[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 20, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-17635]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 20, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Plan Amendment, Ouachita National Forest, Scott and Polk
Counties, Arkansas; Renewal of the Shortleaf Pine/Bluestem Grass
Ecosystem and Recovery of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker
action: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 36 CFR 219.10(f), the Forest Supervisor for the
Ouachita National forest gives notice of the agency's intent to prepare
an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the decision to amend the
Land and Resource Management Plan for the Ouachita National Forest.
This notice includes a summary of the proposed changes to the Forest
Plan, an explanation of the need for these changes, identifies
preliminary issues, and a brief description of potential alternatives
to these changes. This notice also provides estimated dates for filing
the draft and final EIS; information about future public involvement;
the name and address of the responsible official; and the name of the
person who can provide additional information.
decision to be made: The Forest Service will decide whether or not to
amend the existing Forest Plan. Specifically, the Forest Service will
decide whether or not to amend the Forest Plan to create a new
management area (Management Area 22) that will encompass 155,010 acres
of National Forest. Whether or not this will be a significant amendment
to the Forest Plan will be part of the analysis and decision. The new
management area will provide for the renewal of the Shortleaf Pine/
Bluestem Grass ecosystem and implement the Regional EIS for Management
of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker and its habit on National Forest in the
South.
No irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources (site
specific actions) will be made as a result of this decision. Projects
to implement the Amended Forest Plan will involve site specific
environmental analysis and appropriate documentation.
dates: The Agency expects to file the draft EIS (DEIS) with the
Environmental Protection Agency and make it available for public
comment in August, 1994.
The Agency expects to file the final EIS in November, 1994.
meetings and public involvement: The Forest Service invites comments
and suggestions from Federal, State, and local agencies, individuals
and organizations about issues concerning the effects of this proposal.
The Ouachita National Forest has scheduled three public meetings to
discuss the proposal. These meetings will be held as follows:
Poteau Ranger District--Waldron, Arkansas. July 11, 1994.
Mena Ranger District--Mena, Arkansas. July 12, 1994.
Cold Springs Ranger District--Booneville, Arkansas. July 14, 1994.
The purpose of these meetings is to discuss the proposed changes to
the Forest Plan, to identify issues associated with those changes, and
to develop alternatives which respond to the proposed changes. Written
comments are encouraged. Additional meetings with individuals or groups
may be arranged and can include tours of the Forest area contained in
the proposal. Comments will be most useful if received before July 30,
1994.
Refer to the ``For Further Information Contact'' section of this
notice for the contact individual. There is an extensive mailing list
that has been developed for this proposal. Those on this list will be
contacted to solicit input. Many interested citizens helped with the
proposal and will again be contacted during this process. Finally, the
Forest has continuing contact with federal, state, and local agencies
and congressional offices. These agencies and offices will be involved
with this planning effort.
for further information contact: George Bukenhofer, Project
Coordinator, Ouachita National Forest, Poteau Ranger District, P.O. Box
2255, Waldron, AR 72958.
responsible official: The Forest Supervisor for the Quachita National
Forest, located at P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902, is the
Responsible Official and the deciding official for this action. If this
becomes a significant amendment to the Forest Plan, the Regional
Forester in Atlanta, Georgia will be the Responsible Official and the
deciding official for this action.
proposed action: The goal of this proposal is to renew the historic
shortleaf pine/bluestem grass ecosystem on a portion of the Ouachita
National Forest. Renewal includes recovery of the Red-cockaded
Woodpecker (RCW). This EIS will document the analysis of alternatives
to the proposed action and disclose the effects of designating a
Shortleaf Pine/Bluestem Grass Ecosystem Management Area and
implementing the Regional EIS for Management of the RCW and its Habitat
on National Forests in the South.
Recovery of the RCW includes changing the current Forest Plan goal
of 50 breeding groups to a minimum of 250 breeding groups on the
Forest. Designation of Management Area 22 affects the management
direction for 155,010 acres of National Forest. There will be no change
in the amount of land classified as suitable for timber harvest.
Ecosystem management of the proposed area would include a broad
variety of forest conditions and management practices. Resource outputs
such as timber production would be a product of managing to restore the
shortleaf pine/bluestem grass ecosystem. To feature older stands,
regeneration cycles will be lengthened to a minimum of 120 years.
Regeneration areas would retain indefinitely a portion of the overstory
trees.
Management Area 22 would occur in portions of the Ouachita National
Forest in Scott and Polk counties, Arkansas. Included within this
management area would be the proposed Habitat Management Area (HMA) for
the RCW, containing 84,312 acres of which 66,606 acres is suitable for
timber management. A new desired future condition, management area
goals and standards and guidelines would be formulated for this new
Management Area.
