[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11107-11111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4931]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Revision of Land Management Plan for the George Washington 
National Forest, Virginia and West Virginia

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 
and revised land management plan using the provisions of the 1982 
National Forest System land and resource management planning 
regulations for the George Washington National Forest.

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

    Affected Area: Alleghany, Amherst, Augusta, Bath, Botetourt, 
Frederick, Highland, Nelson, Page, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Shenandoah 
and Warren counties, Virginia and in Hampshire, Hardy, Monroe and 
Pendleton counties, West Virginia.
SUMMARY: As directed by the National Forest Management Act, the USDA 
Forest Service is preparing the George Washington National Forest 
(GWNF) revised land and resource management plan (Forest Plan) and an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) for this revised plan. This notice 
briefly describes the purpose and need for change, some proposed 
actions in response to the need for change, preliminary issues, and 
preliminary alternatives for the plan revision based on what has been 
identified from internal and external discussions since the revision of 
the Forest Plan began in 2007. It also provides information concerning 
public participation, estimated dates for filing the EIS, the names and 
addresses of the responsible agency official, and the individuals who 
can provide additional information. Finally, this notice briefly 
describes the applicable planning rule and how work done on the plan 
revision under the 2008 planning rule will be used or modified for 
completing this plan revision.
    The revised Forest Plan will supersede the land and resource 
management plan previously approved by the Regional Forester on January 
21, 1993 and as amended nine times from 1993 to 2002. Those amendments 
include: The availability of oil and gas leasing in Laurel Fork Special 
Management Area; the designation of Mount Pleasant National Scenic 
Area; the Biological Opinion for the Indiana bat; and the helicopter 
application of liming for the St. Mary's River within the St. Mary's 
Wilderness. The amended Plan will remain in effect until the revision 
takes effect.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of this analysis as presented here 
and on

[[Page 11108]]

the Internet Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj will be most useful 
in the development of the draft Forest Plan and draft Environmental 
Impact Statement if received by May 7, 2010. Public meetings to discuss 
the need for change, issues for analysis, a range of alternatives and 
further plan development are planned in March and April 2010 at several 
locations. The dates, times and locations of these meetings will be 
posted at the Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj. The agency expects 
to release a draft revised Forest Plan and draft EIS for formal comment 
by December 2010 and a final revised Forest Plan and final EIS by 
September 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: George Washington Plan Revision, 
George Washington & Jefferson National Forests, 5162 Valleypointe 
Parkway, Roanoke, Virginia 24019-3050. Electronic comments should 
include ``GW Plan Revision'' in the subject line and be sent to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7c1f1311111912080f510f13090814190e12511b19130e1b190b1d0f1415121b08131216191a1a190e0f13123c1a0f521a191852090f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8deee2e0e0e8e3f9fea0fee2f8f9e5e8ffe3a0eae8e2ffeae8faecfee5e4e3eaf9e2e3e7e8ebebe8fffee2e3cdebfea3ebe8e9a3f8fe">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Overcash, Planning Team Leader, 
Ken Landgraf, Planning Staff Officer, or JoBeth Brown, Public Affairs 
Officer, George Washington & Jefferson National Forests, (540) 265-
5100. Information on this revision is also available at the George 
Washington & Jefferson National Forests revision Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj.
    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Name and Address of the Responsible Official

    The responsible official who will approve the Record of Decision is 
Elizabeth Agpaoa, Regional Forester, Southern Region, 1720 Peachtree 
Road, NW., Atlanta, Georgia 30309.

