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 

49906 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 

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 the 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: Comments submitted during the 

scoping conducted from February 23 to 

April 5, 2004 will be considered in the 

development of this EIS. Additional 

comments on the revised proposed 

action will be considered in conjunction 

with the previous comments. Additional 

comments would be most helpful if 

received by September 15, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments 

to Doug Jones, Mt. Hood National 

Forest, 6780 Hwy 35, Mt. Hood, OR 

97041. Electronic comments can be 

submitted to commentspacificnorthwest-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 2,687 acres on the 

Giffod Pinchot National Forest and 

northern portion of the Columbia River 

Gorge National Scenic Area are infested 

with invasive, non-native plants. 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 onto neighboring 

ownerships. 

There is an underlying need for 

timely suppression, containment, 

control, and/or eradication of invasive 

plants on these national forest system 

lands so that desired environmental and 

social conditions may be achieved 

(these terms are based on the R6 FEIS: 

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 plants species, its 

proximity to water and other sensitive 

resources, and size of the infestation 

(these factors may change over time). 

Initial treatment estimates include 

about 2,375 acres of herbicide combined 

with manual treatment and about 175 

acres of herbicide treatment combined 

with manual and mechanical treatment. 

One site on the Columbia River Gorge 

National Scenic Area would be grazed 

with goats as parts of the treatment 

prescription. The Scenic Area also has 

137 acres that would be treated with a 

combination of herbicide and 

mechanical means. 

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 

types as well as the proportion of 

specific treatment methods would be 

expected to change over time. 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 criteria for 

treating future invasive plant 

infestations. The criteria are intended to 

ensure that effects of treating currently 

unknown plant invasions are within the 

scope of this EIS decision. 

A site-specific, non-significant Forest 

Plan amendment is also being 

considered for the Gifford Pinchot 

National Forest. Currently, there is a 

standard in the Gifford-Pinchot National 

Forest Plan that severely restricts 

herbicide use in riparian areas. 

However, some invasive plant species 

(notably knotweed) grow in riparian 

areas and herbicides may be the most 

cost-effective 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 treatments sites 

and 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 Science 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 the 

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 49907

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. 

• Treatment Effectiveness—Invasive 

plant treatments can vary in 

effectiveness. The presence and spread 

of invasive plants within National 

Forest System lands may be 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 and provide more 

employment. 

• Non-Target Plants and Animals—

Impacts to non-target plant and animal 

species varies 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 Considered

The No Action alternative will serve 

as a baseline for comparison of 

alternatives. Under the No Action 

alternative, the Gifford-Pinchot National 

Forest/Columbia River Gorge National 

Scenic Area would continue to treat 

invasive plant species as authorized 

under existing National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) documents. The 

Gifford-Pinchot National Forest would 

continue to have a standard that 

severely restricts herbicide use in 

riparian areas. 

Alternative Evaluation Criteria 

The alternatives will be evaluated 

based on how effectively they treat 

known 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 

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. 

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). 

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. 

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 2006. The Responsible 

Officials are Claire Lavendel, Gifford 

Pinchot National Forest Supervisor and 

Daniel T. Harkenrider, Columbia River 

Gorge National Scenic Area Manager. 

These officials 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 16, 2005. 

Claire Lavendel, 

Forest Supervisor, Gifford Pinchot National 

Forest. 

Dated: August 12, 2005. 

Daniel T. Harkenrider, 

Area Manager, Columbia River Gorge 

National Scenic Area.

[FR Doc. 05–16901 Filed 8–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

Plumas National Forest; Beckwourth 

Ranger District, California; Freeman 

Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.