B 

This alternative was developed to address a number of public comments asking for lowimpact timber management to restore natural communities, increased emphasis on naturebased recreation activities in remote settings and generally a lighter human hand on the 

land. Alternative B emphasizes low-impact activities and restoration of natural 

communities at a slow rate. Natural communities would be restored through uneven-aged 

management, using the potential natural vegetation predicted by the ecological 

classification as a basis for desired condition. RCW augmentation efforts would stimulate 

very slow expansion of the population. Recreation activities would have low impacts. 

Alternative C 

This alternative addresses public comments desiring rapid longleaf pine restoration; 

expansion of the existing RCW population; more habitat for black bears, hardwood 

wetland habitats, and wild turkey; and more fuels management in wildland urban 

interfaces. Alternative C provides for restoration of natural communities, using a 

combination of even- and two-aged silvicultural systems. Emphasis is on restoring 

longleaf pine to sites currently occupied by offsite loblolly pine, with a longleaf pine 

ecological type. Expansion of RCW populations would be actively pursued. Fuel 

loadings would be reduced in wildland-urban interfaces and pocosins. Recreation would 

be primarily nature-based and further development would emphasize the Croatan as a 

unique natural setting for a variety of recreation opportunities. 

Alternative C modified 

In this modification of Alternative C, Pond Pine Addition B is proposed for wilderness

designation. All other actions and effects are as described above for Alternative C. This 

new wilderness enlarges the Pond Pine Wilderness to the east and provides linkage 

around Great Lake to the Sheep Ridge Wilderness to the north and the Pocosin 

Wilderness to the south. A quarter mile nonwilderness buffer is provided on the north 

side of the Camp Lejeune Railroad. 

21
Alternative D 

This alternative addresses public desires for more human accessibility to, and use of, 

national forest lands. In Alternative D, maintaining existing forest community types 

would be the basis for regeneration, and longleaf pine and hardwoods would not be 

actively restored. The level of RCW population expansion would be slow. Fuels 

management would be aggressive. Recreation management would emphasize a full range 

of opportunities. A wide variety of special uses would be accommodated throughout the 

forest. 

Alternative E 

This alternative addresses public comments about the preferred alternative in the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement and the Proposed CNF Revised Plan. The theme of this 

alternative is similar to Alternative C: strive to restore longleaf pine; expansion of the 

existing RCW population; enhance habitat for black bears, hardwood wetland habitat, 

and wild turkey; and more fuels management in wildland-urban interfaces. However, the 

method of restoring longleaf pine and increasing RCW clusters would change between 

the alternatives. Alternative E emphasizes two-aged regeneration methods (shelterwood 

with reserves) over clearcutting in order to retain stand structure for potential RCW

nesting trees. One OHV area provides opportunities to meet demands for all terrain 

vehicles. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study 

During the scoping phase of the NEPA process, some respondents wanted an alternative 

that eliminated human uses and human induced impacts. No vegetation projects, no 

prescribed fire, limited recreation uses, no access for off highway vehicles, were a few 

actions mentioned. This alternative was considered but not studied in detail because this 

level of management is already described in the Minimum Level Benchmark (see 

Appendix B, FEIS), it does not address all the issues identified by the public, and it 

would eliminate most of the multiple uses and benefits for which national forests were 

created. 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

The Council on Environmental Quality has defined the “environmentally preferable” 

alternatives as: “...the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as 

expressed in NEPA’s section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the 

least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative

which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources.” 

Alternative B is the environmentally preferable alternative. It would schedule the least 

amount of timber harvest, associated road development, and involve the least humaninduced change to the natural environment. Consequently, of all the alternatives

22
considered in detail, it would have the fewest adverse human induced effects on the 

biological and physical environment. 

