Texas Blowdown Reforestation Project, National Forests and Grasslands in Texas, Angelina, Montgomery, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jucinto, and Walker Counties, Texas

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