Allegheny National Forest United States Department of Agriculture Draft Environmental Impact Forest Service Statement Appendices A-F Allegheny National Forest To Accompany the May 2006 Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan 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, or 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, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cover photo: Allegheny River Islands, Ed Bernik, photographer Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendices A-F To Accompany the Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan Allegheny National Forest May 2006 Table of Contents Appendix A – Public Involvement A-1 Appendix B – Description of the Analysis Process B-1 Appendix C – Roadless Area Inventory/Wilderness Evaluation C-1 Appendix D – Wild and Scenic Rivers D-1 Appendix E – Species Viability Evaluation E-1 Appendix F – Oil and Gas Development on the Allegheny National Forest F-1 This page left blank intentionally Appendix A Public Involvement Table of Contents Public Comment..........................................................................................................................................A-1 Summary of Public Comments ...................................................................................................................A-1 Citizen’s Proposals......................................................................................................................................A-4 Public Participation ...................................................................................................................................A-15 Stakeholder Involvement ..........................................................................................................................A-17 Interim Meetings and Communications ....................................................................................................A-19 Appendix A – Public Involvement Appendix A Public Comment Introduction The ANF believes that a Forest Plan should be responsive to people’s needs, easily understood, and usable by both natural resource managers and the public. The success of the Forest Plan revision depends on collaboration between various stakeholders and the resolution of contentious issues to create a Forest Plan that is realistic and adaptable to change. As a result of this collaborative effort, the ANF has received many comments over the course of Plan revision. Summary of Public Comments This brief summary of public comments to date for the ANF’s Plan Revision includes the collaborative learning workshops and written comments stemming from them, the compilation of comment to the Plan Revision Notice of Intent completed by the Content Analysis Team (CAT), written comments received, and non-formal sources of comment, such as letters to the editors of regional and local newspapers. Eight broad topic areas are covered: vegetation management (timber); wilderness and special areas; recreation; water quality, soils, and air quality; oil and gas management; roads and access concerns; habitat diversity and wildlife; and the plan revision process. The order of the topics relates roughly to the level of contentiousness and the volume of comments received. Vegetation Management (Timber) Public comment is unanimous that having a healthy forest is the highest priority for management of the ANF. The problem, of course, is in the details of what this means and how it is attained. To a significant group of timber industry and local and regional community leaders who have been consistent, active, outspoken participants, a healthy forest yields timber harvest and regenerates species for future saw timber. This healthy forest will sustain the regional economy, create employment opportunities for people, and sustain rural, natural resource-based socio-cultural patterns. Critics of the current plan, some of whom are active litigants against the ANF, have also been consistent, energetic, vociferous participants and have submitted detailed, lengthy comments. Areas of greatest divergence between them and some of the community leaders include: volume of timber harvest, ranging from none to the 1986 Plan ASQ; location of suitable timber land, ranging from none on the ANF to rolling back designated wilderness; species composition, ranging from restoration of the pre-Columbian forest to maintenance of current patterns; harvest and regeneration methods, ranging from horse logging and no herbicides to more expansive cuts; greater “flexibility” regarding threatened and endangered species limitations; and the overall intensity of management. The most noteworthy element of contention, as noted in the CAT analysis of NOI comments, is polarization over black cherry, its abundance now and in the future forest. There are participants whose comments lie between the extremes, who tend to be drowned out by the polarized groups. For example, there is a regional industry group, which held its own forum on vegetation management on the ANF and submitted a concise, detailed brief with very specific comments and recommendations. Allegheny National Forest Draft Environmental Impact Statement A-1 Appendix A – Public Involvement Wilderness and Special Areas In many ways, the pattern of comments here reflects the pattern in vegetation management (timber), with one significant exception. There is a very effective, well-organized group, which has mobilized over 5,600 public comments from individuals and groups in support of its position for recommendation for designation of 8 new wilderness areas comprising about 10 % of the ANF, without opposition to logging in other areas. The two main groups supporting wilderness and one loose coalition in opposition to greater wilderness have been consistent, vigorous proponents of their positions at meetings, in formal comments, and in the local print media. Public comments at the start of plan revision were often off target relative to special areas and wilderness. Staff spent a great deal of time working with the public to understand the nuances of the analyses required and the distinctions among wilderness, national scenic areas, recreation areas, research natural areas, and wild and scenic rivers. It appears that this education process has been successful and had a modulating effect on public comment in recent months, except at the extremes. The disagreement now focuses on compromises of how much and where. Recreation In general, public comment here has been in agreement on a desire for greater diversity of recreational opportunities, for better management of recreation on the ANF, and for better access to those opportunities. We have received comments on a wide range of concerns, which have become more focused as the process has evolved. One way to view comments relates to the primacy of one type of opportunity over another, the ultimate mix of recreation offered, and, how these elements play out in space on the ANF. An initial split of comments appeared to be between motorized and non-motorized recreation. This has become more clearly differentiated into wheeled motorized and snowmobiles as distinct comment makers, equestrian groups as a third set, and a fourth set, “other” non-motorized, which includes hikers, mountain bikers, cross-country skiers, and back country campers, among others. Wheeled motorized advocates, mostly All-Terrain Vehicle folks, want to “complete the system” to 350 miles, as envisioned in the 1986 Plan, plus better parking, camping and other support of these trails, including connectors to communities. The most salient concern for the snowmobile groups has been termed either a safety or a quality issue, i.e. having trails solely dedicated to snowmobile use, with connectors to local communities and amenities. Both these motorized recreation groups have been consistent participants at workshops and in written comments. The same is true for the equestrian groups. Better facilities for parking, camping, and equestrian support are sought. There is a concern regarding designated trails and restriction of cross-country riding. Most want unrestricted cross-country riding to continue. The “other” non-motorized advocates are not unified or organized and are less vigorous in providing comments for more trails, better-maintained and better-marked trails, and some minimal facilities outside wilderness areas. The “rustic lodge” or motel/restaurant at Kinzua Beach is noteworthy more for the relative absence of formal comments than anything else. While this continues to be a significant topic among elected officials and the business community in Warren County, most of the comments have been in the local print media. This seems to highlight the two philosophies of including tourism as a component of regional economic development: develop recreation facilities on the ANF using public funds and private funds for tourism versus A-2 Allegheny National Forest Draft Environmental