B. Nature of the Decision To Be Made

    The George Washington National Forest is preparing an EIS to revise 
the current Forest Plan. The EIS process is meant to inform the 
Regional Forester so that she can decide which alternative best meets 
the diverse needs of the people while protecting the forest's 
resources, as required by the National Forest Management Act and the 
Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act. The Revised Forest Plan will 
establish management direction for the next 10 to 15 years and will 
address the needs for change described below. Forest Plans typically do 
not make site-specific decisions but they do establish limitations on 
what actions may be authorized and what conditions must be met as part 
of project-level decision-making. The authorization of site-specific 
activities within a plan area later occurs through project decision-
making that must comply with NEPA procedures and must include a 
determination that the project is consistent with the Forest Plan. The 
exception to this for the GWNF Forest Plan will be the site-specific 
designation of those lands administratively available for oil and gas 
leasing. The environmental analysis for this site-specific decision 
will be included within the Forest Plan EIS.
    A Forest Plan developed under the 1982 planning rule procedures 
will make the following primary decisions:
    1. Establishment of forestwide multiple-use goals and objectives 
(36 CFR 219.11(b));
    2. Establishment of forestwide management requirements (36 CFR 
219.13 to 219.27);
    3. Establishment of multiple-use prescriptions and associated 
standards for each management area (36 CFR 219.11(c));
    4. Determination of land that is suitable for the production of 
timber (16 U.S.C. 1604(k) and 36 CFR 219.14);
    5. Establishment of the allowable sale quantity for timber within a 
time frame specified in the plan (36 CFR 219.16);
    6. Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR 
219.11(d));
    7. Recommendations concerning roadless areas that Congress could 
designate as wilderness (36 CFR 219.17); and
    8. Where applicable, designation of those lands administratively 
available for oil and gas leasing (36 CFR 228. 102). The 1993 GWNF 
Forest Plan contains the designation of those lands administratively 
available for oil and gas leasing. This designation will be analyzed 
again in the EIS and addressed in the revised Forest Plan.

C. Background

1. Applicable Planning Rule

    Notification of initiation of the plan revision process for the 
George Washington National Forest was provided in the Federal Register 
on February 15, 2007 [72 FR 73901]. The plan revision was initiated 
under the planning procedures contained in the 2005 Forest Service 
planning rule (36 CFR 219 (2005)) and one series of public meetings was 
held. On March 30, 2007, the federal district court for the Northern 
District of California enjoined the Forest Service from implementing 
the 2005 planning rule and the revision of the GWNF Forest Plan under 
the 36 CFR 219 (2005) rule was suspended in response to the injunction. 
On April 21, 2008 the Forest Service adopted a new planning rule that 
allowed resumption of the revision process if it conformed to the new 
planning rule (36 CFR 219.14(b)(3)(ii), 2008). Notification of 
adjustment for resuming the land management plan revision process under 
the 36 CFR 219 (2008) rule for the GWNF was provided in the Federal 
Register on June 24, 2008 [73 FR 35632]. A series of five topical 
public meetings were held between July 2008 and February 2009. On June 
30, 2009, the 2008 planning rule was enjoined by the United States 
District Court for the Northern District of California (Citizens for 
Better Forestry v. United States Department of Agriculture, No. C 08-
1927 CW (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2009)) and the revision of the GWNF Forest 
Plan was again suspended. The Department has determined that the 2000 
planning rule is now back in effect. The 2000 Rule's transition 
provisions (36 CFR 219.35), amended in 2002 and 2003 and clarified by 
interpretative rules issued in 2001 and 2004, and reissued on December 
18, 2009 [74 FR 67059-67075] allow use of the provisions of the 
National Forest System land and resource management planning rule in 
effect prior to the effective date of the 2000 Rule (November 9, 2000), 
commonly called the 1982 planning rule, to amend or revise plans. The 
GWNF has elected to use the provisions of the 1982 planning rule, 
including the requirement to prepare an EIS, to complete its plan 
revision.

2. Relationship to the Southern Appalachian Assessment and the Revised 
Land and Resource Management Plan for the Jefferson National Forest

    The George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, along with 
four other national forests, participated in the preparation of the 
Southern Appalachian Assessment, which culminated in a final summary 
report and four technical reports (atmospheric, social/cultural/
economic, terrestrial, and aquatic) that were published in July, 1996. 
The Assessment facilitated ecologically based approaches to public 
lands management in the Southern Appalachian region by collecting and 
analyzing broad scale biological, physical, social and economic data. 
It addressed the sustainability of Southern Appalachian Mountain public 
lands in light of increasing urbanization,

[[Page 11109]]

changing technologies, forest pests, and other factors. The Assessment 
supported the revision of five Forest Plans within the Southern 
Appalachian Mountains, with the exception of the recently revised GWNF 
Forest Plan, by describing how the lands, resources, people and 
management of the National Forests are interrelated within the larger 
context of the Southern Appalachian region.
    The Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Jefferson 
National Forest was approved January 15, 2004. Although the Jefferson 
National Forest was administratively combined with the George 
Washington National Forest in 1995, the forests still retain separate 
Forest Plans.

