[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 98 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27917-27919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13544]
[[Page 27917]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration Project, National Forests in
Alabama, Conecuh National Forest, Covington and Escambia 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 expansion of the longleaf ecosystem across
the Conecuh National Forest in a systematic five-year program
involving:
1. Restoration cuts (regeneration) of 2,334 acres of off-site trees
to restore 64 sites to the native longleaf pine/wiregrass ecosystem.
2. Thinning (intermediate cuts) of 1,939 acres of off-site trees
(mostly slash pine) on about 56 sites to promote future conversion to
the longleaf pine/wiregrass ecosystem.
DATES: Comments concerning this analysis should be received in writing
by June 22, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: District Ranger, Conecuh NF, Route
5, Box 157, Andalusia, Alabama 36420.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gary Taylor, District Ranger, Robert Taylor, Silviculturist, Debbie
Foley, NEPA Coordinator, Rick Lint, Wildlife Biologist, Telephone
number: 334-222-2555, FAX Number: 334-222-6485.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. The Proposal
1. Restoration cut (regenerate) 2,334 acres to restore 64 sites
from off-site trees (mostly slash pine) to the native longleaf pine/
wiregrass ecosystem. Priority will be given to retaining existing
longleaf pines on these sites.
2. Thin (intermediate cut) 1,939 acres of off-site trees (mostly
slash pine) of 56 sites to favor and promote future conversion to the
native longleaf pine/wiregrass ecosystem.
3. Re-establish restoration cut areas with longleaf pine seedlings
within five years of cutting. Site preparation would include drum
chopping and burning and/or chemical site prep and burning and/or
shearing and windrowing of residual brush and logging slash. The type
of site preparation prescribed for each site will be the least
intensive treatment needed to insure survival of the planted longleaf
seedlings.
B. Needs for the Proposal
1. Restore the longleaf pine/sandhills ecosystem to provide more
suitable (preferred) 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.
4. Implement the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan.
Specifically, 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/sandhills
ecosystem but now contain off-site species that were artificially
introduced.
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. Currently, about 13,000 acres
(about 23%) of native longleaf pine sites on the Conecuh National
Forest are forested in slash, loblolly, and in some cases sand pine. Of
this, about 10,000 acres were planted to other species (now considered
off-site) and about 3,000 acres reverted due to exclusion of fire from
an ecosystem that evolved with and, is dependent on, fire. With the
exclusion of fire, less tolerant species flourished in the Conecuh
National Forest. The longleaf pine/sandhills ecosystem once encompassed
some 90+ million acres ranging from Southern Virginia to East Texas.
This acreage has been reduced to less than 3 million acres today due to
conversion of forests to agriculture and urban areas, as well as
conversion to other species.
Beginning in 1987, 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 Conecuh National Forest now averages
about 90%.
Many sensitive, threatened, and endangered plants and animals
depend on this ecosystem for survival of their species. The staff of
the Conecuh National Forest is committed to restoring this ecosystem on
the native sites best suited to this important forest ecosystem.
D. Proposed Scoping Process
The scoping period associated with this NOI will be thirty (30)
days in length, beginning the day after publication of this notice. A
public tour will be held on June 5 and 6 from 9 am until 1 pm. These
tours are intended to show interested individuals a few of the sites
proposed for treatment, as well as similar sites that have been treated
in the past few years. These tours will serve as the public scoping
meeting.
Scoping for this proposal began in February 1997 when initial
information was shared with the public and plans were to document the
analysis in an Environmental Analysis. 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). Thus, an additional scoping
period is being conducted at this time.
The Conecuh National Forest is seeking additional information,
comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies and
other individuals or organizations who 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 relevant previous environmental analysis.
4. Exploring additional alternatives.
5. Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed
action and alternatives.
A. Preliminary Issues Identified to Date Include
1. What impacts will the release of woody/brushy understory
vegetation resulting from thinning treatments have on the efforts to
restore historic longleaf ecosystem understory?
2. Can the existing longleaf ecosystem understory species be
protected and maintained during implementation of the silviculture
treatments (cutting and site preparation)? Currently, many of these
stands have a desirable understory and care should be taken to tailor
site preparation methods so as to preserve this understory.
