Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Notices 11107 

process, which started in April 2002, 

with the Notice of Intent in the Federal 

Register, and ended in May 2004. In 

addition to the public meetings, 

briefings and meetings were held with 

the Tribes, Congressionals and other 

elected officials, other agencies, and 

interest groups. 

Also during the scoping period, the 

KIPZ hosted approximately 140 

workgroup meetings from August 2003 

to May 2004. These meetings were held 

in communities within the KIPZ zone 

and the workgroups focused on the GAs 

surrounding each of these communities. 

The purpose of these workgroup 

meetings was to: (1) Share information 

about the revision topics, (2) 

collaboratively discuss and develop 

desired conditions for each of the 

revision topics within the workgroup’s 

GAs, and (3) gain an understanding of 

the issues and appreciation of others’ 

viewpoints. Workgroup meeting notes 

and desired condition statements can be 

found on the KIPZ Web site (http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/kipz). 

This information was used in 

developing forestwide and GA desired 

conditions, other management direction 

such as management area direction, and 

the starting option map, which was used 

at further workgroup meetings in the 

summer of 2005. 

In addition to these workgroup 

meetings, briefings and meetings were 

held with the Tribes, Congressionals 

and other elected officials, other 

agencies, and interest groups (upon 

request). Several elected officials, 

Congressional staffers, and other agency 

representatives participated in the 

workgroup meetings. 

From July to September 2005, the 

KIPZ hosted additional workgroup 

meetings in the same communities 

focusing on the same GAs. The purpose 

of these workgroup meetings was to: (1) 

Share the starting option maps and 

discuss how they were developed, (2) 

validate the information on the maps, 

and (3) collaboratively discuss any 

possible changes to the maps. In 

addition to these meetings, meetings 

were held with elected officials, the 

Tribes, and other groups. The comments 

from all of these meetings resulted in 

decisions made by the Forest 

Supervisors to change the starting 

option maps. Workgroup meeting notes 

can be found on the KIPZ Web site 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/kipz). 

In October 2005, Draft Forest Plans 

maps were released with the intent to 

provide information back to the public 

on how the starting option maps had 

changed. It did not initiate a comment 

period. The maps, along with the 

rationale for the changes, are posted on 

the KIPZ Web site. The Draft Forest 

Plans maps were used by the revision 

team to complete the Proposed Land 

Management Plans. 

In May 2006, the Kootenai and Idaho 

Panhandle National Forests prepared 

and released Proposed Land 

Management Plans, with maps, for a 90- 

day comment period (extended to 120 

days). An Analysis of Public Comment 

report was prepared in March 2007, and 

posted on the KIPZ Web site (http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/kipz). The report 

synthesized the comments and concerns 

heard during the comment period for 

the Proposed Land Management Plans. 

The KIPZ will continue regular and 

meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with tribal nations, on a 

government-to-government basis. The 

agency will work with tribal 

governments to address issues 

concerning Indian tribal selfgovernment and sovereignty, natural 

and cultural resources held in trust, 

Indian tribal treaty and Executive order 

rights, and any issues that significantly 

or uniquely affect their communities. 

The KIPZ desires to continue 

collaborative efforts with members of 

the public who are interested in 

management of the Forests, as well as 

federal and state agencies, local 

governments, and private organizations. 

If you feel that we missed any 

substantive issues or concerns from 

those listed above as revision topics or 

additional, different comments from 

those provided on the Proposed LMPs, 

please e-mail, call or write to us. If you 

do wish to comment, it is important that 

you provide comments at such times 

and in such a way (clearly articulate 

your concerns) that they are useful to 

the Agency’s preparation of the revised 

plan and the EIS. The submission of 

timely and specific comments can affect 

a reviewer’s ability to participate in 

subsequent administrative or judicial 

review. At this time, we anticipate using 

the 2000 Planning Rule pre-decisional 

objection process (36 CFR 219.32) 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. 

