[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74678-74681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30196]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National 
Grassland; Colorado and Wyoming; Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests 
and Thunder Basin National Grassland Invasive Plant Management 
Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin 
National Grassland (MBRTB) will prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) to continue control of noxious weeds and other invasive 
plants through the integration of manual, mechanical, biological, and 
ground and aerial herbicide control methods. ``Invasive species'' are 
defined as alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause 
economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (Federal 
Executive Order 13112). Effects analysis of treatments of invasive 
plants, including cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and other invasive 
annual bromes, will be projected over the next 10-15 years.
    The agency invites comments and suggestions on the 47scope of the 
analysis to be included in the draft environmental impact statement 
(DEIS). In addition, the agency gives notice of this environmental 
analysis and decision making process so that interested and affected 
people know how they may participate and contribute to the final 
decision.
    When developing an invasive plant management strategy it is 
critical to consider all available resources and tools. Integrated pest 
management (IPM) strategies utilize various invasive plant management 
options that focus on the most economical and effective control of 
invasive plants. Anything that weakens the invasive plant, prevents 
spreading, or prevents seed production can be a valuable tool. Proposed 
methods to control invasive plants include a combination of ground and 
aerial application of herbicides, mechanical, biological, and cultural 
weed treatments.
    The MBRTB is currently treating noxious weeds and invasive plants 
under decisions made in the 1996 Management of Noxious Weeds 
Environmental Assessment (EA). However, the EA and subsequent National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decisions for invasive plant control on 
the MBRTB need to be updated since they did not include analysis of the 
effects of new herbicides, new invasive plant populations, or aerial 
application of herbicides. This analysis will disclose the effects of 
the proposed treatments, including the application of an adaptive 
management strategy that would assess progress and alter management 
when adequate progress in not being achieved or as new methods of 
treatment are developed.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
by January 18, 2011. The draft environmental impact statement is 
expected May 2011 and the final environmental impact statement is 
expected April 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Forest Supervisor, Medicine Bow-
Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland, 2468 
Jackson Street, Laramie, Wyoming 82070. Comments may also be sent via 
e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9bf8f4f6f6fef5efe8b6e9f4f8f0e2b6f6f4eef5effaf2f5b6f6fefff2f8f2f5feb6f9f4ecb6e9f4eeefefdbfde8b5fdfeffb5eee8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="096a6664646c677d7a247b666a62702464667c677d68606724646c6d606a60676c246b667e247b667c7d7d496f7a276f6c6d277c7a">[email protected]</span></a> or via 
facsimile to 307-745-2398.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions about the proposed 
action and the EIS to Bob Mountain, Project Coordinator, 2468 Jackson 
Street, Laramie, Wyoming 82070, phone (307) 745-2411 or e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#42202f2d372c36232b2c0224316c2427266c3731"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="482a25273d263c292126082e3b662e2d2c663d3b">[email protected]</span></a>. Comments are not to be sent to this address; they 
need to be received as directed above.
    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) between 8 a.m. 
and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Invasive plants are threatening or 
dominating areas of the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder 
Basin National Grassland (MBRTB) with negative impacts on native plant 
communities, big game winter ranges, sage-grouse habitat, soil and 
watershed resources, recreation, domestic livestock forage availability 
and aesthetic values. A shift from native vegetation to invasive plants 
alters wildlife habitats, decreases wildlife and livestock forage,

[[Page 74679]]

reduces species diversity, increases soil erosion due to a decrease in 
surface cover, and promotes undesirable monocultures. For these reasons 
it is imperative to aggressively manage invasive plants across the 
MBRTB.
    Purpose and Need for Action: The purpose and need of the project is 
to prevent and reduce loss of native plant communities associated with 
the spread of invasive plant species. Specifically, the purposes of 
this project are to treat invasive plants within the Medicine Bow-Routt 
National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland (MBRTB) and to 
reduce the impacts from invasive plants on other resources.
    These management activities would be administered by the Medicine 
Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland in 
Colorado and Wyoming. The EIS would update the 1996 MBRTB Management of 
Noxious Weeds EA and comply with the three current land and resource 
management plans:
    <bullet> Medicine Bow National Forest Revised Land and Resource 
Management Plan December 2003.
    <bullet> Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 
February 1998.
    <bullet> Thunder Basin National Grassland Land and Resource 
Management Plan--Northern Great Plains Management Plans Revision July 
2002.

