[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 1, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21621-21625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-10779]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Ouachita 
National Forest in Arkansas and Oklahoma

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare Environmental Impact Statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that 
(pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5) and 36 CFR 219.10(g)) the Regional 
Forester for the Southern Region of the USDA Forest Service intends to 
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to accompany a revision 
of the Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the Ouachita 
National Forest. The existing Forest Plan was approved on April 1, 
1986. Since then, 37 amendments have been completed, including a 
significant amendment that resulted in publication of the 1990 Amended 
Land and Resource Management Plan. We now invite comments and 
suggestions from American Indian tribes, Federal agencies, state and 
local governments, individuals and organizations on the scope of the 
analysis to be included in the draft EIS (DEIS) (40 CFR 1501.7).

DATES: Comments on this Notice of Intent (NOI) and, specifically, on 
the scope of the analysis to be included in the EIS, should be received 
in writing by August 2, 2002. The agency expects to file the DEIS with 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and make it available for 
public comment in 2004. The Agency expects to file the final EIS (FEIS) 
in September of 2005.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Forest Plan, Ouachita National 
Forest, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902. Electronic mail should 
include ``FP Revision'' in the subject line and be sent to: ouachita 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ouachita National Forest: Planning 
Team Leader Bill Pell (phone 501-321-5320; TDD 501-321-5307). 
Electronic mail should include ``FP Revision'' in the subject line and 
be sent to: ouachita [email protected]. Information about Forest Plan 
revision and future opportunities to participate will be posted at the 
following website: http://www.fs.fed.us/oonf/design planning.html. The 
Regional Forester for the Southern Region, located at 1720 Peachtree 
Road, NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, is the Responsible Official.
    Affected Counties: This NOI affects the following counties: Ashley, 
Garland, Hot Spring, Howard, Logan, Montgomery, Perry, Pike, Polk, 
Saline, Scott, Sebastian, and Yell, Arkansas; and LeFlore and 
McCurtain, Oklahoma.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background Information

1. The Role of Forest Plans

    National Forest System resource allocation and management decisions 
are made in two stages. The first stage is the Forest Plan, which 
involves the establishment of management direction by allocating lands 
and resources within the plan area to various uses or conditions 
through management areas and management prescriptions. The second stage 
is plan implementation through approval of project decisions. Forest 
Plans do not compel the agency to undertake any site-specific projects; 
rather, they establish overall goals and objectives (or desired 
resource conditions) that the individual National Forest will strive to 
meet. Forest Plans also establish limitations on what actions may be 
authorized and what conditions must be met as part of project-level 
decision-making.
    The primary decisions made in a Forest Plan include: (1) 
Establishment of forest-wide multiple-use goals and objectives (36 CFR 
219.11(b)); (2) establishment of forest-wide 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 (d) and (e)). The authorization of site-specific activities 
within a plan area occurs through project decision-making, the second 
stage of forest planning. Project decision-making must comply with NEPA 
procedures and must include a

[[Page 21622]]

determination that the project is consistent with the Forest Plan.
    (Note: The above citations are from the 1982 36 CFR 219 planning 
regulations. See also section G.)

2. The Beginning of the Forest Plan Revision Effort for the Oauchital 
National Forest

    For this Forest Plan revision, an effort was made to first define 
the current situation and estimate an ``initial need for change.'' A 
key part of defining the current situation was the Ozark-Ouachita 
Highlands Assessment, a multi-agency effort in which Ouachita National 
Forest employees actively participated. On October 16, 1996, a Notice 
was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 61. No. 201) that 
identified the relationships between the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands 
Assessment and Forest Plan revisions for the National Forest in 
Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. In addition to reviewing the results 
of this broad-scale assessment, which were made widely available in 
early 2000, and the draft conclusions of a more recent assessment 
(described below), the ``initial need for change'' was evaluated in 
light of the results of monitoring and relevant research, public 
comments received from 1990 through early 2002, and the experience of 
employees responsible for implementing the Forest Plan. These 
evaluations are the basis for the preliminary issues and proposed 
action identified in this notice. Additional issues or topics will be 
developed as needed to respond to public comments received in response 
to this NOI and subsequent scoping efforts.

