[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 31, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15339-15342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7836]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Texas Blowdown Reforestation Project, National Forests and
Grasslands in Texas, Angelina, Montgomery, Sabine, San Augustine, San
Jucinto, and Walker Counties, Texas
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National
Forests and Grasslands in Texas (NFGT) will prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) to assess and disclose the environmental effects
of site preparation and reforestation on windstorm-damaged areas in the
Angelina, Sabine, and Sam Houston National Forests. The proposed
actions include site preparation using mechanical methods and
prescribed fire, alone or in combination, followed by natural
regeneration and/or planting on about 32,750 acres of windstorm-damaged
forests. The project will be implemented in accordance with the
direction in the 1996 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (the
Plan) for the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas. Project
activities will take place within Management Area 1--Upland Forest
Ecosystems and Management Area 2--Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW)
Emphasis.
In addition to the management activities proposed for
reforestation, the EIS will assess and disclose the effects of amending
the forest plan to allocate an additional 7,300 acres to Management
Area 2 on the Sabine National Forest due to the changed conditions
caused by the windstorm.
DATES: Written comments and suggestions concerning the scope of the
analysis must be postmarked or received by April 30, 1999. The
estimated date for filing the draft EIS is June 1999, followed by the
final decision in September 1999.
ADDRESSES: The Responsible Official is Ronnie Raum, Forest Supervisor;
National Forests and Grasslands in Texas; 701 North First Street;
Lufkin, TX 75901. Written comments and suggestions concerning the scope
of analysis may be sent to him at that address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Baker, Project Environmental
Coordinator. Phone: 409-344-6205 (New Waverly, TX).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On the afternoon of February 10, 1998, a
storm with hurricane-force winds struck the forests of deep east Texas.
Approximately 103,000 acres of national forest land on the Angelina,
Sabine, and Sam Houston National Forests were damaged by the windstorm.
The Forest Service categorized the storm damage severity and extent on
the three affected national forests as follows:
Extensive damage--loss of greater than 60 percent of the
existing trees (11,600 acres),
Moderate damage--loss of 30 to 60 percent of the existing
trees (65,400 acres), and
Light damage--loss of 10 to 30 percent of the existing
trees (26,000 acres).
The majority of lands affected by the storm are allocated under the
Plan to Management Area 1 (upland forest ecosystems) and Management
Area 2 (red-cockaded woodpecker emphasis). Other Management Areas (MAs)
were also affected, including MA-4
[[Page 15340]]
(streamside management zones), MA-8 (special area management), MA-9
(recreation area management), and MA-10 (administrative and special use
sites).
The Forest Service determined that an emergency response was needed
to meet three objectives: (1) Reduce the potential for high intensity
wildfires spreading into the intermingled private ownerships that
include individual homes, subdivisions, and rural communities; (2)
minimize further damage to RCW and bald eagle habitat; and (3) reduce
the risk of anticipated bark beetle attack to living trees that could
kill additional federal and private timber, RCW habitat, and bald eagle
habitat. The Forest Service requested approval for alternative
arrangements for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to expedite the
removal of the blown down and damaged timber. On March 10, 1998, CEQ
approved the Forest Service's request for alternative arrangements and
the NFGT undertook actions to remove blown down and damaged trees to
meet the three objectives. As part of these alternative arrangements,
the Forest Service and CEQ agreed that the actions taken to reforest
the damaged areas of the three affected national forests would be
assessed in an Environmental Impact Statement.
On July 15, 1998, the Forest Service published a notice in the
Federal Register about plans to develop a Changed Condition Analysis
(CCA) covering the areas affected by the storm (63 FR 38153, Jul. 15,
1998). The Forest Service identified two objectives for analysis: (1)
To provide the basis for site preparation and reforestation proposals
in the storm-damaged area of the NFGT and (2) to analyze the need to
adjust land allocations to MA-2 on the Angelina and Sabine NFs to meet
Plan objectives for RCW habitat. After completion of the CAA, the
Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) used a systematic procedure to develop a
proposed action to start the NEPA process.
Proposed Action
Site Preparation and Reforestation
The Forest Service proposes to initiate site preparation and
reforestation actions on the Angelina and Sabine National Forests in
MA-1 and MA-2. The actions proposed will provide for the development of
forested conditions appropriate for the sites based on the recent
developed Ecological Classification System (ECS). The ESC was prepared
in cooperation with the Nature Conservancy of Texas and the Kisatchie
National Forest to describe the public and private forest lands of the
western Louisiana and eastern Texas portions of the Western Gulf
Coastal Plain. The ECS classifies land into ecological types through
the integration of multiple components of the forest ecosystem--soils,
physiography (topography and landform), and vegetation. A land
classification based on these components reflects the differences in
the major environmental characteristics of a site, and it provides
information about the inherent potential of a site in terms of the
types of vegetative communities it will support. The reforestation
actions where proposed to develop the appropriate vegetation
considering the ECS, the existing vegetation conditions, and the
objectives and management direction of the Plan.