The purpose of the Forest Service proposal is to further movement 
towards desired conditions outlined in the above plans, by:

    <bullet> Protecting the natural condition and biodiversity of the 
MBRTB by preventing or limiting the spread of aggressive, non-native 
plant species that displace native vegetation.
    <bullet> Promptly eliminating new invaders (species not previously 
reported in the area) before they become established.
    <bullet> Preventing or limiting the spread of established invasive 
plants into areas containing little or no infestation.
    <bullet> Protecting sensitive and unique habitats including 
critical big game winter ranges, sage-grouse core areas and other 
important habitats.
    <bullet> Reducing known and potential invasive plant seed sources 
along roads and trails, within powerline corridors, rights-of-ways, 
gravel and rock quarries, fuels reduction projects, previously-burned 
areas and beetle-killed forests.
    The forest and grassland plans provide goals, objectives, standards 
and guidelines, and land allocations of the various activities that 
occur on the forest/grassland. Access to the project area and condition 
of private lands will be considered during the alternative development 
and when analyzing potential cumulative effects, but no activities are 
being proposed to occur on private lands. It is anticipated, however, 
that the Forest Service may receive requests from intermingled and 
adjacent landowners to be a willing and able partner on projects that 
might be proposed to treat invasive plant populations that are found on 
multiple land ownerships that include NFS lands.
    Proposed Action: The Forest Service, through the application of an 
adaptive invasive plant treatment strategy, proposes to treat invasive 
plant species on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder 
Basin National Grassland (MBRTB). The proposed action would broaden the 
current management based on the 1996 MBRTB Management of Noxious Weeds 
EA for control of noxious weeds to:
    <bullet> Treat new infestations through adaptive management tools 
for assessing new treatments and new sites;
    <bullet> Permit the use of newly developed, more species-specific, 
EPA registered herbicides;
    <bullet> Continue the use of integrated treatment methods, 
including herbicides, within wilderness areas where approved in advance 
and necessary to maintain native vegetation consistent with wilderness 
values;
    <bullet> Broaden control methods to include the use of aerial 
application of herbicides where effective ground application is not 
possible; and
    <bullet> Maintain or improve protection measures for herbicide 
applications.
    Table 1 identifies the invasive plants that are proposed for 
treatment or potential treatment should they be found, and priority of 
treatment on National Forest System Lands. The table includes invasive 
plants known to be present within the MBRTB and those not yet present 
but considered to be likely invaders in the near future. Briefly, 
Priority 1 indicates weeds of highest priority for treatment and 
eradication. Priority 2 indicates weeds that are increasing in numbers, 
Priority 3 are weeds that are so common and widespread that eradication 
is not possible while Priority 4 weeds are not currently known to 
occur. Due to the dynamic nature of invasive species, it is not 
possible for this list to include all invasive species that may be 
considered a threat to National Forest System lands. Management of 
species not listed here, yet determined to be a threat, will be 
addressed in the adaptive management strategy described below.

                                                     Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Approximate
                Common name                        Scientific name             Priority         infested acres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dalmatian toadflax........................  Linaria dalmatica...........                   1               1,907
Diffuse knapweed..........................  Centaurea diffusa...........                   1                 260
Leafy spurge..............................  Euphorbia esula.............                   1                 863
Russian knapweed..........................  Acroptilon repens...........                   1                   9
Saltcedar.................................  Tamarix complex.............                   1                 280
Spotted knapweed..........................  Centaurea stoebe ssp                           1                 266
                                             micranthos.
Squarrose knapweed........................  Centaurea virgata ssp                          1                   3
                                             squarrosa.
Yellow toadflax...........................  Linaria vulgaris............                   1               8,499
Black henbane.............................  Hyoscyamus niger............                   2                  36
Bull thistle..............................  Cirsium vulgare.............                   2                 264
Cheatgrass................................  Bromus tectorum.............                   2              97,461
Common tansy..............................  Tanacetum vulgare...........                   2                   5
Hoary cress...............................  Cardaria draba..............                   2               1,374
Musk thistle..............................  Carduus nutans..............                   2               2,200
Russian olive.............................  Elaeagnus angustifolia......                   2                 350
Scentless chamomile.......................  Tripleurospermum perforatum.                   2                 254
Scotch thistle............................  Onopordum acanthium.........                   2                  21
St. Johnswort.............................  Hypericum perforatum........                   2                   2
Sulphur cinquefoil........................  Potentilla recta............                   2                   1
Canada thistle............................  Cirsium arvense.............                   3              44,598