Even though Alternative B is preferable from the standpoint of the physical and 

biological environment, I believe Alternative E provides for a better balance of resource 

uses and maximizes the net public benefit while protecting the environment. The Selected 

Alternative is also more responsive to concerns of local communities for economic 

stability and achieves a better overall balance of the economic concerns with the 

environmental issues. Some of the components of Alternative B are incorporated in the 

Selected Alternative, such as designation of the entire hardwood/cypress ecological 

landtype to a prescription that protects wetland habitat, designated old-growth areas, and 

improved recreation opportunities. 

Alternative E incorporates appropriate environmental safeguards to minimize potential 

adverse effects to the biological and physical environment. In addition, this alternative 

maintains options for the next 10 to 15 years that will allow the Forest to respond to 

many of the issues addressed in Alternative B. Features of the Selected Alternative such 

as locating and scheduling longleaf pine restoration efforts to accommodate RCW 

expansion will allow the Forest to adapt and incorporate new scientific findings over the 

next 10 years while providing a stable supply of timber for local economic stability. The 

Selected Alternative provides more flexibility than Alternative B to manage habitats for a 

variety of wildlife species, including threatened and endangered species, and those which 

need abundant early successional habitat as well as those that prefer abundant older 

successional habitat. Also, the Selected Alternative would provide opportunities to 

improve overall forest health by effectively restoring native plant communities and 

lessening potential habitat losses to detrimental insects and diseases. 

Net Public Benefits 

The 1982 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) implementing regulations (36 CFR 

219.1) state that forest plans must “...provide for multiple-use and sustained yield of 

goods and services from the National Forest System in a way that maximizes long-term 

net public benefits in an environmentally sound manner.” Net public benefits can be 

defined as the overall value to the Nation of all outputs (benefits) and positive effects,

less all associated inputs (costs) and negative effects, whether they can be quantitatively 

valued or not. Therefore, public net benefits have 2 components: priced and non-priced 

benefits and costs. 

Priced benefits and costs: Prices for timber outputs and recreation uses were estimated in 

the FEIS (Appendix B). The Present Net Value (PNV) was used to measure the 

economic efficiency of each alternative. A comparison of the alternatives’ PNVs, is 

shown in Table B-18 of the FEIS. All the alternatives fall within 10 percent of the highest 

PNV, which is Alternative C. Therefore, in terms of priced benefits and costs, the range 

is fairly narrow among alternatives. 

23
Non-priced benefits and costs: The range among alternatives becomes much wider when 

non-priced benefits and costs are considered. Some of the important non-priced benefits 

include ecosystem diversity; restoring habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species; water quality; and scenic quality. The rationale for my decision discloses public 

net benefits that accrues for the alternatives. For example, the criterion for the rate of 

restoration of longleaf shows that Alternatives A, B, and D do not provide high public 

benefits, due to the lack of restoration emphasis. Alternatives C and C-modified provide 

high net public benefits, however, the rate of restoration is too rapid in the short term and 

would commit resources without chances for adjustments. Alternative E provides a rate 

of restoration that provides for additional species habitat, while allowing time to monitor 

successes or failures. The benefits of balancing the resource flows are non-priced, but 

real values of society. 

I believe that Alternative E provides direction to manage the Forest to produce goods, 

services, and use opportunities in a way that maximizes net public benefits. Based on the 

preceding discussions it is clear that Alternative E does not have the least impact on the 

environment nor does it generate as many market valued commodities as other 

alternatives considered in the FEIS. However, I believe the Selected Alternative achieves 

a balance between the economic benefits and environmental issues and concerns voiced 

by the public. I believe the Selected Alternative will increase public benefits by moving 

the Forest towards improved forest health through its emphasis on restoring native 

landscape diversity and through its special attention to providing functioning ecosystems 

and unique plant and animal habitats. I am also confident that the management direction 

in the Revised Forest Plan is within the physical and biological capability of the land and 

can be accomplished without reducing that capability. 

Compatibility with Goals of Other Public Agencies and Indian Tribes 

The Revised Forest Plan has been developed with public participation that involved 

coordination and comments from federal, State, and local agencies including the 

Department of Defense, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, State of North Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources, State of North Carolina Department of Parks and 

Recreation, County Commissions of Craven, Carteret, and Jones Counties. 