Only those damaged areas where the post-storm residual basal area
(BA) is less than 60 square feet will receive unique actions. Damaged
areas that exceed 60 BA will not be treated specifically to manipulate
the existing forest type or tree species, but will be subject to
application of prescribed fire to reduce storm-generated fuel buildup
and/or control of midstory vegetation adverse to Red-cockaded
woodpecker habitat. The Forest Service proposes to allow damaged areas
on the Sam Houston National Forest to reforest naturally without active
management to prepare sites or manipulate the plant species.
Within the Angelina and Sabine NFs the following actions are
proposed;
In areas the ECS indicates should be dominated by beech-
white oak, mixed oaks, and sweetbay-swamp tupelo forest types and the
forest type is not directly correlated to slope or topographical
position the following actions will be taken:
(a) Within MA-2 allow the areas to regenerate naturally without
site preparation or artificial planting. Allow fire on a 3 to 5 year
rotation since these areas still contain a residual pine component that
provides for RCW foraging. About 5250 acres would be treated in this
manner.
(b) Within MA-1 allow the areas to regenerate naturally without
site preparation or artificial planting. Only allow prescribed fire to
back into these areas when adjoining areas have been designated for use
of prescribed fire. About 3750 acres would be treated in this manner.
In areas the ECS indicates should be dominated by
shortleaf pine-longleaf pine-oak mixtures and the forest type is not
directly correlated to slope or topographical position the following
actions will be taken:
(a) Within MA-2 where the residual overstory basal area ranges from
0-30 square feet, conduct mechanical site preparation, allowing up to
20 BA of oaks in clumps or along drainages, plant longleaf pine, and
prescribe burn every 3 to 5 years. Approximately 1150 acres would
receive these treatments.
(b) Within MA-2 in the areas where the residual overstory basal
exceeds 30 square feet and is less than about 40 square feet conduct
mechanical site preparation, leaving no more than 10 BA of hardwoods in
clumps and along drainages, allow for natural regeneration of pines to
develop a two age stand, and prescribe burn every 3 to 5 years. In
areas where basal area ranges from about 40-60 square feet prescribe
burn only and allow for natural regeneration. About 850 acres would
receive these treatments.
(c) Within MA-1 where the residual overstory basal area ranges from
0-30 square feet, commercially remove residual loblolly pine that will
impede shortleaf-longleaf regeneration, then mechanically site prepare
the areas, plant shortleaf pine or longleaf pine seedlings depending on
the site suitability, and prescribe burn the areas on a 3 to 5 year
rotation. About 1550 acres would receive these treatments.
(d) Within MA-1 where the residual overstory basal area exceeds 30
square feet and is less than about 40 square feet conduct mechanical
site preparation, leaving no more than 10 BA of hardwoods in clumps and
along drainages, plant longleaf pine in openings on suitable soil
types. Where shortleaf pine should dominate allow for natural
regeneration to develop a two age stand, and prescribe burn every 3 to
5 years. In areas where basal area ranges from about 40-60 square feet
prescribe burn only and allow for natural regeneration. About 400 acres
would be treated with this prescription.
In areas the ECS indicates should be dominated by
shortleaf pine-loblolly pine forest mixtures and the forest type is not
directly correlated to slope or topographical position the following
actions will be taken:
(a) Inside MA-2 where the residual overstory basal area ranges from
0-30 square feet, the areas would be site prepared using mechanical
methods, shortleaf pine would be planted in openings on ridgetops and
upper slopes, and prescribed burning would be conducted on a 3 to 5
year cycle. In areas where basal area ranges from about 40-60 square
feet prescribe burn only and allow for natural regeneration.
[[Page 15341]]
These treatments would be implemented on about 1450 acres.
(b) Inside MA-2 in the areas where the residual overstory basal
exceeds 30 square feet and is less than about 40 square feet conduct
mechanical site preparation, leaving no more than 20 BA of hardwoods in
clumps and along drainages, plant shortleaf pine in openings on
ridgetops and upper slopes, and conduct prescribed burning on a 3 to 5
year cycle. About 1550 acres would receive these treatments.
