[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 164 (Thursday, August 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49903-49905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16897]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatment Project--Olympic National 
Forest, Washington

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) to document and disclose the potential environmental 
effects of proposed invasive plant treatments. The Proposed Action is 
to apply a combination of herbicide, mechanical and manual treatments 
to control known invasive plants within approximately 3,830 acres in 99 
treatment areas on the Olympic National Forest in Washington. The 
Proposed Action would also establish criteria for responding to 
infestations that cannot be predicted.
    This notice revises the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS 
announced in the Federal Register on February 23, 2004. Four national 
forests were combined for analysis in the 2004 NOI. Currently, the 
Forest Service intends to prepare three separate site-specific 
statements: one for the Olympic National Forest, one for the Gifford-
Pinchot National Forest and the northern portion of the Columbia River 
Gorge National Scenic Area in Washington, and one for the Mount Hood 
National Forest and the southern portion of the Columbia River Gorge 
National Scenic Area in Oregon. The project has been refined partly in 
response to comments received during the initial scoping period.

DATES: Written comments concerning the scope of this analysis should be 
received by September 15, 2005 if

[[Page 49904]]

possible to ensure they are fully incorporated into the Draft EIS.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to Doug Jones, Mt. Hood National Forest, 
6780 Hwy. 35, Mt. Hood, OR 97041. Electronic comments can be submitted 
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9efdf1f3f3fbf0eaedb3eefffdf7f8f7fdf0f1eceaf6e9fbedeab3f3eaf6f1f1fab3f6f1f1faecf7e8fbecdef8edb0f8fbfab0ebed"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e685898b8b83889295cb9687858f808f85888994928e91839592cb8b928e898982cb8e898982948f908394a68095c8808382c89395">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Jones, 541.352.6002 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3b5f5c5154555e487b5d48155d5e5f154e48"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e3a393431303b2d1e382d70383b3a702b2d">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Need for the Proposal

    Invasive plants are compromising the ability for the Forest Service 
to manage for healthy native ecosystems. Invasive plants create a host 
of environmental and other effects, most of which are harmful to native 
ecosystem processes, including: displacement of native plants; 
reduction in functionality of habitat and forage for wildlife and 
livestock; loss of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; 
increased soil erosion and reduced water quality; alteration of 
physical and biological properties of soil, including reduced soil 
productivity; changes to the intensity and frequency of fires; high 
cost (dollars spent) of controlling invasive plants; and loss of 
recreational opportunities.
    Approximately 3,830 acres of invasive, non-native plants on the 
Olympic National Forest are proposed for treatment. These infestations 
have a high potential to expand and further degrade the National Forest 
and other lands. Infested areas represent potential seed sources for 
further invasion into neighboring ownerships.
    There is an underlying need on for timely suppression, containment, 
control, and/or eradication of invasive plants on the Olympic National 
Forest so that desired environmental and social conditions (healthy 
native plant populations and little spread to neighboring lands) may be 
achieved. These control objective terms are based on the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement, Pacific Northwest Region--Preventing 
and Managing Invasive Plants: Eradication: Elimination of an invasive 
plant species from an area. Control: Infestation size reduced over 
time; some level of infestation may be acceptable. Containment: Spread 
of the weed prevented beyond the perimeter of patches or infestation 
areas mapped from current inventories. Suppression: Invasive plant seed 
production prevented throughout the target patch; invasive species does 
not dominate the vegetation of the area; low levels may be acceptable. 
Without action, invasive plant populations will continue to have 
adverse effects on national forest system and adjacent lands.

Proposed Action

    The Proposed Action for this project is to apply site-specific 
treatment prescriptions that are based on the desired condition and 
control objective of each treatment area, the biology of particular 
invasive plant species, its proximity to water and other sensitive 
resources, and size of the infestation. Prevention of invasive plant 
infestations remains a key part of the program and is addressed in the 
Regional EIS.
    Initial treatment estimates include about 2,130 acres of herbicide 
combined with manual treatment and about 1,700 acres of herbicide 
treatment combined with manual and mechanical treatment (including 7 
acres where controlled burning may also be prescribed).
    Treatments may be repeated over several years until suppression, 
containment, control, and/or eradication objectives are met. Infested 
areas would be treated with an initial prescription, and retreated in 
subsequent years, depending on the results. Treatments would be adapted 
to site conditions that change over time. The proportion of specific 
treatment methods would be expected to change overtime. Herbicide 
treatments are part of the initial prescription for most sites; 
however, use of herbicides would be expected to decline in subsequent 
entries. Revegetation may also be needed to reduce conditions that are 
prone to re-infestation. Treatment areas would be monitored to adjust 
the site-specific prescription and determine whether active 
revegetation will be needed.
    In addition, the Proposed Action would establish a set of project 
design features for treating future invasive plant infestations. The 
features are intended to ensure that effects of treating currently 
unknown plant invasions are within the scope of this EIS decision. 
Treatment acreage thresholds will be established in 6th field 
watersheds as needed, based on the severity, intensity and extent of 
potential adverse effects.
    A site-specific, non-significant Forest Plan amendment is also 
proposed for the Olympic National Forest. Currently, there is a 
standard in the National Forest Plan that states that herbicide use 
will be discouraged in riparian areas. However, some invasive plant 
species (notably knotweed) grow in riparian areas, and herbicides are 
the most effective and cost-efficient treatment. The Proposed Action 
would change the standard to allow for riparian treatments with 
herbicides, as long as all other applicable environmental standards are 
met.
    Maps of the proposed treatment sites are posted on the website 
mentioned below. Additional information on the proposal are available 
by contacting Doug Jones.

