[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