3. The Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment and the Southern Forest 
Resource Assessment

    The USDA Forest Service and many other agencies participated in the 
preparation of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment, which 
culminated in a final summary report and four technical reports that 
were made available to the public in early 2000 (available now at the 
Forest Plan address provided near the beginning of this document). This 
Assessment included National Forest System lands and private lands 
within the highlands of Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
    The Assessment facilitated ecologically based approaches to public 
lands management in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands by collecting and 
analyzing broadscale biological, physical, social and economic data. 
The Assessment supports the revision of the Forest Plans by describing 
how the lands, resources, people and management of the National Forest 
interrelated within the larger context of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands 
area. This Assessment, however, is not a ``decision document,'' and it 
did not involve the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
    The Southern Forest Resource Assessment was initiated in May 1999 
to examine the status, trends, and potential future of southern 
forests. The USDA Forest Service led the effort in cooperation with the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA, Tennessee Valley Authority, and 
southern States represented by their forestry and fish and wildlife 
agencies. This Assessment addresses the sustainability of southern 
forest in light of increasing urbanization and timber harvests, 
changing technologies (including chip mills), forest pests, climatic 
changes, and other factors that influence the region's forests. In late 
2001, draft reports from the Southern Forest Resource Assessment were 
made available on the following website: http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/report/index.htm.

4. Relationship of the Forest Plan revision for the Ouachita National 
Forest to revision efforts for the Mark Twain and Ozark-St. Francis 
National Forest

    Forest plan revision will be conducted simultaneously on these 
National Forests. We anticipate that a separate EIS and revised Forest 
Plan will be produced for each administrative unit. The respective 
Forest Supervisors have agreed to coordinate the revisions to the 
extent feasible and practical. The respective planning teams will work 
together to address common issues.

5. The Role of Scoping in Revising the Land and Resource Management 
Plan

    This NOI includes a description of a Proposed Action in terms of 
preliminary ``needs for change'' for the revision of the Forest Plan 
and preliminary issues associated with those needed changes. The 
Proposed Action entails one or more of the plan decisions identified in 
the ``The Role of Forest Plans.'' Scoping to receive public comments on 
the preliminary issues and proposed action will begin following the 
publication of this NOI. Comments received during this period will be 
used to further refine the preliminary issues that should be addressed, 
the Forest Plan decisions that need to be analyzed (the ``proposed 
action'' and ``need for change''), and the range of alternatives that 
will be developed. For more information on how the public can become 
involved during the scoping period, see Section F of this NOI.

B. Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose for revising the Forest Plan derives from the 
requirements for land and resource management planning in the National 
Forest Management Act and its implementing regulations, which are 
contained in 36 CFR 219. According to 36 CFR 219.10(g), Forest Plans 
are ordinarily revised on a 10-15 year cycle. The need to revise this 
Forest Plan is also driven by the changing conditions identified in the 
Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment, the Southern Forest Resource 
Assessment, and ongoing monitoring and evaluation results specific to 
the Ouachita National Forest.

C. Preliminary Issues

    Preliminary issues for the Ouachita National Forest Plan revision 
focus on parts of the current Forest Plan where change may be needed. 
The preliminary issues were derived from the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands 
Assessment, the Southern Forest Resource Assessment, internal comments 
from forest managers, results of monitoring, the mid-plan review and 
comments received from the public. The Proposed Action in section D 
describes these issues in more detail.

1. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability

    a. Changes may be needed in management direction for maintaining or 
restoring healthy forest ecosystems in the face of new threats from 
insect outbreaks and diseases. (36 CFR 219.27)
    b. Changes may be needed in Forest Plan direction for maintaining 
habitats for viable populations of all native plant and animal species. 
(36 CFR 219.19)
    c. Management standards for the use (and/or projected levels) of 
prescribed burning may need to be modified in light of changing air 
quality standards.
    d. Changes in management standards and desired conditions for the 
transportation system within the Ouachita National Forest may be needed 
in order to respond to the findings of a forest scale roads analysis. 
(36 CFR 212.5)

2. Roadless Areas, Recreation, Motorized Access

    a. Remaining roadless areas need to be considered for possible 
wilderness recommendation(s). (36 CFR 219.17)
    b. Changes may be needed to address existing and likely future 
conflicts among dispersed recreation activities.
    c. The mix of developed and dispersed recreation opportunities on 
the forest may need to be reevaluated.

