Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 98 /Thursday, May 21, 1998 / Notices 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
27918 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 98 /Thursday, May 21, 1998 / Notices

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? Shortterm 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 fiveyear 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 nongovernmental 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 98 /Thursday, May 21, 1998 / Notices 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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

National Urban and Community

Forestry Advisory Council

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The National Urban and

Community Forestry Advisory Council

will meet in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, June

4–6, 1998. The purpose of the meeting

is to review the status of the Council’s

annual report, continue discussion on

emerging issues in Urban and

Community Forestry, and determine the

grant categories for the 1999 Challenge

Cost-Share grant program.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 4–

6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the Shilo Inn, 702 W. Appleway, Coeur

d’Alene, Idaho. A tour of local projects

will be available June 4, 9:00 a.m.–4:00

p.m.

Individuals who wish to speak at the

meeting or to propose agenda items

must send their names and proposals to

Suzanne M. del Villar, Executive

Assistant, National Urban and

Community Forestry Advisory Council,

1042 Park West Court, Glenwood

Springs, CO 81601.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Suzanne M. del Villar, Cooperative

Forestry Staff, (970) 928–9264.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Challenge Cost-Share grant categories,

identified by the Council, are advertised

annually to solicit proposals for projects

to advance the knowledge of, and

promote interest in, urban and

community forestry. Pursuant to 5

U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), the meeting will be

closed from approximately 8:30 to 10:00

a.m. on June 6 in order for the Council

to determine the categories for the 1999

Challenge Cost-Share grant program.

Otherwise, the meeting is open to the

public

Person who wish to bring urban and

community forestry matters to the

attention of the Council may file written

statements with the Council staff before

or after the meeting. Public input

sessions will be provided and

individuals, who have made written

requests by May 22, will have the

opportunity to address the Council at

those sessions. Council discussion is

limited to Forest Service staff and

Council members.

Dated: May 15, 1998.

Dan Glickman,

Secretary, Department of Agriculture.

[FR Doc. 98–13598 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation

Service

Maricopa-Stanfield Watershed, Pinal

County, Arizona

AGENCY: Natural Resources

Conservation Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of availability of finding

of no significant impact.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c)

of the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969; the Council on

Environmental Quality Regulations (40

CFR part 1500); and the Natural

Resources Conservation Service

Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the

Natural Resources Conservation Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives

notice that an environmental impact

statement is not being prepared for the

Maricopa-Stanfield Watershed, Pinal

County, Arizona.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Somerville, State Conservation,

Natural Resources Conservation Service,

3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 800,

Phoenix, Arizona, 85012. Telephone:

(602) 280–8808.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

environmental assessment of this

federally assisted action indicated that

the project will not cause significant

local, regional, or national impacts on

the environmental. As a result of these

findings, Michael Somerville, State

Conservation, has determined that the

preparation and review of an

environmental impact statement are not

needed for this project.

The project purposes are agricultural

water management and includes a

mixture of land treatment and

management practices to conserve

irrigation water. The planned works of

improvement include irrigation land

leveling, suitable irrigation water

conveyance, structures for turnouts and

water measurement for irrigation water

management, and plant, and fertility

management practices (not cost-shared)

including irrigation water management,

crop residue use, conservation cropping

sequence, appropriate erosion control

practices as needed, nutrient

management and pest management.

The Notice of a Finding of No

Significant Impact (FONSI) has been

forwarded to the Environmental

Protection Agency and to various

Federal, State, and local agencies and

interested parties. A limited number of

copies of the FONSI are available to fill

single copy requests at the above

address. Basic data developed during

the environmental assessment are on the

file and may be reviewed by contacting

Don Paulus, at (602) 280–8780.

No administrative action on

implementation of the proposal will be

taken until 30 days after the date of this

publication in the Federal Register.

(This activity is listed in the Catalog of

Federal Domestic Assistance under NO.

10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood

Prevention, and is subject to the provisions

of Executive Order 12372, which requires

intergovernmental consultation with State

and local officials.)

Dated: May 8, 1998.

Michael Somerville,

State Conservation.

[FR Doc. 98–13597 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–16–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural-Business Cooperative Service

Notice of Request for Information

Collection

AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative

Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed collection; Comments

requested.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this

notice announces the Rural BusinessCooperative Service’s intention to

request a reinstatement of an

information collection in support of the

program for ‘‘Rural Development Loan

Servicing.’’

DATES: Comments on this notice must be

received by July 20, 1998, to be assured

of consideration.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David W. Lewis, Loan Specialist, Rural

Business-Cooperative Service, USDA,

Stop 3224, 1400 Independence Ave.,

SW, Washington, DC 20250–3224,

Telephone: (202) 690–0797.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Rural Development Loan

Servicing.

OMB Number: 0570–0015.

Expiration Date of Approval: April 30,

1998.

Type of Request: Reinstatement of

Information Collection.

Abstract: This regulation is for

servicing and liquidating loans made by