3. Prior Plan Revision Effort

    Although the 2008 planning rule is no longer in effect, the 
information gathered from public collaboration efforts and most of the 
analysis conducted prior to the court's injunction in June 2009 is 
useful for completing the plan revision using the provisions of the 
1982 planning regulations. The GWNF has concluded that the following 
material developed during the plan revision process to date is 
appropriate for continued use:

--The inventory and evaluation of potential wilderness areas that was 
previously published on August 21, 2008 is consistent with the 1982 
planning regulations, and will be brought forward into this plan 
revision process.
--A Comprehensive Evaluation Report (CER) was developed under the 2005 
and 2008 rule provisions, and it has been available for public comment. 
This analysis will be updated with additional information to meet the 
requirements of the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) 
provisions of the 1982 rule. The information from this analysis was 
used to help identify the need for change and the preliminary proposed 
actions that are identified in this notice. Comments received during 
the scoping process will be used to further update the need for change 
analysis. Other AMS requirements will also continue to be worked on as 
the planning process proceeds.
--Information on the life history, threats, habitat needs and 
population trends for a number of terrestrial and aquatic species 
contained in the forest planning records for the ecosystem and species 
diversity assessments will continue to be used as a reference in the 
planning process as appropriate to meet the requirements of the 1982 
planning regulations. This is scientific information and is not 
affected by the change of planning rule. This information will be 
updated with any new available information.
--Public comments previously submitted in writing, or recorded at past 
public meetings, related to the revision of the GW Forest Plan since 
2007 will be used to help identify issues and concerns and to help 
develop alternatives to address these issues and concerns.

    As necessary or appropriate, the above listed material will be 
further adjusted as part of the planning process using the provisions 
of the 1982 planning regulations.

D. Issues, Need for Change, and Proposed Actions

    According to 36 CFR 219.10(g) (1982 rule), land management plans 
are ordinarily revised on a 10 to 15 year cycle. The existing Forest 
Plan for the George Washington National Forest (GWNIF) was approved on 
January 21, 1993. Since then, changes have occurred in resource 
conditions, environmental stresses and threats, societal demands and 
our current state of scientific knowledge. Also since then, the 
Jefferson National Forest was administratively combined with the George 
Washington National Forest in 1995. Together, both forests cover almost 
1.8 million acres of National Forest system lands in Virginia, West 
Virginia and a small portion in Kentucky. The Forest Plan for the 
Jefferson National Forest was approved January 15, 2004 and was 
prepared in conjunction with four other National Forests in the 
Southern Appalachians, using the best available science from the 
Southern Appalachian Assessment. A desire for both the GWNF and JNF 
Forest Plans to provide some level of consistent management direction 
has been expressed by members of the public, our state agency partners 
and our forest employees. This will improve efficiency in plan 
implementation and monitoring and in responding to regional or 
landscape level analysis of issues that cross broad landscapes. 
Therefore, consideration of the management direction in the JNF Revised 
Forest Plan is important in the revision of the GWNF Forest Plan.
    Previous public collaboration efforts with individual members of 
the public, organizations, user groups, industry representatives, local 
and state government representatives, state agency partners and forest 
employees have identified a number of items that should be addressed in 
the Forest Plan. These include questions about how the Forest will 
manage terrestrial plants, terrestrial animals, rare species (including 
threatened, endangered, sensitive and locally rare species), old 
growth, riparian areas, water quality, drinking water, aquatic animals, 
wood products, scenery, recreation opportunities in a variety of 
settings (hiking, mountain biking, All-Terrain Vehicle use, Off-Highway 
Vehicle use, horseback riding), roadless areas, wilderness, forest 
health, roads, minerals, fire, subsurface mineral rights, lands, air 
quality, special uses and the contributions of the forest to local 
economies. A number of concerns involved issues related to impacts to 
the Forest from outside the Forest boundary. These include climate 
change, nonnative invasive species, increasing development adjacent to 
the Forest, increasing demands for use of Forest (e.g., wind energy 
development), increasing demands for access to the Forest, and 
increasing law enforcement problems with illegal access. Most of these 
concerns are multi-faceted, interconnected and frequently involve 
conflicting viewpoints. However, from all of the previous public 
interactions, there appeared to be three prominent areas of discussion: 
Vegetation management (where, how much, what types); access management 
(roads and trails); and management of roadless areas, other remote 
areas, and wilderness.
    The need for change topics and proposed actions highlighted here 
represent efforts to integrate and balance many of the issues and 
concerns that have been identified to date. They are a starting point 
for framing future discussions in proceeding with the GWNF Forest Plan 
revision; discussions that could lead to additional issues and needs 
for change, different alternatives, different land allocations, changes 
in objectives, changes in suitable uses and different levels of 
analysis needed. Every concern or issue is not necessarily mentioned 
below but more details on the need for change and proposed actions can 
be found on the forest's Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj.