[[Page 21623]]

    d. Forest Plan direction concerning off-highway vehicle use may 
need to be changed in light of increasing demands for and concerns 
about this recreation activity.

3. Silvicultural Practices

    a. Changes may be needed in the standards for implementing 
different reproduction cutting methods and other silvicultural 
practices and the predicted levels at which such methods and practices 
will be implemented on the Ouachita National Forest.
    b. There may be a need to re-examine the relationships between 
silvicultural practices and desired conditions for the National Forest.

4. Relationship of National Forest Management to Local Communities and 
Economies.

    a. Changes may be needed to enable the National Forest to more 
fully support long-term community development needs in the vicinity of 
the Ouachita National Forest.

D. Proposed Action

    Since 1990, Forest Plan amendments, annual monitoring reports, a 
five-year review of plan implementation, and working with the public 
and other agencies have provided the Ouachita National Forest with 
valuable information about changes that are needed in the existing 
Forest Plan. This initiates the determination of the need to establish 
or change management direction as required under the NFMA regulations 
at 36 CFR 219.12(e)(5). The Proposed Action is that revision of the 
Forest Plan for the Ouachita National Forest focus primarily on the 
following ``needs for change''.

1. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability

a. Oak Decline and Oak Mortality
    Oak decline and oak mortality are occurring on an estimated 30,000 
acres of hardwood forests on national forest lands in Montgomery, Polk, 
Scott and Logan Counties, Arkansas. Although some oak mortality has 
been observed over a wide variety of sites, significant mortality is 
primarily occurring in oak-hickory stands at higher elevations on 
north-facing slopes. These stands are comprised of older trees 
(approaching 100 years of age), have high basal areas, and exist on 
relatively poor sites. There are approximately 500,000 acres of 
hardwood and hardwood-pine forests on the Forest, however, and all are 
potentially at risk for oak decline; the area affected by excessive oak 
mortality is expected to increase.
    The Forest Plan provides broad goals and management standards to 
``reduce insect and disease-caused losses'' but does not specifically 
address oak mortality. Although the Forest Plan addresses desired 
hardwood components of various management areas in detail, specific 
mention of a desired oak component is found in the management goal 
statements of only five management areas (9, 11, 15, 16, and 19). 
Current management direction needs to be reviewed in light of the 
growing incidence of oak mortality on this National Forest.
b. Threatened, Endangered and Species of Viability Concerns
    For the most part, the populations of threatened, endangered, and 
species of viability concern that occupy portions of the Ouachita 
National Forest (or nearby downstream reaches) appear to be stable, 
fluctuating normally, or increasing. However, the viability of some of 
these species or groups of species (e.g., amphibians, birds) may need 
to be reconsidered in light of research or monitoring conducted since 
1990. Another concern is that the Ouachita National Forest continues to 
fall short of providing the amounts of early seral habitat that are 
called for by the current Forest Plan. Over the past decade, the 
shortfall has risen to nearly 80,000 acres. The viability of species 
dependent on such habitats needs to be reevaluated.
c. Prescribed Burning
    EPA will soon establish new National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
for ozone and particulate matter 2.5 microns and smaller in size. One 
or more ``non-attainment'' areas for one or both of these pollutants 
may be designated near or partially encompassing the Ouachita National 
Forest. Projections of desired and feasible levels of annual prescribed 
burning may need to be adjusted based on these new circumstances.
d. Transportation System
    New direction for National Forest transportation system planning 
was issued in January of 2001. In May, an interim directive delayed 
implementation of the new regulations until 2002. The Ouachita National 
Forest will start implementing the new direction concerning roads 
analysis this year, including initiation of a forest-wide roads 
analysis. Doing so will bring even greater focus on roads maintenance 
needs, opportunities to obliterate unneeded roads, and public interest 
in motorized access to this national forest. The decision to revise the 
forest plan must be informed by a roads analysis (36 CFR 212.5).