Comments submitted anonymously will 

be accepted and considered. 

Dated: March 2, 2010. 

Leslie A.C. Weldon, 

Regional Forester, Forest Service Northern 

Region. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4929 Filed 3–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
11108 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Notices 

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: comments-southerngeorgewashingtonjefferson@fs.fed.us. 

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 decisionmaking. The authorization of sitespecific activities within a plan area 

later occurs through project decisionmaking 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 sitespecific 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, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Notices 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
11110 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Notices 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Notices 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 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS-2010-0010] 

Pale Cyst Nematode; Update of 

Quarantined Areas 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of changes to 

quarantined area. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public 

that we have made changes to the area 

in the State of Idaho that is quarantined 

to prevent the spread of pale cyst 

nematode. The description of the 

quarantined area was updated several 

times between October 2009 and 

February 2010. As a result of these 

changes, 5,710 acres have been removed 

from the quarantined area. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jonathan M. Jones, National Program 

Manager, Emergency and Domestic 

Programs, PPQ, 4700 River Road Unit 

160, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734- 

5038. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The pale cyst nematode (PCN, 

Globodera pallida) is a major pest of 

potato crops in cool-temperature areas. 

Other solanaceous hosts include 

tomatoes, eggplants, peppers, tomatillos, 

and some weeds. The PCN is thought to 

have originated in Peru and is now 

widely distributed in many potatogrowing regions of the world. PCN 

infestations may be expressed as 

patches of poor growth. Affected potato 

plants may exhibit yellowing, wilting, 

or death of foliage. Even with only 

minor symptoms on the foliage, potato 

tuber size can be affected. Unmanaged 

infestations can cause potato yield loss 

ranging from 20 to 70 percent. The 

spread of this pest in the United States 

could result in a loss of domestic or 

foreign markets for U.S. potatoes and 

other commodities. 

In 7 CFR part 301, the PCN quarantine 

regulations (§§ 301.86 through 301.86-9, 

referred to below as the regulations) set 

out procedures for determining the areas 

quarantined for PCN and impose 

restrictions on the interstate movement 

of regulated articles from quarantined 

areas. 

Section 301.86-3 of the regulations 

sets out the procedures for determining 

the areas quarantined for PCN. 

Paragraph (a) of § 301.86-3 states that, in 

accordance with the criteria listed in 

§ 301.86-3(c), the Administrator will 

designate as a quarantined area each 

field that has been found to be infested 

with PCN, each field that has been 

found to be associated with an infested 

field, and any area that the 

Administrator considers necessary to 

quarantine because of its inseparability 

for quarantine enforcement purposes 

from infested or associated fields. 

Paragraph (d) provides for the 

removal of fields from quarantine. An 

infested field will be removed from 

quarantine when a protocol approved by 

the Administrator as sufficient to 

support the removal of infested fields 

from quarantine has been completed 

and the field has been found to be free 

of PCN. An associated field will be 

removed from quarantine when the field 

has been found to be free of PCN 

according to a protocol approved by the 

Administrator as sufficient to support 

removal of associated fields from 

quarantine. Any area other than infested 

or associated fields that has been 

quarantined by the Administrator 

because of its inseparability for 

quarantine enforcement purposes from 

infested or associated fields will be 

removed from quarantine when the 

relevant infested or associated fields are 

removed from quarantine. 

Paragraph (a) of § 301.86-3 further 

provides that the Administrator will 

publish a description of the quarantined 

area on the Plant Protection and 

Quarantine (PPQ) Web site, (http:// 

www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ 

plant_pest_info/potato/pcn.shtml). The 

description of the quarantined area will 

include the date the description was last 

updated and a description of the 

changes that have been made to the 

quarantined area. The description of the 

quarantined area may also be obtained 

by request from any local office of PPQ; 

local offices are listed in telephone 

directories. Finally, paragraph (a) 

establishes that, after a change is made 

to the quarantined area, we will publish 

a notice in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the change has 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES