[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41214-41216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-15155]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration Project, National Forests in
Alabama, Talladega National Forest, Oakmulgee Ranger District,
Tuscaloosa, Hale, Bibb, and Perry Counties, AL
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
on a proposal to emphasize restoration of the longleaf ecosystem across
the Talladega National Forest, Oakmulgee Ranger District in a
systematic five-year program involving:
1. Intermediate thinning of approximately 3,726 acres of 20-70 year
old off-site trees, primarily loblolly and shortleaf pine. Thinning
would occur on 105 sites to remove damaged and diseased trees, to
improve stand health, and to promote future longleaf pine
establishment.
2. Intermediate thinning on approximately 2,324 acres to improve
habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW), primarily
longleaf pine that ranges in age from 25 to 95 years.
3. Restoration of the native longleaf pine ecosystem on 200 sites
(approximately 6,700 acres) currently identified as off-site, high-risk
stands, of declining loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, and pine-hardwood.
Generally, existing longleaf pine and clumps of fire tolerant, upland
hardwoods, will be retained. Longleaf pine will be restored by planting
except where enough longleaf pine remains to naturally reestablish
itself.
DATES: Comments concerning this analysis should be received in writing
by July 25, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Emanuel Hudson, District Ranger,
Oakmulgee Ranger District, 9901 Highway 5, Brent, Alabama 35034.
[[Page 41215]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emanuel Hudson, District Ranger, Jim
Shores, Silviculturist, Larry Mullins, NEPA Coordinator, Jim Mawk,
Wildlife Biologist, Joe Fowler, Timber Management Assistant, Lovoyd
Fountain, Engineering Technician, Telephone Number: (205) 926-9765, Fax
Number: (205) 926-9712.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. The Proposal
1. Intermediate thinning of approximately 3,726 acres of 20-70 year
old off-site trees, to increase vigor and growth and reduce short-term
risk of Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) infestation. This thinning will
begin the restoration process of changing these sites to longleaf pine/
bluestem or longleaf pine/low shrub plant communities. These plant
communities are structurally simple (pine overstory and bluestem grass/
shrub understory), shaped primarily by the use of prescribed fire, and
with occasional small gaps occurring from natural events.
2. Intermediate thinning on approximately 2,324 acres of red-
cockaded woodpecker (RCW) habitat, primarily longleaf pine. These
stands range in age from 25-95 years. Depending on site and stand
condition, the objective of these thinnings is to produce medium
stocked (70-100 basal area {BA{time} ) longleaf pine stands with low
SPB Risk Factor, which are desirable for RCW foraging and colonization.
3. Restoration cuts on approximately 6,700 acres of off-site, high-
risk stands of declining loblolly pine, shortleaf pine and pine/
hardwood to restore these sites to the native longleaf pine/bluestem or
longleaf pine/low shrub plant communities. Generally, longleaf pine
will not be removed in restoration cuts. However, if needed to improve
stand health, some longleaf pine clumps with a BA 70, may
be thinned in the restoration cuts. This forest health treatment will
require artificial regeneration of longleaf pine in most stands. In
parts of stands where scattered longleaf pine trees exist, natural
regeneration will be promoted.
4. Re-establish restoration cut areas with longleaf pine seedlings
within five years of cutting. Site preparation on the 6,700 acres
receiving restoration cuts would be accomplished using the herbicides
Imazapyr (Trade name: Arsenal) and Triclopyr (Trade name: Garlon 3A &
Garlon 4). This herbicide application would be used on competing
vegetation remaining in restoration areas after harvest operations are
complete. It would be followed by a prescribed burn to reduce logging
debris to help accomplish site planting. Site preparation prescribed
for each site will be the least intensive treatment needed to insure
survival of the planted longleaf seedlings. If needed, herbicide
application would also be used to release the pine seedlings from
competition in the second growing season.
5. To help achieve the desired restoration, prescribed burning will
be used to favor fire adapted species. Use of dormant season and
growing season prescribed burns 2 or 3 times each decade, will reduce
tree density and promote the growth of fire adapted grasses, forbs, and
shrubs.
B. Needs for the Proposal
1. Restore the longleaf pine ecosystem to provide more suitable
habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) to aid in recovery. RCW
is an endangered species.
2. Return acreage occupied by other tree species to native longleaf
pine and promote recovery of the longleaf ecosystem.
3. Establish a systematic program to aid in longleaf ecosystem
restoration. Loblolly pine and shortleaf pine begin to loose vigor and
exhibit decline symptoms at approximately age 50 on upland sites. They
do not reach adequate age and size to provide sufficient cavity trees
for RCW nesting habitat over the long term.
4. Loblolly pine and shortleaf pine are more susceptible to SPB
than longleaf pine. Overstocked pine stands need thinning to minimize
SPB hazard and to reduce potential impacts on other resources such as
recreation, wildlife, soil and water.
5. Some of the off-site stands have woody/brushy midstory and
understory. Thinning of these stands combined with prescribed burns
will reduce the number of off-site and encroaching species. This would
help restore and maintain a more grassy native groundcover.
6. Implement the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan to protect
habitat and improve conditions for threatened, endangered and sensitive
species occurring on National Forest lands.
C. Nature and Scope of the Decision To Be Made
Whether, and to what extent, to implement an accelerated program of
restoring sites to longleaf pine and associated understory species.
Historically, these sites were part of the longleaf pine ecosystem but
now contain off-site species that were artificially introduced.
The fire dependent longleaf pine ecosystem was the most prevalent
forest type in the south during pre-settlement times. During
settlement, stands of longleaf pine were cleared for agricultural
purposes and to obtain building materials. By 1929, most of the
longleaf pine stands had been cut.
In the late 1960's and early 1970's regeneration of longleaf pine
was difficult and often unsuccessful. Longleaf is more difficult to
plant than other southern pines and most research on growing longleaf
has only been done in recent years.
Beginning in 1985, through applied research, the availability of
containerized seedlings, and experience, managers became very
successful at planting longleaf pine with the expectation of adequate
survival. Seedling survival on the Oakmulgee RD now averages about 85-
90%. Currently, about 30,000 acres of native longleaf pine sites on the
Oakmulgee Ranger District are growing loblolly and shortleaf pine.
These stands are in various stages of collapse due to loblolly decline
disease, and the demise of these older stands is occurring faster than
they are being restored to longleaf at our current rate of restoration.
This poses a serious threat to the endangered RCW due to its loss of
habitat. Compounding this problem is the loss of many stressed and
overstocked loblolly pine stands due to Southern Pine Beetle attack.
Meanwhile, the associated threat of severe fire danger is increasing
because of fuel build-up from dead timber.
The major reasons we are proposing this project are to reduce the
loss of native plant communities, improve forest health, and improve
RCW habitat. To overcome this loss of RCW habitat, there is a need to
enhance or restore the longleaf pine ecosystem on the entire district.
However, because of personnel, funding, and other constraints, for the
first five year period, we have selected as a priority to treat stands
most severely damaged by loblolly decline disease. The stands are also
located where we currently have the largest concentration of RCW.
D. Proposed Scoping Process
The scoping period associated with this Notice of Intent (NOI) will
be thirty (30) days in length, beginning the day after publication of
this notice. Preliminary scoping for this proposal began in February
2002, when information was shared with the public on the proposal and
plans to document the analysis in an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS). A public tour will be held on Saturday July 20, 2002 from 9 a.m.
until 1 p.m. This tour is intended to show interested individuals a few
of the sites proposed for treatment, as well
[[Page 41216]]
as similar sites that have been treated in the past few years. This
tour will serve as the public scoping meeting.
A preliminary proposal to improve forest health was developed after
stand conditions were examined in 2001. The proposal has been refined
since that time and some preliminary issues and alternatives have been
developed and are included in this notice. A decision to proceed with
an Environmental Impact Statement has been made due to potential
effects for the RCW and the possible need for formal consultation with
the Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI).
The Oakmulgee Ranger District is seeking additional information,
comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies and
other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or
affected by the proposed action. This input will be used in preparation
of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The scoping process
includes:
1. Identifying potential issues.
2. Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth.
3. Eliminating insignificant issues or those which have been
covered by a previous relevant environmental analysis.
4. Exploring additional alternatives.
5. Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed
action and alternatives.
E. Preliminary Issues Identified to Date Include
1. How will aquatic habitats be impacted from harvests and site
preparation? What inventory data will be needed?
2. What will be the impacts on TES/PETS/MIS (other than RCW)? What
inventory data will we need to evaluate impacts?
3. Will prescribed burning negatively impact air quality? What will
be the season of burning and interval of burning?
4. What will be the effect of herbicides on people, wildlife, and
surface water/ground water?
5. Can off-site treatments to restore the longleaf pine ecosystem
be implemented to have long-term (and possible short term) benefits to
the RCW while having no negative impacts to the existing RCW
population?
6. What impacts will the proposed action have on visual quality
objectives?
7. What impacts will the proposed action have on recreational
opportunities?
F. Possible Alternatives Identified to Date Include
1. No Action: This alternative will serve as a baseline for
comparison of alternatives. Present management activities will
continue, but the proposed project will not be done. This alternative
will be fully developed and analyzed.
2. Proposed Action: As listed above, this alternative would include
a five-year systematic program of thinning and restoration cuts. Site
Preparation of the restoration areas would be accomplished using
herbicides and prescribed burning. These site preparation methods would
result in fully stocked stands of longleaf pine seedlings in three to
five years after the restoration cuts are complete. Release of
seedlings would be accomplished through the use of herbicides and
prescribed burning. In addition, prescribed burning will be used to
maintain habitat conditions for native species of plants and wildlife.
3. Modified Proposed Action: This alternative would include a five-
year program of thinning and restoration cuts. Site preparation would
be done using mechanized equipment; release of seedling would be with
hand tools; and prescribed burning will not be used to maintain habitat
conditions for native species of plants and wildlife.
G. Special Permit Needs
There are no special permits required from any State or Federal
agencies in order to implement this project.
H. Lead Agency
The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this project. The
Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI) has been involved with this proposal
since inception and will continue to be throughout this analysis.
Formal consultation may be required in order to implement one or more
of the alternatives.
The Oakmulgee Ranger District requests that comments be as specific
as possible for this proposal and be sent to: Emanuel Hudson, District
Ranger, USDA Forest Service, 9901 Highway 5, Brent, Alabama 35034.
It is estimated that the draft EIS will be available for public
comment by July 31, 2003. It is very important that those interested in
this proposed action participate at this time. To be helpful, comments
on the DEIS should be as specific as possible and may address the
adequacy of the statement or the merits of the alternatives discussed
(see the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing
the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at
40 CFR 1503.3).
In addition, Federal court decisions have established that
reviewers of DEIS's must structure their participation in the
environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and
alerts the agency to the reviewers' position and contentions: Vermon
Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U. S. 519, 553 (1978).
Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage
may be waived if not raised until after completion of the final
environmental impact statement (FEIS). 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). The reason for this is to
ensure 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.
Estimated Date for FEIS
After the DEIS comment period ends, the comments will be analyzed,
considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in preparing the
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The FEIS is scheduled to
be completed by November 2003. The responsible official will consider
the comments, responses, environmental consequences discussed in the
final supplement, applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making
a decision regarding this proposal. The responsible official will
document the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of
Decision (ROD). That decision will be subject to appeal under 36 CFR
215.
The responsible official for this project will be Emanuel Hudson,
District Ranger for the Oakmulgee Ranger District, National Forest in
Alabama at 9901 Highway 5, Brent, Alabama 35034.
Dated: June 11, 2002.
Emanuel Hudson,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 02-15155 Filed 6-14-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P