2. Roadless Areas, Recreation Needs and Conflicts, Motorized Access

a. Roadless Areas
    Six inventoried roadless areas within the Ouachita National Forest 
were identified in the Forest Service's FEIS, Roadless Area 
Conservation, dated November 2000. The Forest Plan for the Ouachita 
National Forest currently prohibits or strictly limits road 
construction in these six roadless areas, and no timber sales have been 
planned in recent years in these areas. These six areas and two 
additional roadless areas in McCurtain Co., Oklahoma, will be evaluated 
as potential wilderness areas during Forest Plan revision per 36 CFR 
219.17. Any other lands meeting the criteria for inventoried roadless 
areas will also be evaluated.
b. Recreation Opportunities
    According to Report 4 of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment, 
``Demand for nearly all categories of recreational activities is 
expected to increase in the next decade. Researchers project that the 
increase in the Highlands will be greater than the national average. 
Recreational activities with the largest projected increases in both 
percentage of the population and number of people participating include 
sightseeing, picnicking, visiting historical sites, and visiting 
beaches or other water sites.'' Horseback riding and off-highway 
vehicle use are also expected to increase. These demands and uses may 
increase the rate of user conflicts and environmental problems. In 
addition to the kinds of conflicts and problems associated with 
dispersed recreation activities, there are major concerns about 
developed recreation areas on the Ouachita National Forest. Because of 
their age and heavy use, many of these recreational facilities are 
deteriorating. Lack of funds to maintain and repair them may point to a 
need to close some areas and strictly limit designation of new ones.
c. Off-Highway Vehicle Use
    Cross-country off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel is presently allowed 
over large portions of the Ouachita National Forest. Areas of 
concentrated use where OHV impacts pose persistent problems include 
Wolf Pen Gap, Little Missouri River watershed, the Lake Ouachita area, 
Poteau Mountain Wilderness, and some power line rights of way. There is 
no common understanding (externally or internally) of what constitutes 
``resource damage'' due to OHVs (i.e., what is and isn't acceptable). 
User conflicts, such as those experienced when some hunters and hikers

[[Page 21624]]

encounter OHV riders are increasing, as is demand for OHV access. 
Current Forest Plan direction includes guidelines to ``provide for off-
road vehicle use'' and ``designate special areas for ORV use.'' More 
specific guidance many be needed.

3. Silvicultural Practices

    When uneven-aged and irregular even-aged management practices were 
implemented on portions of the Ouachita National Forest in the early 
1990s, there was little scientific information concerning the 
feasibility or environmental consequences of such practices. Now, most 
forest managers have 10 or more years of experience with these 
silvicultural methods. Moreover, multi-disciplinary research focused on 
stand-level silvicultural treatments (alternatives to clearcutting) has 
been conducted on the Ouachita National Forest since 1991. Post-
treatment results will be available during Forest Plan revision and may 
point to needed changes in the Forest Plan. The mix and projected 
annual use of silvicultural practices may need to be reexamined.

4. Relationship of National Forest Management to Local Communities and 
Economies

    The National Forest-Dependent Rural Communities Economic 
Diversification Act of 1990 directs the Forest Service to help national 
forest-dependent communities organize, plan, and implement actions that 
diversify local economies and to ensure that USDA-funded community 
action plans are consistent with national forest land and resource 
management plans. There may be a need to reexamine the relationships 
between national forest management direction and local community 
development (including economic development) needs.

5. Other Needs for Change

    In addition to addressing the needs for change described in parts 
D.1. through D.4., the Proposed Action also includes the following:
    a. Reevaluate management area definitions and boundaries.
    b. Reevaluate road density standards in management area 
prescriptions.
    c. Replace the current Visual Management System with the national 
Scenery Management System and consider the need for new visual 
objectives.
    d. Examine and update land ownership adjustment needs across the 
Forest.
    e. Consider any change needed to better address tribal rights and 
needs.
    f. Review current direction for monitoring and evalaution and bring 
it in line with current needs.
    g. Update the research needs identified in the 1990 Amended Plan.
    h. Evaluate watershed health and consider changes in standards and 
guidelines to address priority needs.
    i. Clarify standards for identifying lands suitable for timber 
production (as part of the management direction for certain management 
areas) and review the designation of lands not suited for timber 
production (36 CFR 219.14(d)); for the Ouachita National Forest, the 
required ten-year review of lands not suitable for timber production is 
being done in this revision.
    j. Re-determine the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) for timber.
    k. Determine whether changes are needed in definitions and forest 
plan direction for riparian areas and streamside management zones.
    l. Determine whether changes are needed in management direction for 
existing wild and scenic river corridors.
    m. Review forest plan direction concerning old growth to determine 
whether it is consistent with Southern Region direction.