(c) Within MA-1 where the residual overstory basal area ranges from
0-30 square feet, the areas would be site prepared using mechanical
methods, prescribe burned, and shortleaf pine would be planted on
ridgetops and upper slopes where no shortleaf pine seed source exists
or where adequate seed source exists would be allowed to regenerate
naturally. These treatments would be implemented on about 1450 acres.
(d) Within MA-1 where the residual overstory basal area ranges from
30-60 square feet, prescribe burn the areas to allow for natural
regeneration and the development of two-age stands. About 1050 acres
would be treated with this prescription.
In areas the ECS indicates should be dominated by white
oak-loblolly pine-sweetbay or white oak-loblolly pine-willow oak forest
types and the forest type is directly correlated to slope or
topographical position the following actions will be taken:
(a) Within MA-2 allow the areas to regenerate naturally without
site preparation or artificial planting. Allow fire on a 3 to 5 years
rotation since these areas still contain a residual pine component that
provides for RCW foraging. About 550 acres would be treated in this
manner.
(b) Within MA-1 allow the areas to regenerate naturally without
site preparation or artificial planting. Only allow prescribed fire to
back into these areas when adjoining areas have been designated for use
of prescribed fire. About 400 acres would be treated in this manner.
In areas the ECS indicates should be dominated by
shortleaf pine-longleaf pine-oak mixtures and the forest type is
correlated to slope or topographical position the following actions
will be taken:
(a) Within MA-2 where the residual overstory basal area ranges from
0-30 square feet, conduct mechanical site preparation, plant longleaf
pine on the site prepared areas, prescribe burn every 3 to 5 years, and
limit hardwoods to the lower slope positions. Approximately 950 acres
would receive these treatments.
(b) Within MA-2 in the areas where the residual overstory basal
exceeds 30 square feet and is less than about 40 square feet conduct
mechanical site preparation, leaving no more than 10 BA of hardwoods in
clumps and along drainages, allow for natural regeneration of pines to
develop a two age stand, and prescribe burn every 3 to 5 years. In
areas where basal area ranges from about 40-60 square feet prescribe
burn only and allow for natural regeneration. About 1300 acres would
receive these treatments.
(c) Within MA-1 where the residual overstory basal area ranges from
0-30 square feet, commercially remove residual loblolly pine on ridges
and upper slopes that will impede shortleaf-longleaf regeneration, then
mechanically site prepare the areas, plant shortleaf pine or longleaf
pine seedlings depending on soil type and slope position, and prescribe
burn the areas on a 3 to 5 year rotation. About 3450 acres would
receive these treatments.
(d) Within MA-1 where the residual overstory basal area ranges from
30-60 square feet, prescribe burn the areas to allow for natural
regeneration and the development of two-age stands. About 2650 acres
would be treated with this prescription.
In areas the ECS indicates should be dominated by
shortleaf pine-loblolly pine forest mixtures and the forest type is
correlated to slope or topographical position the following actions
will be taken:
(a) Inside MA-2 where the residual overstory basal area ranges from
0-30 square feet, the areas would be site prepared using mechanical
methods, shortleaf pine would be planted in openings on ridgetops and
upper slopes, and prescribed burning would be conducted on a 3 to 5
year cycle. These treatments would be implemented on about 750 acres.
(b) Inside MA-2 where the residual overstory basal area ranges from
30-60 square feet, conduct site preparation using mechanical methods,
plant shortleaf pine in openings on ridgetops and upper slopes and
allow natural regeneration elsewhere, and prescribed burning would be
conducted on a 3 to 5 years cycle. About 1300 acres would receive these
treatments.
(c) Within MA-1 where the residual overstory basal area ranges from
0-30 square feet, loblolly pine would be commercially removed from
ridgetops and upper slopes, the areas would be site prepared using
mechanical methods, prescribe burned, and shortleaf pine would be
planted on ridgetops and upper slopes where no shortleaf pine seed
source exists or where adequate seed source exists would be allowed to
regenerate naturally. These treatments would be implemented on about
1450 acres.
(d) Within MA-1 where the residual overstory basal area ranges from
30-60 square feet, prescribe burn the areas to allow for natural
regeneration and the development of two-age stands. About 1500 acres
would be treated with this prescription.
These actions will result in different vegetation patterns in many
areas than existed prior to the February, 1998, windstorm. Hardwoods
will be more prevalent on sites where the FCS indicates this is
appropriate, such as lower slopes and moister sites. On drier upland
sites pines will dominate and hardwoods will be limited to clumps or in
areas along minor drainages. Many areas will develop different stand
structure because overstory trees will remain and the new trees will
create two different ages of vegetation on the same site. Natural
regeneration will be relied on where it is expected to result in the
development of vegetation appropriate for the site. Planting of
shortleaf pine and longleaf pine will be done where a seed source for
these species does not exist and the ECS indicates they should exist.
