United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Southern Regional Office
1720 Peachtree Rd., NW
Atlanta, GA 30309
1570-1
10-08-09-0061
Date: June 21, 2010
File Code:
CERTIFIED MAIL R.R.R.
Moore, Smith, Buxton and Turcke, Chartered
ATTN: Mr. Paul A. Turcke
950 W. Bannock Street, Suite 520
Boise, ID 83702
Re: Appeal 10-08-09-0061 of Forest Supervisor Norman L. Wagoner’s January 4, 2010,
Decision for Travel Management Plan Amendment No. 3, Part A, Amending the
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Ouachita NF in
Arkansas
Dear Mr. Turcke:
According to the authority granted me by 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219, this letter
contains my decision on the subject notice of appeal (NOA). This NOA concerns the decision
by the Forest Supervisor which amends the Ouachita Plan limiting public use of motorized
vehicles including off-highway (OHV) to designated system roads and trails and allows
compliance with the National Travel Management Rule 36 CFR 212.51.
Background
On January 4, 2010, Norman Wagoner signed the Decision Notice (DN) for this Amendment
which amends the Travel Management Rule for the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas. On
February 22, 2010, I received your electronically-filed NOA, which was postmarked
February 22, 2010.
Relief Requested
You requested that the Decision be withdrawn.
Decision
Based upon a thorough review of your NOA, the DN, Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
and Environmental Assessment (EA) for this Part 219 LRMP Amendment, I find that the Forest
Supervisor has complied with the relevant legal authorities, such as the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and Travel Management Rule.
Consequently, I am affirming the Forest Supervisor’s January 4, 2010, Decision.
Caring for the Land and Serving People
Printed on Recycled Paper
Appeal 10-08-09-0061
Page 2
This constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of Agriculture unless
the Chief, on his own volition, elects discretionary review of the decision (36 CFR 219).
Discussion of Issues
Issue 1
Whether the Decision should have been a significant amendment to the
Forest Plan.
The appellant contends that the “Decision improperly concludes that a nonsignificant
amendment to the Forest Plan is all that is necessary” and that the “Decision is a forest-wide
restructuring and reallocation of a significant public use” (Appeal, p. 1). Also that the “finding
of ‘nonsignificance’… is necessary because the selected EA procedure will only support a
finding of nonsignificance” and the “agency has put the procedural cart before the substantive
horse” (Appeal, p. 2).
In addressing this issue, it is important to note that there are different meanings to the word
“significant”. First, there is the basic English dictionary interpretation that “significant” is
something that is “important”, “having or likely to have a major effect”, or “fairly large in
amount or quantity”. Then there is the determination of “significant” under the National
Environmental Policy Act where the criteria found in 40 CFR 1508.27 is used to determine if an
action may have a “significant” impact on the environment. Then there is the National Forest
Management Act’s (NFMA) meaning of “significant”. The criteria for determining if a plan
amendment is a “significant” change to the forest plan can be found in FSM 1926.5.
According to FSM 1926.51, a “non significant” plan amendment is one where the actions “do
not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term and resource
management”. In FSM 1926.52, a “significant” plan amendment is one where the changes
“would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of multiple-use goods and
services originally projected”, or one where the changes “may have an important effect on the
entire land management plan.”
The determination of plan amendment “significance” requires the look at the whole Forest Plan
and all the resources/goals/objectives/services/outputs projected by the Plan. In the case of the
Travel Management decision, this only affects the motorized vehicle use component of the Plan.
It does not affect the all the other forest resource goals and objectives that are in the Plan or all
the other user groups that use the forest lands or receive products from the forest lands.
As the Decision Notice states (p. 8), “this amendment will not significantly alter the levels of
goods and services projected by the Forest Plan; nor will it prevent the opportunity to achieve
those outputs in later years.” “This amendment will not affect the entire land management plan.
While it will affect a large portion of the planning area during the planning period, it is specific
to motorized travel off designated routes.” The DN also points out that “the travel restrictions
are compatible with the original intent of the Revised Forest Plan management direction, [where
it states that] ‘Within four years the Ouachita National Forest intends to designate a system of
Appeal 10-08-09-0061
Page 3
roads and trails for public use of motorized vehicles, including OHVs and, at the same time, limit
motorized vehicles to those designated roads and trails.’”
So while the Travel Management decision may be a “significant” change to the motorized users
of the Ouachita National Forest using the dictionary definition, it is not a “significant” change to
the Forest Plan using the criteria for determining “NFMA significance”.
Finding
I find the determination that this decision is a non-significant plan amendment is appropriate.
Issue 2
Whether the Decision is consistent with applicable Forest Plan direction.
The appellant contends that the “Decision must either be consistent with the Forest Plan or be
adopted concurrently with an amendment which modifies the relevant portion of the Forest
Plan.” The appellant contends that the decision “plainly intends to create a ‘low quality’ OHV
recreation experience contrary to Forest Plan direction” (Appeal, p. 2); and that it “dramatically
reduces existing OHV opportunity, without a meaningful evaluation of the resulting impacts on
OHV and even non-OHV based recreation” (Appeal, p. 3).
The EA does recognize that under the selected alternative (Alt. E), the miles of roads available
for OHV use would be reduced by 1,486 miles or a reduction of 42%, and that the acres available
for cross-country travel would be reduced by 52% (EA, pp. 28, 32).
The Revised Forest Plan also describes the desire to provide a “high-quality OHV experience”.
However, it is important to look at the full context of the desired condition statement in the
Revised Plan (p. 24). The desired condition is that “designated OHV routes provide a highquality OHV experience”. This statement does not mean that “high quality” equals maximizing
the number of miles available, but rather that of the designated routes that are available, the user
will enjoy a “high quality OHV experience” on those designated routes.
The Revised Forest Plan also describes other desired conditions for the Forest transportation
system, including that “the system is well maintained commensurate with levels of use and
available funding, and that “conflicts between OHV users and … resource issues are addressed
and resolved in a timely manner” (Revised Forest Plan, p. 24). The Decision Notice (p. 5),
identifies that one of the reasons for selecting Alt. E is that it will provide the additional resource
protection needed for “impaired watersheds and threatened and endangered species”.
The EA (p. 9) identified that the significant issues associated with the proposed changes to the
transportation system included losing existing access, the possible loss of economic benefit to
local communities, OHV/equestrian trail conflicts, lack of single track trails for motorized use,
possible safety hazard of mixed uses on roads and trails, and the environmental damage due to
the concentration of use on certain routes. The analysis of the effects associated with these
issues is addressed in Chapter 3 of the EA (pp. 29-267).
Appeal 10-08-09-0061
Page 4
Finding
I find that the decision is consistent with the Revised Forest Plan and that there was a meaningful
evaluation of the resulting impacts from the decision.
Sincerely,
/s/Jerome Thomas
JEROME THOMAS
Reviewing Officer
Deputy Regional Forester
cc: Ouachita NF
WO