E. Preliminary Alternatives

    The actual alternatives presented in the DEIS will portray a full 
range of responses to the significant issues. The DEIS will examine the 
effects of implementing strategies to achieve different desired 
conditions and will develop possible management objectives and 
opportunities that would move the forest toward those desired 
conditions. A preferred alternative will be identified in the DEIS. The 
range of alternatives presented in the DEIS will include one that 
continues current management direction and others that will address the 
range of issues developed in the scoping process.

F. Involving the Public

    The objective in this process for public involvement is to create 
an atmosphere of openness where all members of the public feel free to 
share information with the Forest Service and its employees on a 
regular basis. All parts of this process will be structured to maintain 
openness and trust. The Forest Service is seeking information, 
comments, and assistance from tribal governments, Federal, State and 
local agencies, and other individuals and organizations that may be 
interested in or affected by the proposed action. This input will be 
utilized in the preparation of the DEIS. The range of alternatives to 
be considered in the EIS will be based on the identification of 
significant issues, management concerns, resource management 
opportunities, and plan decisions. Public participation will be 
solicited by notifying in person and/or by mail, known interested and 
affected publics. News releases will be used to give the public general 
notice, and public scoping meetings will be conducted at several 
locations. Public participation will be sought throughout the plan 
revision process and will be important at several points along the way. 
The first opportunity to comment will be during the scoping process (40 
CFR 1501.7). Scoping includes identifying additional potential issues 
(other than those previously described). The second step is to identify 
which issues are significant and which have either been covered by 
prior environmental review or are non-significant for revision. the 
list of significant issues will be available for public review and 
comment before the DEIS is prepared. Significant issues are used to 
develop and explore Forest Plan alternatives. Finally, the potential 
environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives (i.e., 
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects) will be thoroughly analyzed 
and disclosed in the DEIS, which will be available for public comment 
for at least 90 days. As part of the first step in scoping, a series of 
public opportunities have been scheduled to explain the planning 
process and provide an opportunity for public input. Following are the 
proposed locations and dates for these meetings: Broken Bow, Oklahoma, 
June 3, 2002; Poteau, Oklahoma, June 6, 2002; Hot Springs, Arkansas, 
June 10, 2002; Mena, Arkansas, June 11, 2002.

G. Planning Regulations

    The Department of Agriculture published new planning regulations in 
November 2000. Concerns regarding the ability of the agency to 
implement these regulations prompted a review, and another revision of 
these regulations is now being developed. On May 10, 2001, Secretary 
Veneman signed an interim final rule allowing Forest Plan amendments or 
revisions initiated before May 9, 2002, to proceed under the new 
(November 2000) planning rule or under the 1982 planning regulations. 
The Ouachita National Forest Plan revision will be initiated under the 
1982 planning regulations.

H. Release and Review of EIS

    The DEIS is expected to be filed with the EPA and be available for 
public comment by September 2004. At that time, the EPA will publish a 
notice of availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register, The comment 
period will be

[[Page 21625]]

90 days from the date the EPA 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 
the DEIS 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 DEIS stage but that are not raised until after 
completion of the FEIS 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 90-
0day comment period so 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 FEIS. To assist the Forest 
Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the 
proposed actions, comments on the DEIS should be as specific as 
possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or 
chapters of the DEIS. Comments may also address the adequacy of the 
DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the 
statements. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental 
Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the 
NEPA at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. After the comment 
period on the DEIS ends, the comments will be analyzed, considered, and 
responded to by the Forest Service in preparing the FEIS. The FEIS is 
scheduled to be completed in September 2005. the Responsible Official 
(the Regional Forester, Southern Region, 1720 Peachtree Road, NW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30309) will consider the comments, responses, and 
environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS together with all 
applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making a decision 
regarding revision. The Responsible Official will document the decision 
and reasons for the decision in a Record of Decision. This decision may 
be subject to appeal in accordance with 36 CFR 217.

    Dated: April 25, 2002.
R. Gary Pierson,
Acting Deputy Regional Forester.
[FR Doc. 02-10779 Filed 4-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M