[[Page 74680]]

 
Common burdock............................  Arctium minus...............                   3                  53
Common mullein............................  Verbascum thapsus...........                   3                 199
Curveseed butterwort......................  Ceratocephala testiculata...                   3                   4
Field bindweed............................  Convolvulus arvensis........                   3                  66
Houndstongue..............................  Cynoglossum officinale......                   3              15,034
Ox-eye daisy..............................  Leucanthemum vulgare........                   3               1,288
Dyers woad................................  Isatis tinctoria............                   4                   0
Medusahead................................  Taeniatherum caput-medusae..                   4                   0
Perennial pepperweed......................  Lepidium latifolium.........                   4                   0
Perennial sowthistle......................  Sonchus arvense.............                   4                   0
Plumeless thistle.........................  Carduus acanthoides.........                   4                   0
Purple loosestrife........................  Lythrum salicaria...........                   4                   0
Quackgrass................................  Elymus repens...............                   4                   0
Skeletonleaf bursage......................  Ambrosia tomentosa..........                   4                   0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Infested'' acres vary widely, largely due to extreme variations of 
density of the invasive plants within that acre (from a few plants to a 
few dozen plants in some areas all the way to nearly solid monoculture 
stands in others). Currently, approximately 175,300 acres within the 
MBRTB are infested with invasive plants, which is about 6% of the total 
acres.
    The proposed action would occur over the next 10-15 years and would 
treat a few thousand acres annually (recent efforts have been 2,000-
3,000 acres), using a combination of manual, mechanical, biological, 
and aerial and ground herbicide applications. Adding the capability for 
aerial treatments is necessary to safely and effectively apply 
herbicides, in uniform applications, on the steeper slopes that 
characterize critical big game winter ranges. It is also needed to 
cooperate with integrated land ownership partners on the Grasslands 
that are experiencing extensive infestations of cheatgrass as a result 
of recent and severe drought (and that are negatively affecting native 
plant populations, especially those in critical sage-grouse habitat). 
An estimated average of an additional 1,000-5,000 acres might be 
treated annually for cheatgrass control in cooperation with 
intermingled-landownership partners, and involving partnership dollars 
as well.
    Potential treatment areas include crucial big game winter ranges, 
sage-grouse core areas and other important habitats, fuels reduction 
projects, previously-burned areas, roads and trails, power lines, 
rights-of-ways, gravel and rock quarries, and beetle-killed forests 
where invasive weeds are already beginning to proliferate.
    The proposed action would utilize a variety of tools, singularly or 
in combination, to implement an integrated strategy. Proposed control 
methods include the following:
    <bullet> Mechanical methods, such as hand-pulling, mowing or 
cutting.
    <bullet> Revegetation, where competitive vegetation is seeded to 
reduce invasive species, possibly after other treatments.
    <bullet> Grazing with livestock.
    <bullet> Biological control through the use of predators, 
parasites, and pathogens.
    <bullet> Herbicide control using ground-based application methods.
    <bullet> Herbicide control using aerial application methods.
    <bullet> Prescribed fire in conjunction with other treatment 
methods.
    <bullet> Education programs to inform people of the effects of 
invasive plant infestations, methods of spread and preventative 
management opportunities and practices.
    <bullet> Prevention by using practices that reduce invasive plant 
spread, including a weed-free forage program and washing vehicles to 
remove seeds and plant parts.
    The selection of control methods is not a choice of one tool over 
another, but rather selection of a combination of tools that would be 
most effective on target species for a particular location. The MBRTB 
proposes to use a combination of control methods based on site-specific 
conditions and circumstances, EPA labels, APHIS direction, and resource 
protection measures to ensure that treatment methods are properly used.
    The proposed action contains the concept of adaptive management to 
deal with infestations that are constantly changing. An adaptive 
management strategy offers an avenue to describe and evaluate the 
consequences of changing or new infestations and new treatment options, 
while still addressing other resource concerns. As new infestations are 
discovered, and as new treatment methods are approved, personnel can 
evaluate treating those areas using all available methods. The adaptive 
management strategy consists of two principle components:
    1. To quickly and effectively treat newly discovered infestations, 
a decision tree based on infestation size, location, site 
characteristics, and consultation with specialists would be used to 
select treatment methods.
    2. To improve effectiveness and reduce impacts, new technology, 
biological controls, or herbicides would be evaluated for use.
    Possible Alternatives: The Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and 
Thunder Basin National Grassland will consider a reasonable range of 
alternatives, including a no action alternative. Other alternatives may 
examine various combinations of invasive plant treatment. Based on the 
issues gathered through scoping, the action alternatives may vary in 
the amount and location of acres considered for treatment and the 
number, type, and location of activity.
    Responsible Official: The Forest Supervisor, Medicine Bow-Routt 
National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland is the 
Responsible Official for making the decision concerning this proposal.
    Nature of Decision To Be Made: Given the purpose and need, the 
Responsible Official reviews the proposed action, the other 
alternatives, and the environmental consequences in order to make the 
following decisions:
    <bullet> Whether to expand current efforts to control invasive 
plants;
    <bullet> What control methods would be used;
    <bullet> What herbicides would be used;
    <bullet> What protection measures and monitoring measures would be 
required; and