3. What short and long-term impacts will there be on the
recreational
[[Page 27918]]
experience along the Conecuh Trail? Five stands proposed for cutting
are visible from the trail and concern exists to protect the scenic
value along the trail.
4. Do the long-term benefits of this project to Conecuh National
Forest ecosystem restoration efforts justify the costs of reforestation
at this time? Short-term economic impacts of the proposed action verses
the ecological benefits of the restoration was questioned.
5. Can off-site treatments to restore the longleaf ecosystem be
implemented in order to have long-term (and possible short-term)
benefits to the red-cocked woodpecker (RCW) while having no negative
impacts to the existing RCW population?
6. Long-term ecological concerns/benefits need to take priority
over economic incentives. A concern was raised that economic benefits
and support of the timber industry should be secondary to long-term
ecological needs.
7. Impacts of timber harvest to recreational uses (other than the
Conecuh Trail).
8. Importance of downed logs for rare amphibians, especially near
known dusky gopher frog breeding ponds.
9. Protection of soil and water resources.
10. Scope/size of the project (whether an EIS might be needed
instead of an EA).
11. Fragmentation (concern not to increase).
12. Early successional age class direction in the Land Management
Plan (LMP). According to the LMP, early successional habitat should
range from a minimum of 6% to a maximum of 17% per habitat unit.
13. Big Bay (Bear Bay) roadless criteria.
14. Cumulative effects. Whether cumulative effects could be
adequately evaluated with a project of this magnitude.
B. Possible Alternatives Identified to Date Include
1. No Action: This alternative will serve as a baseline for
comparison of alternatives. 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,
including site preparation methods proven to result in fully stocked
stands of free to grow seedlings in three to five years after cutting
is complete.
3. Modified Proposed Action that takes a more conservative approach
to longleaf ecosystem restoration with fewer restoration cuts and more
thinning. Age class distributions relevant to existing RCW guidance
would be given more consideration than long-term ecosystem needs.
4. Follow our normal order of entry into compartments as
recommended in the Forest Land Management Plan. This would result in
treatment of approximately 78% of the original proposal and reduce the
scope of the project.
5. Modified proposed action that is more sensitive to the economic
impacts of establishing the new longleaf stands. The majority of the
timber to be sold from the regeneration and thinning is pulpwood, thus
expected revenues will not cover the cost of site preparation and
planting of longleaf in the areas. This alternative will assess ways to
reduce the cost of reforestation. This would be accomplished by: (a)
Reducing the minimum acceptable stocking per acre; (b) reducing the
number of trees planted per acre; (c) reducing acceptable survival
rates; and (d) doing the minimum site preparation to accomplish (a).
This alternative will also look at other possible funding sources for
planting. For example, the National Forest Foundation and American
Forests Global Re-Leaf program are two possible non-governmental
funding sources that have provided funding in the past. Also, a
national initiative for ecosystem restoration funding would fit this
project nicely and help in the funding to establish the new stands of
longleaf.
6. Treat every known off-site stand (approximately 13,000 acres) by
either thinning or restoring to longleaf at this time.
7. Modified Proposed Action that places more emphasis on RCW areas
in the Boggy Hollow area and on the western side of the CNF.
8. Modified Proposed Action that would drop all proposed treatments
for compartments 34 and 48. This was previously identified on the RARE
II inventory (Big Bay).
9. Uneven-age Management. Consider whether the purpose and need
could be accomplished with this management regime.
C. Special Permit Needs
There are no special permits required from any State or Federal
agencies in order to implement this project.
D. 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 Conecuh Ranger District requests that comments be as specific
as possible for this proposal and be sent to: District Ranger Gary L.
Taylor, USDA, Forest Service, Route 5 Box 157, Andalusia, Alabama
36420.
It is estimated that the draft EIS will be available for public
comment by August 15, 1998. 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 comment period ends on the DEIS, the comments will be
analyzed, considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in
preparing the FEIS. The final is scheduled to be completed by November
1998. 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. That
decision will be subject to appeal under 36 CFR 215. The responsible
official for this project will be Gary L. Taylor, District Ranger for
the Conecuh Ranger District, National Forests in Alabama at: Route 5
Box 157, Andalusia, Alabama 36420.
[[Page 27919]]
Dated: May 15, 1998.
Gary L. Taylor,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 98-13544 Filed 5-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-52-M