Environmental Justice 

The Selected Alternative would not disproportionately affect minority or low-income

populations in the local communities. While some lessening of forest products outputs 

such as timber volumes would occur, a sustainable mix of goods and services would 

continue in the long-term. 

Implementation Schedules And Budgets 

The Revised Forest Plan will be implemented through a series of project-level decisions 

based on site-specific environmental analysis and public involvement. The Revised 

Forest Plan seeks to guide determination of management activities and projects by 

24
establishing a clear desired condition for the Forest and for each management 

prescription and area, rather than by establishing schedules for actions. This approach 

should leave more flexibility for managers to adapt program and project selection as 

changes take place in budgets, resource capabilities, and management priorities. 

Outputs in the FEIS are projections of probable outcomes. They were used to 

approximate activities and practices, in order to estimate the likely environmental effects 

of following the direction provided by the Revised Forest Plan. 

The Revised Forest Plan purposefully avoids determining activity schedules. Appendix 

K contains some estimates of possible outputs, but these are projections for future project 

planning and budgeting purposes. These estimates to not constitute Plan decisions and 

Plan amendments are not needed to change these projections.

During implementation, specific projects and activities will be proposed and analyzed. 

These analyses will be documented in the appropriate NEPA documents, i.e., 

Environmental Assessments, Environmental Impact Statements, or Categorical 

Exclusions. Projects, practices, and activities will be designed to achieve the goals, 

objectives, and desired future conditions (DFCs) described in Chapters 2 and 3 of the 

Revised Forest Plan. 

The Revised Forest Plan may be implemented no sooner than 30 days from the date that 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s Notice of Availability of the FEIS appears in the 

Federal Register. 

Monitoring And Evaluation 

The monitoring and evaluation program is the quality-control system for a forest plan. 

This program is described in Chapter 5, “Monitoring and Evaluation”, of the Revised 

Forest Plan. Monitoring and evaluation is emphasized in this revision and will provide us 

with information on the progress that we achieve in obtaining management goals and 

objectives. This information will be evaluated and used to update inventory data, to 

improve current and future mitigation measures, and to assess the need for amending or 

revising the Revised Forest Plan. Evaluation of monitoring results is directly linked to the 

decision maker’s ability to respond to changing conditions, emerging trends, public 

concerns, and new information and technology. No single monitoring item or parameter 

automatically triggers a change in Revised Forest Plan direction. An interdisciplinary 

approach is used to evaluate information and decide what changes are needed. 

Specific monitoring questions are identified and directly linked to Revised Forest Plan 

goals, desired future conditions, objectives, standards, and specific regulatory 

requirements. Not every goal, objective, and standard can be monitored. Relevancy to 

issues, compliance with legal and agency policy, scientific credibility, administrative 

feasibility, long- and short-term budget considerations, and impact on work force all 

influence monitoring priorities. 

25
A range of acceptable approaches has been identified to monitor and evaluate the 

forestwide status and trends of habitats and populations for threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species or for those species selected as management indicator species. One or 

more of these approaches that can be applied in monitoring a species include: (1) 

measurement of habitat conditions and trends for species, (2) the use of population 

occurrence data, (3) the use of population indices to track relative population trends, (4) 

actual population estimates and demographic information usually reserved for some

federally listed species or high risk globally impaired species, and (5) development of 

research studies to determine species/habitat relationships and species responses to 

conditions created by land management activities. 

Each monitoring question has one or more monitoring items to answer the question. For 

each monitoring question, a monitoring task sheet has been developed. These task sheets 

are used to develop the details, priorities, and budgeting for answering the monitoring 

questions. The task sheets are not part of my decision but are in Appendix L of the 

Revised Forest Plan for information. Changes to task sheets will not require a Forest Plan 

amendment. 