Forest Plan Amendment (Non-Significant Amendment)
The Plan delineated approximately 18,360 acres of the Sabine
National Forest as MA-2 in an area known as the Northern Sabine Habitat
Management Area (HMA). The emphasis in MA-2 is the production of high
quality habitat for the endangered redcockaded woodpecker; the size of
the HMA was determined based on a population objective of 91 active RCW
groups. The February 10 storm affected approximately 18,300 acres of
the Northern Sabine HMA. Of this total, about 15,000 acres received
moderate to extensive damage. Because of the habitat needs for the RCW,
many of the acres that provided suitable habitat for the species prior
to the storm may not provide such habitat now. the EIS will examine the
consequences of adjusting the boundaries of MA-2 within the Northern
Sabine HMA to include about 7,300 additional acres in Compartments 29,
35, 36, 45, 46, 47, and 54 to provide suitable habitat for the RCW to
meet the population objective.
Public Involvement and Scoping
This environmental analysis and decision-making process will enable
[[Page 15342]]
interested and affected people to participate and contribute to the
final decision. Public participation will begin with the publication of
this NOI. Interested and affected individuals and organizations on each
affected forest scoping list will be informed of the proposal and
invited to submit comments. The Forest Service will also be seeking
information, comments, and assistance from Federal, state, and local
agencies. The information received will be used in the preparation of
the draft and final EIS. At this time no scoping meetings are scheduled
to be held to discuss the project. The scoping process includes:
1. Identifying potential issues.
2. Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth.
3. Eliminating non-significant issues or those which have been
covered by a relevant previous environmental process.
4. Exploring additional alternatives.
5. Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed
action and alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative
effects).
Preliminary Issues
Several preliminary issues have been identified by the Forest
Service. The issues are briefly described below:
Red-cockaded woodpecker--the storm adversely affected RCW habitat.
What effect will reforestation activities have on habitat suitable for
RCW foraging and nesting and the potential for RCW population growth in
the short and long term?
Hardwoods--many hardwoods remain in the damaged areas. What effect
would project activities have on the current and future hardwood
composition of the storm-damaged areas? Will any areas be managed for
pine-hardwood mixtures or only for hardwoods within the storm-affected
areas?
Soil productivity--mechanical equipment used in site preparation
could compact soils and prescribed fire could affect nutrient
availability. What effect will mechanical site preparation and
prescribed burning have on long-term soil productivity?
Water quality--site preparation activities could expose soil to
erosion. What effects will mechanical site preparation and prescribed
burning have on soil erosion and sedimentation?
Potential Alternatives: based on the preliminary issues, the
following potential alternative themes have been identified:
No Action--no site preparation or planting activities would occur,
nor would acreage adjustments be made to the Northern Sabine HMA. Only
natural regeneration would be allowed in the damaged areas.
Limited Budget Theme--maintain the existing Northern Sabine HMA and
maximize the pine regeneration if damaged areas within the HMA
regardless of ECS considerations. Mechanical site preparation would be
minimized and natural regeneration would be emphasized.
Reviewers Obligations
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of
draft EISs must structure their participation in the environmental
review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to
the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections
that could be raised at the draft EIS stage but that are not raised
until after completion of the final EIS may be waived or dismissed by
the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir.
1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338
(E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important
that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close
of the draft EIS 45-day coment period so that substantive comments and
objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it
can meaningfully consider them in the final EIS.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should
be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to
specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also
address the adequacy of the draft EIS of the merits of the alternatives
formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewer may wish to refer
to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing
the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at
40 CFR 1503.3.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names
and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the
public record on this proposed action and will be available for public
inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and
considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have
standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR parts 215 or
217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request
the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing
how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality.
Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the
FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited
circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service
will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the
request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the
agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the
comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within 10
days.
Responsible Official
Ronnie Raum, Forest Supervisor; National Forests and Grasslands in
Texas; 701 North First Street, Lufkin, TX 75901 is the Responsible
Official. As the Responsible Official, I will decide which, if any of
the alternatives to be described in the draft Environmental Empact
Statement will be implemented. I will document the decision and the
reasons for my selection of the decision in the Record of Decision.
Dated: March 25, 1999.
Ronnie Raum,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 99-7836 Filed 3-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