Need for Change Topic 1--Ecological Health, Restoration and 
Sustainability

    Changes are needed in management direction for maintaining or 
restoring healthy, resilient forest ecosystems due to the recognition 
that: Vegetation conditions (structure, composition, and function) for 
some ecosystems have declined (e.g., oak regeneration, fire dependent 
pine regeneration); forest conditions indicate a substantial departure 
from natural fire regimes; stresses and threats from insects, disease, 
and nonnative invasive plant

[[Page 11110]]

and animal species are increasing; and potential effects from climate 
change are uncertain. By restoring and maintaining the key 
characteristics, conditions, and functionality of native ecological 
systems, the GWNF should also provide for the needs of the diverse 
plant and animal species on the forest. The issue of vegetation 
management (where, how much, what type) is closely related to this 
topic because it is one of the tools by which the desired conditions 
and objectives for ecological health and sustainability can be 
accomplished.

Proposed Actions

    1. Identify desired conditions and objectives to maintain the 
resilience and function of nine identified ecological systems and 
determine the desired structure and composition of those ecosystems.
    2. Incorporate management direction to provide habitat for 
maintaining species viability and diversity across the forest. For 
example, specify objectives to address the many species that need 
habitat management in some form of opening, open woodland or early 
successional habitat.
    3. Combine the existing management prescriptions for remote 
wildlife habitat, mosaics of wildlife habitat, early successional 
habitat and timber management into one broader area for management that 
will allow better implementation of desired conditions and objectives 
for ecosystem and species diversity and viability at a larger landscape 
level.
    4. Add about 23,000 acres of new and expanded existing Special 
Biological Areas to protect and restore rare communities and species.
    5. Recognize the role of fire as an essential ecological process. 
Substantially increase the objective for using prescribed fire for 
ecosystem restoration to around 12,000 to 20,000 acres per year. 
Incorporate the use of unplanned natural ignitions for achieving 
ecological objectives.
    6. Incorporate management direction for controlling, treating or 
eradicating nonnative invasive plant and animal species.
    7. Update the Management Indicator Species (MIS) list to use the 
same species as in the Jefferson NF Forest Plan, except the Cow Knob 
salamander will replace the Peaks of Otter salamander. MIS are species 
whose population changes are believed to indicate the effects of 
management activities.
    8. Update the direction for management of old growth to meet 
guidance for the Southern Region. Provide for small, medium and large 
patches of old growth with an adequate representation and distribution 
of the old growth community types. Because an inventory of existing old 
growth does not exist to the degree it did for the Jefferson NF, manage 
old growth through the use of forest-wide desired conditions and 
standards, rather than as a separate management prescription as in the 
Jefferson NF Forest Plan.
    9. Incorporate adaptive management strategies for addressing 
climate change.
    10. Identify five reference watersheds for monitoring of baseline 
conditions.

Need for Change Topic 2--Roadless Area, Backcountry and Wilderness 
Management

    The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule used the roadless 
inventory from the 1993 GWNF Forest Plan to identify the inventoried 
roadless areas covered by the Rule. These Inventoried Roadless Areas, 
updated to reflect subsequent designations of Wilderness and a National 
Scenic Area, now include 24 areas for a total of about 242,000 acres. 
The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule has been litigated, enjoined, 
and reinstated for part of the U.S., but it is currently not in effect 
for the GWNF. In 2008, an inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas was 
completed that identified 37 areas (totaling about 370,000 acres) that 
meet the definition of wilderness in section 2(c) of the 1964 
Wilderness Act. This inventory included almost all of the remaining 
2001 Inventoried Roadless Areas. A draft evaluation that is based on 
the capability (degree to which each area contains the basic natural 
characteristics that make it suitable for wilderness designation), the 
availability (value of and need for the wilderness resource compared to 
the value of and need of each area for other resources) and the need 
(degree that the area contributes to the local and national 
distribution of wilderness) for additional wilderness has been 
conducted for each of these areas.

