[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