Preliminary Issues
Through our informational meetings and meetings with other
citizens, the following issues relating to the effects of the proposal
have been identified. These are preliminary issues. Additional scoping
and public participation will be used to refine and add to this list to
develop a complete understanding of the significant issues related to
this proposal.
1. People are concerned that this proposal will result in a
reduction in the local supply of timber products from the National
Forest. This could have a direct and indirect effect on local
communities.
2. People are concerned that hardwood trees would be eliminated in
the proposed Management Area. Hardwood tree retention and forest
diversity in pine-dominated areas of the Forest has been an issue that
has been addressed many times in the past. This proposal stresses that
current hardwood tree retention guidelines will not be changed.
3. There are concerns that smoke from an increased prescribed
burning program could lower air quality and visibility.
4. There is a concern that this proposal will increase costs to
taxpayers. Costs, both direct and indirect, would have to be estimated.
Timber receipts from projects in the proposed area will help pay
expenses through the Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930.
6. There is a concern that if the population of Red-cockaded
Woodpeckers (RCW) on the Forest increases, the RCW's will move to
adjoining private lands. Since they are a federally listed endangered
species, this could lead to limitations on the management of that
private land under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act.
7. There is a concern that portions of the Forest might be closed
to uses such as hunting, fishing, berry picking or firewood gathering
in the future.
8. There is a concern that evenaged timber management techniques
will be the only harvest techniques used in this area.
Preliminary Alternatives: The Forest Service will evaluate a wide
range of alternatives to the proposal in response to the issues
identified in the scoping process. The agency expects to consider at
least the following alternatives, which respond to preliminary issues
identified to date. As new issues are identified through public
participation, new alternatives may be created, and existing
alternatives modified. Some of these preliminary alternatives may not
be analyzed in detail.
Alternative A (No Action) This alternative would not change the
management area allocations, activities or desired future condition of
the existing Forest Plan. The rotation age for shortleaf pine would
remain at 70 years. The current goal of 50 groups of RCW would remain.
There would be no change in fire control or prescribed fire activities.
Revenues and expenditures would remain at or near current levels, as
would the supply of timber products. Hardwood tree retention rates
would not change.
Alternative B. This alternative would respond to the issues related
to the supply of timber products from the project area by not including
the extended portion of the area. The new management area would be
limited to the HMA portion of the proposal, 84,312 acres. Ecosystem
management practices such as increased use of prescribed fire,
increasing rotation age to a minimum of 120 years, retention and
creation of snag trees, and all the requirements specified in the
Regional EIS for Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker and its
habitat on National Forests in the South would be featured in this
area.
Alternative C. This alternative would respond to the issue of cost
to the taxpayer by doing most of the prescribed burning in the growing
season and not doing mechanical (chainsaw) midstory reduction. The
acreages in this alternative would be the same as the proposed action.
Ecosystem management practices would be the same as the proposed action
and would implement the direction of the Regional EIS.
Alternative D. This alternative would respond to the issue of
dominant forest harvest technique by harvesting 75% of the area that is
suitable for timber harvest using an unevenaged management system.
Areas needed for RCW nesting, replacement, and recruitment stands would
be the only areas using the evenaged management system. These same
stands would be the only ones to receive midstory treatments or
prescribed burning. The rotation age of the evenaged stands would be
120 years.
Public Comments on the Draft EIS: After the DEIS has been
published, the Forest Service will again be actively seeking
information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State and local
agencies and from individuals and organizations who may be interested
in or affected by the proposed action. It is now important that those
interested in this proposed action participate at that time. The DEIS
should be available for public review in August 1994. After a minimum
comment period of 45 days, the Final EIS and Forest Plan Amendment
should be completed in September 1994. If in the analysis it is
determined that this will be a significant amendment to the Forest
Plan, the comment period will be 90 days.
The comment period for the DEIS will commence on the day the
Environmental Protection Agency publishes the ``Notice of
Availability'' in the Federal Register.
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 environmental impact statements 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
contention. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,
553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that are not raised during
the draft environmental impact stage but rather after completion of the
final environmental impact statement 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 rulings, it is very important that those
interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the
comment period. This will assure that substantive comments and
objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it
can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final
environmental impact statement.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering
additional issues and concerns about the proposed action, comments
about the draft environmental statement 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 environmental impact statement or the merits of the
alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may
wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Dated: July 1, 1994.
John M. Curran,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 94-17635 Filed 7-19-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