Proposed Actions

    1. Identify one new area and three additions to existing wilderness 
areas (about 20,400 acres) as recommended wilderness study areas.
    2. Expand the current remote backcountry management area allocation 
to include more of the Inventoried Roadless Areas and update the 
management direction for these remote backcountry areas to contain 
management restrictions on road construction and timber harvest that 
are similar to those described in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation 
Rule.
    3. Areas in the potential wilderness area inventory that are 
currently assigned an active management prescription, and that are not 
recommended for wilderness study, would remain in active management. 
Many of these areas are long and skinny and surrounded by roads that 
are suitable for some management activities without additional 
permanent road construction.

Need for Change Topic 3--Responding to Social Needs

    Changes are needed in management direction for some of the tangible 
and non tangible goods and services offered by various forest 
resources. The issue of road and trail access is most closely related 
to this topic.

Proposed Actions

    1. Identify the importance of maintaining the high quality of water 
for drinking water and for aquatic life. Increase the riparian corridor 
distance definition. Update the standards for riparian area protection 
to incorporate the best available science. Strengthen the management 
direction for groundwater and karst areas (two of the nine ecological 
systems for focusing management direction to maintain or restore 
sustainability are ones that emphasize the need for protection of 
surface water and groundwater).
    2. Re-evaluate the oil and gas leasing availability designations.
    3. Identify uses suitable for specific areas of the forest (e.g., 
timber production, road construction, wind energy development, 
prescribed fire).
    4. Determine the allowable sale quantity of timber.
    5. Re-evaluate road access needs.

E. Preliminary Alternatives

    A range of alternatives will be considered during the plan revision 
process that will propose different options to resolve issues 
identified in the scoping process. The draft EIS will examine the 
effects of implementing a reasonable range of alternatives and will 
identify a preferred alternative. Previous public collaboration efforts 
have been used to identify the following preliminary alternatives; 
however, there will be future opportunities to refine and/or develop 
additional alternatives.
    1. Proposed Action-- The proposed actions identified to date in 
order to respond to the need for change formulate the basis for an 
alternative to be evaluated.
    2. No Action--Management would continue under the existing Forest 
Plan.
    3. Increased Emphasis on Remote Recreation and Remote Habitats--
This

[[Page 11111]]

alternative would recommend additional areas for wilderness study and 
allocate a backcountry recreation management prescription to more of 
the potential wilderness areas currently in active management.

F. Documents Available for Review

    A number of documents are available for review at the George 
Washington and Jefferson National Forests' Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj. Additional documents will be added to this site 
throughout the planning process.

G. Lead and Cooperating Agencies

    The lead agency for this proposal is the USDA Forest Service. We 
expect the USDI Bureau of Land Management will be a cooperating agency 
in the designation of lands available for oil and gas leasing.

H. Scoping Process

    When the GWNF Forest Plan revision process initially started, 
public workshops were held in March of 2007 where participants were 
asked to describe what they thought was working well on the Forest and 
what needed to be changed. In July of 2008 another round of public 
workshops was held where participants were asked to work on District 
maps and identify areas of the Forest they would like to see managed in 
a different way. Public workshops were held on various topics 
(vegetation management, access, roadless areas and wilderness) to have 
discussions on how we should change the Forest Plan to address 
concerns. In January and February of 2009 additional workshops were 
held where preliminary opinions were presented on how the Forest could 
respond to the information that had been received up to that point. The 
need for change, issues, proposed actions and alternatives identified 
in this Notice of Intent reflect those preliminary discussions and 
opinions as a starting point for proceeding with this revision.
    It is important that reviewers provide their comments on what is 
presented in this notice and on the Web site at such times and in such 
a way that they are useful to the Agency's preparation of the revised 
plan and the EIS. Comments on the need for change, proposed actions, 
issues and preliminary alternatives will be most valuable if received 
by May 7, 2010 and should clearly articulate the reviewers' concerns. 
The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer's 
ability to participate in any subsequent administrative or judicial 
review. At this time, we anticipate using a pre decisional objection 
process for administrative review.
    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including the 
names and addresses of those who comment will be part of the public 
record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be 
accepted and considered.

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1600-1614; 36 CFR 219.35 (74 FR 67073-
67074).

    Dated: March 2, 2010.
Henry B. Hickerson,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2010-4931 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>