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

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