[[Page 74681]]

    <bullet> Whether to include an adaptive management approach to 
address future spread of invasive weeds.

If authorized, the decision would describe adaptive management options 
under specific settings and conditions.
    The EIS is a project level analysis. The scope of the project is 
confined to issues and potential environmental consequences relevant to 
the decision. This analysis does not attempt to re-evaluate or alter 
decisions made at higher levels. The decision is subject to and would 
implement direction from higher levels.
    National and regional policies and Forest Plan direction require 
consideration of effects of all projects on invasive plant spread and 
prescribe protection measures where practical to limit those effects. 
Reconsideration of other existing project level decisions or 
programmatically prescribing protection measures or standards for 
future Forest management activities (such as travel management, timber 
harvest, and grazing management) are beyond the scope of this document. 
Cumulative effects of the Project are addressed where appropriate in 
Chapter 3 combined with effects of other Forest activities.
    Even with careful consideration, unforeseen events can occur that 
will require additional analyses. Unanticipated events can result in 
new information that could have a bearing on a decision. Forest Service 
procedures for addressing such new information, documents, and 
decisions are thoroughly explained in FSH 1909.15, Section 18.
    Preliminary Issues: Key issues identified to date include:
    <bullet> The current and potential impacts of invasive plants on 
natural resources such as big game winter habitat, native plant 
communities, wilderness values, watershed function, and threatened, 
endangered, or sensitive species and their habitats.
    <bullet> Economics, effectiveness, and potential impacts of various 
control methods on natural resources.
    <bullet> Potential effects on non-target native plants and 
associated values, wildlife and fish populations, and human health from 
the application of herbicides.
    Scoping Process: This notice of intent initiates the scoping 
process, which guides the development of the environmental impact 
statement. Public participation will be especially important at several 
points during the analysis, beginning with the scoping process (40 CFR 
1501.7). The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and 
assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes, and other 
individuals or organizations who may be interested in or affected by 
the proposed project. This input will be used in preparation of the 
draft EIS. Continued scoping and public participation efforts will be 
used by the interdisciplinary team to identify new issues, determine 
alternatives in response to the issues, and determine the level of 
analysis needed to disclose potential biological, physical, economic, 
and social impacts associated with this project.
    The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by May 
2011. The EPA will publish a notice of availability of the draft EIS in 
the Federal Register. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 
days from the date the EPA notice appears in the Federal Register. At 
that time, copies of the draft EIS will be distributed to interested 
and affected agencies, organizations, and members of the public for 
their review and comment. It is important that those interested in this 
proposal on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin 
National Grassland participate at that time.
    The final EIS is scheduled for completion by April 2012. In the 
final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to substantive 
comments received during the comment period for the draft EIS. The 
Forest Supervisor of the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and 
Thunder Basin National Grassland is the responsible official. The 
Forest Supervisor will decide which, if any, of the proposed project 
alternatives will be implemented. The decision and reasons for the 
decision will be documented in appropriate Records of Decision. Those 
decisions will be subject to Forest Service appeal regulations (36 CFR 
part 215).
    It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times 
and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of 
the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be 
provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly 
articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.
    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names 
and addresses of those who comment, will become part of the public 
record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be 
accepted and considered, however anonymous comments will not provide 
the respondent with standing to participate in subsequent 
administrative review or judicial review.

    Dated: November 23, 2010.
Steven R. Currey,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2010-30196 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>