Public participation is vital as we monitor our progress. We will work with partners and 

cooperators in developing and carrying out monitoring activities. Activities, findings, and 

results will be evaluated and reports will be available for the public at least annually. The 

public may review the results and recommend changes based on monitoring findings, 

emerging issues or new information. 

Mitigation 

Mitigation measures are an integral part of the Forestwide standards and management 

prescription standards listed in the Revised Forest Plan in Chapter 4. These mitigation 

measures were developed by an interdisciplinary team and contain measures necessary to 

avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for possible adverse 

environmental effects. Some mitigation measures are incorporated by reference from

other documents. These documents include: 

• Record of Decision, Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation 

Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont (VM ROD)(USDA Forest Service, 

Southern Region, February 1989), as Supplemented (October 2002) 

• Record of Decision, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Management 

of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitat on National Forests in the 

Southern Region (RCW ROD)(USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, June 

1995) 

• Record of Decision, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Suppression of 

the Southern Pine Beetle (SPB ROD)(USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, 

February 1987) 

26
Endangered Species Act Section 7: Consultation 

A biological assessment was prepared for the Revised Forest Plan (FEIS, Appendix E). 

The determination is that the Selected Alternative will “not likely to adversely affect”

RCW, rough leaved loosestrife, bald eagle, and American alligator, and will have “no 

effect” on red wolf, eastern cougar, and sensitive joint vetch. The USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service were informally consulted and have concurred with this determination. (See the 

concurrence letter from the UDSI Fish and Wildlife Service dated June 14, 2002.)

Plan Amendments 

The Revised Forest Plan is a dynamic instrument that can be changed with appropriate 

public involvement and environmental analysis. Through the life of the Revised Forest 

Plan, amendments may be needed to incorporate new information, new policy and 

direction, or changing values and resource conditions. Amendments will keep the Forest 

Plan current, relevant, and responsive to agency and public concerns. Amendments are 

needed whenever any of the Revised Forest Plan decisions should be changed due to any 

of the above conditions. The Revised Forest Plan also can be amended for specific 

projects if during project design it is determined that the best method of meeting goals 

and objectives conflicts with existing standards.

Amendments may be significant or non-significant. The Forest Supervisor may 

implement non-significant amendments to the Revised Forest Plan after appropriate 

public involvement and environmental analysis. The Regional Forester approves 

significant amendments. 

Appeal Information 

This decision may be appealed in accordance with the provisions of 36 CFR 217 by filing 

a written notice of appeal within 90 days from the date of publication of the legal notice. 

The appeal must be filed with the Reviewing Officer: 

Express Mail: 

USDA - Forest Service 

Attn: EMC, Appeals 

201 14th Street, SW

3rd Floor Central 

Washington, DC 20024 

27
Regular Mail: 

USDA - Forest Service 

Attn: EMC, Appeals 

Mail Stop 1104 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20250-1104 

The notice of appeal must include sufficient narrative evidence and argument to show 

why this decision should be changed or reversed (36 CFR 217.9). Requests to stay the 

approval of this Land and Resource Management Plan shall not be granted (36 CFR 

217.10 (b)). 

The Revised Forest Plan will be implemented 30 days after the Notice of Availability of

the Forest Plan, the FEIS, and the Record of Decision appear in the Federal Register. All 

new permits, contracts, and other instruments for the use and occupancy of National 

Forest System lands and resource uses must conform to the Revised Forest Plan. Permits, 

contracts, and other instruments that were in existence before implementation will be

reviewed (if needed), subject to valid existing rights. No decisions on site-specific 

projects are made in this document. Outputs identified in the Revised Forest Plan are only 

included to indicate an approximate level of activities and practices, and to help estimate 

effects. Final decisions on site-specific projects will be made after site-specific analysis 

and documentation in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Anyone concerned about the Revised Forest Plan or FEIS, or who would like more 

information is encouraged to contact: 

John Ramey 

Forest Supervisor 

National Forests in North Carolina 

PO Box 2750 

Asheville, NC 28802 

December 20, 2002 

Date 

28