This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

49903

Vol. 70, No. 164

Thursday, August 25, 2005

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

August 22, 2005. 

The Department of Agriculture has 

submitted the following information 

collection requirement(s) to OMB for 

review and clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Comments 

regarding: (a) Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of burden including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

through the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology should be addressed to: Desk 

Officer for Agriculture, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), 

OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV or 

fax (202) 395–5806 and to Departmental 

Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail 

Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250–

7602. Comments regarding these 

information collections are best assured 

of having their full effect if received 

within 30 days of this notification. 

Copies of the submission(s) may be 

obtained by calling (202) 720–8958. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless the collection of information 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number and the agency informs 

potential persons who are to respond to 

the collection of information that such 

persons are not required to respond to 

the collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Food and Nutrition Service 

Title: 7 CFR Part 235 State 

Administrative Expense Funds. 

OMB Control Number: 0584–0067. 

Summary of Collection: Because the 

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is 

accountable for State Administrative 

Expense (SAE) funds by fiscal year, 

State Agencies (SAs) are requested to 

report their SAE budget information on 

that basis. If the State budgets coincide 

with a fiscal year other than that used 

by the Federal government, the SA must 

convert its State budget figures to 

amounts to be used during the 

applicable Federal fiscal year for this 

purpose. Under 7 CFR part 235, State 

Administrative Expense Funds, there 

are five reporting requirements, which 

necessitate the collection of 

information. They are as follows: SAE 

Plan, Reallocation Report, Coordinated 

Review Effort (CRE) Data Base Update, 

Report of SAE Funds Usage, and 

Responses to Sanctions. SAs also must 

maintain records pertaining to SAE. 

These include Ledger Accounts, Source 

Documents, Equipment Records and 

Record on State Appropriated Funds. 

FNS will collect information using 

forms FNS–74 and 525. 

Need and Use of the Information: FNS 

will collect information on the total SAE 

cost the SA expects to incur in the 

course of administering the Child 

Nutrition Programs (CNP); the indirect 

cost rate used by the SA in charging 

indirect cost to SAE, together with the 

name of the Federal agency that 

assigned the rate and the date the rate 

was assigned; breakdown of the current 

year’s SAE budget between the amount 

allocated for the current year and the 

amount carried over from the prior year; 

and the number and types of personnel 

currently employed in administering the 

CNPs. The information is used to 

determine whether SA intends to use 

SAE funds for purposes allowable under 

OMB Circular A–87, Cost Principles for 

State and Local Governments; does SA’s 

administrative budget provide for 

sufficient funding from State sources to 

meet the Maintenance of Effort 

requirement; and is SA’s staff adequate 

to effectively administer the programs 

covered by the SA’s agreement with 

FNS. 

Description of Respondents: State, 

local or tribal government. 

Number of Respondents: 88. 

Frequency of Responses:

Recordkeeping; Reporting: Annually. 

Total Burden Hours: 14,900.

Charlene Parker, 

Departmental Information Collection 

Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 05–16904 Filed 8–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P

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 GiffordPinchot 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 

49904 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 

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 comments-pacificnorthwest-mthoodhoodriver@fs.fed.us.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doug Jones, 541.352.6002 or 

dgjones@fs.fed.us.

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 reinfestation. 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: 

• 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 49905

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatment 

Project—Gifford Pinchot National 

Forest, Washington and Columbia 

River Gorge National Scenic Area

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, 

manual and mechanical methods to 

control known invasive plants within 

approximately 2,687 acres over 114 

treatment areas on the Gifford Pinchot 

National Forest and Columbia River 

Gorge National Scenic Area in 

Washington. The Proposed Action 

would also establish criteria for 

responding to infestations that cannot 

be predicted. 

This notice revises the Notice to 

Intent to prepare an EIS announced in