Previous Scoping

    Comments submitted during the scoping conducted for the ``Invasive 
Plant Treatment Project--Olympic, Gifford Pinchot, and Mt. Hood 
Nationals Forests and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area; Oregon 
and Washington'' from February 23 to April 5, 2004 will be retained and 
considered in the development of this EIS. If you have additional 
comments on the revised proposed action, these will be considered in 
conjunction with the previous comments. Issues identified from the 
previous scoping effort are outlined below.
    The Forest Service is currently seeking any additional information, 
comments, and assistance from Federal, State and local agencies, 
tribes, and other individuals or organizations that may be interested 
in or affected by this proposed action. Written comments are due 
September 15. Comments should be specific to the Proposed Action and 
clearly describe any issues the commenter has with the proposal. Issues 
will be addressed in the Draft EIS.
    In addition to submitting written comments, the public may visit 
Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to 
the decision. A Web site has also been established to disseminate 
project information: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/multiforest-sitespecific-information.htm.

Issues Identified From Previous Scoping

    The potential for impacts/effects as a result of the establishment 
and spread of invasive plants and the potential for impacts/effects as 
a result of treatment actions designed to manage invasive plants are 
both important considerations that need to be addressed in the 
analysis. The following issues were identified during the initial 
scoping process:
    <bullet> Human Health--Invasive plant treatments may result in 
health risks to forestry workers and the public, including 
contamination of drinking water and forest products. Mitigation and 
protection measures should be evaluated to ensure they protect human 
health. Public notification measures should be evaluated to ensure that 
human exposure to herbicide is limited.

[[Page 49905]]

    <bullet> Treatment Effectiveness--Invasive plant treatments can 
vary in effectiveness. The presence and spread of invasive plants 
within National Forest System lands may affect the presence and spread 
of invasive plants on neighboring ownerships. Treatments should be 
evaluated based on how likely they are to reach desired conditions in 
the foreseeable future.
    <bullet> Social and Economic--Invasive plant treatments vary in 
cost and affect the acreage that can be effectively treated each year 
given a set budget. Manual treatment methods may cost more per acre, 
but provide more employment.
    <bullet> Non-Target Plants and Animals--Impacts to non-target plant 
and animal species vary by invasive plant treatments. Mitigation and 
protection measures should be evaluated to ensure they protect plant 
and animal species (including culturally important plants) from adverse 
effects.
    <bullet> Soils, Water Quality and Aquatic Biota--Soil and ground 
disturbing impacts, effects to aquatic organisms, and water quality 
impacts vary by invasive plant treatments. Mitigation and protection 
measures should be evaluated to ensure they protect soil, water quality 
and aquatic biota from adverse effects.

Alternatives To Be Considered

    The No Action alternative will serve as a baseline for comparison 
of alternatives. Under the No Action alternative, the Olympic National 
Forest would continue to treat invasive plant species as authorized 
under existing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. The 
Olympic National Forest would continue to have a standard that 
discourages herbicide use in riparian areas; however, an existing 
Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice have authorized herbicide 
treatments at several knotweed sites in riparian areas.
    Additional action alternatives may be developed as the analysis 
proceeds and if substantive new comments or information is received.

Alternative Evaluation Criteria

    The alternatives will be evaluated based on how effectively they 
treat known sites and respond to new infestations, their monetary cost, 
and their potential risks to human health and the environment.

Estimated Dates for Draft and Final EIS

    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names 
and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the 
public record on this proposed action and will be available for public 
inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and 
considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments may not have 
standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR part 215. 
Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the 
agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how 
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. 
Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the 
FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited 
circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service 
will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the 
request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the 
agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the 
comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within a 
specified number of days.
    The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important 
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public 
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of 
the draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental 
review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to 
the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 
Corp. v. NRDC. 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objectives 
that could be raised at the draft EIS stage but that are not raised 
until after the completion of the final EIS may be waived or dismissed 
by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F. 2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 
1986) and Wisconsin Heritage, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334 (E.D. 
Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that 
those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of 
the 45-day comment period; so 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 final EIS.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should 
be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if the comments refer to 
specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also 
address the adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives 
formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer 
to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing 
the procedural provision of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 
CFR 1503.3).
    The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public comment by March 
2006. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date 
the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.
    Comments on the draft EIS will be analyzed, considered, and 
responded to by the Forest Service in preparing the final EIS. The 
final EIS is scheduled to be completed in Summer 2006. The Responsible 
Official (R.O.) is Dale Hom, Olympic National Forest Supervisor. The 
R.O. will consider comments, responses, environmental consequences 
discussed in the final EIS, and applicable laws, regulations, and 
policies in making a decision regarding this proposed action. The 
responsible officials will document the decision and rationale for the 
decision in the Record of Decision. It will be subject to Forest 
Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR part 215).

    Dated: August 17, 2005.
Virginia Grilley,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Olympic National Forest.
[FR Doc. 05-16897 Filed 8-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


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