This document can be accessed on the Shawnee National Forest website: www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/shawnee. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Shawnee National Forest Forest Plan FEIS Appendix A – Forest Plan Revision Issues and Public Involvement APPENDIX A FOREST PLAN REVISION ISSUES AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT I. INTRODUCTION The first SNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Plan) was approved on November 24, 1986. In 1988, following 23 administrative appeals, the Forest met with appellants and reached a settlement agreement. Significant changes in the Plan resulted in an amended Forest Plan signed in 1992. A lawsuit on nine counts was filed against the Plan in 1994. The court ruled in favor of the Forest Service on five counts and in favor of the plaintiffs on four. The court remanded the entire Plan, but allowed implementation, enjoining specific activities, including commercial, hardwood-timber harvest, ATV trail designation and oil and gas development. The 1992 Plan is now being revised in compliance with the NFMA, to address the deficiencies found by the court, to address items found in need of change based on new information, the results of monitoring, and changed circumstances. As a federal agency, the Forest Service is required under NEPA to solicit public comment involving significant actions. Comments are critical to the shaping of a responsible plan for the management of the Forest that best meets the Forest Service mission, legal mandates, the goals of NEPA and NFMA, and the interests of the American public as a whole. This appendix documents public participation associated with preparing the draft and final EISs and the Plan. This document discusses issues that prompted the revision of the 1992 Forest Plan, as well as issues raised in response to our notice of intent to revise the Forest Plan. The substantive issues and concerns related to the revision are addressed in the FEIS. II. NEED FOR CHANGE ISSUES LEADING TO THE PROPOSED ACTION To set the stage for the revision, the Forest Service developed a preliminary list of potential need-for-change issues, based on a review of the following: • The results of the monitoring and evaluation of implementation of the 1992 Forest Plan • New scientific information • Changed conditions of the land • Changing public demands • Forest Plan and project-level appeal issues and decisions • Lawsuit issues and court decisions • The USDA Forest Service Government Performance and Results Act Strategic Plan (2000) 1 Shawnee National Forest Forest Plan FEIS Appendix A – Forest Plan Revision Issues and Public Involvement Results of this review indicated that much of the information and direction in the 1992 Forest Plan remains appropriate and should be carried forward into the revised Plan with little or no change. The review also pointed out several concerns that cannot be addressed effectively through planning or Plan revision because they are operational, budget- dependent, or outside the control of the Forest Service. For instance, public responses indicated concerns with trail maintenance. An important issue such as this must be addressed; not as a strategic issue, such as would be addressed during Plan revision, but as an operational issue. Resolution of this issue to improve trail conditions does not require a change in the Plan, but may require more money or partnerships. An interdisciplinary team of Forest resource specialists proposed changes in management direction, considering and incorporating ideas and concerns from the public and other public agencies. The Forest leadership team reviewed the proposed changes and endorsed the proposal considered in this document. The public was involved in the need-for-change review process through letters and public meetings. The Forest communicated with over 1,400 people in October, 1999, inviting comments on the possible needs for change of the 1992 Forest Plan. The Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University conducted a public hearing on October 19, 1999 and invited comments on the issues related to management of the Forest. The Forest Service held a public open-house on November 10, 1999 to discuss the Forest Plan revision process and proposed timelines, answer questions, and accept potential need-for-change topics. From this interaction, the Forest Service identified aspects of the 1992 Forest Plan that possibly required change and that could be effectively addressed in Plan revision. The Forest Service shared this list of potential topics for revision with the public on December 4, 2000: • Watershed Resources • Biological Diversity, Wildlife and Aquatic Habitat • Recreation Management • Forest Ecosystem Health and Sustainability • Mineral Resources • Wilderness, Roadless, Wild and Scenic Rivers • Land-Ownership Adjustment The Forest conducted a public meeting on January 8, 2001 for review and discussion of the topics. Questions were answered and comments were accepted. Additionally, the Forest invited the public to meetings on July 27, 2000 and January 22, 2001 to participate in development of the appropriate vision, niche and role for the SNF. The resulting broader perspective on the future of the Forest helped guide development of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. The revision focuses on the seven need-for-change topics. Other management direction of the Plan requires little or no change. Topics outside the Plan revision process are listed in section V, below. 2 Shawnee National Forest Forest Plan FEIS Appendix A – Forest Plan Revision Issues and Public Involvement A. Watershed Resources 1. Need for Proposed Action • Recently acquired bottomlands in the Mississippi River floodplain cannot be allocated logically into an existing management-area prescription. • Public demand for clean water for consumption and aquatic habitats supports management emphasis on protection of water-supply watersheds. • Unified Federal Policy for Watershed Management requires prioritization of fifth- level watersheds that contain National Forest System land. • Within high-priority watersheds, emphasis on road and trail maintenance and obliteration, as well as other soil-stabilizing activities, will be needed. • Filter-strip guidelines for the protection of ephemeral drainageways require clarification. • Best management practices have been established by the State of Illinois and should be considered for incorporation into management standards and guidelines. 2. Representative Comments on Need for Change • Emphasize watershed maintenance and restoration. • Give highest priority to protection of the watersheds for Kinkaid Lake, Cedar Lake, Lake of Egypt and Little Cedar Lake. • Protect high-quality streams, especially Bay, Big, Lusk and Big Grande Pierre Creeks. • Protect and restore the Mississippi River floodplain. • Protect wetlands and their associated habitats. • Provide a well-designed, well-located, signed and maintained trail system to prevent the erosion problems on many roads and trails. • Monitor the effects of trail use. B. Biological Diversity, Wildlife and Aquatic Habitat 1. Need for Proposed Action • New information and research is available that indicates the best management for forest-interior birds may differ from current management direction. • There is new information related to the management of habitat for openland species indicating that large tracts of early-successional, openland habitat are important to associated mammals and birds. Several large tracts of relatively open land have been acquired that were previously cultivated cropland and pasture. They do not fit well in the Uneven-Aged Hardwood management area prescription because the desired condition is a closed-canopy forest. These early-successional openland tracts are expected to benefit openland-dependant species. • Recent research on wildlife openings and their effects on forest-interior species indicates that not all openings have adverse effects on interior species’ habitats. In addition, the vegetative and physical conditions of wildlife openings have changed substantially since they were last intensively managed, prior to the 1992 Forest Plan. 3 Shawnee National Forest Forest Plan FEIS Appendix A – Forest Plan Revision Issues and Public Involvement As a result, it might not be economically feasible to manage the numbers and acres of openings listed in the 1992 Forest Plan. • The revision of Plan standards and guidelines must be considered in light of newly listed threatened, endangered or sensitive species; new information on existing threatened, endangered and sensitive species; and ongoing ecological analyses and conservation assessments that could identify ecosystems and/or communities at risk of loss or further degradation. • National direction for the control of non-native invasive species should