Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 60807 

from the wellhead to central tank 

batteries carry high levels of water and 

condensate and must be buried to 

prevent plugging and freezing at 

wellhead spacing greater than 20 acres. 

Therefore, centralization of these 

facilities would require a great deal of 

buried pipelines to be constructed, 

resulting in the same environmental 

impacts described above for buried 

pipelines. However, burying pipelines 

and centralizing tank batteries, as a 

means of reducing overall 

environmental impact, will be 

considered on a site-specific basis as 

appropriate. 

The public is encouraged to comment 

on any of these alternatives. The BLM 

asks that those submitting comments 

make them as specific as possible with 

reference to chapters, page numbers, 

and paragraphs in the Draft EIS 

document. Comments that contain only 

opinions or preferences will not receive 

a formal response; however, they will be 

considered, and included, as part of the 

BLM decision-making process. The most 

useful comments will contain new 

technical or scientific information, 

identify data gaps in the impact 

analysis, or will provide technical or 

scientific rationale for opinions or 

preferences. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information-may be 

made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Juan Palma, 

State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24582 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–DQ–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLOR932000–L16100000–DF0000– 

LXSS062H0000; HAG 10–0283] 

Notice of Availability of the Record of 

Decision for Vegetation Treatments 

Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands in Oregon Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended (NEPA), the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) has prepared 

a Record of Decision (ROD) for 

Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 

on Bureau of Land Management Lands 

in Oregon and by this notice is 

announcing its availability. The ROD 

selects a slightly modified version of 

Alternative 4 as described in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for Vegetation Treatments Using 

Herbicides on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands in Oregon, notice of 

which was published in the Federal 

Register on July 30, 2010 (75 FR 44981). 

The selected alternative increases the 

number of herbicides available for use 

on BLM-managed lands in Oregon and 

increases the number of objectives for 

which they can be used. The herbicides 

and uses permitted by the selected 

alternative fall entirely within those 

approved for use in 17 western states by 

the BLM in its September 2007 ROD for 

the Final Programmatic EIS for 

Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 

on BLM lands in 17 Western States. The 

Oregon decision incorporates the 

standard operating procedures and 

mitigation measures adopted by the 

BLM’s 2007 17 western states decision 

and adds additional mitigation and 

monitoring requirements specific to 

Oregon. 

DATES: There is a 30-day appeal period 

before the decision can take effect (see 

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS below). 

Appeals must be postmarked within 30 

days of the date of publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Todd Thompson, EIS Project Manager, 

by telephone at (503) 808–6326, by mail 

at Bureau of Land Management— 

OR932, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 

97208; or by e-mail at 

orvegtreatments@blm.gov. 

Copies of the ROD and the Vegetation 

Treatments Final EIS upon which it is 

based are available on the Internet at: 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/ 

vegtreatmentseis/. Printed copies have 

been sent to libraries and BLM district 

offices throughout Oregon. Compact 

Disc (CD) copies have also been sent to 

affected Federal, State, tribal, and local 

government agencies; to persons who 

have asked to be on the project mailing 

list; and to everyone who submitted 

comments on the Draft EIS, unless they 

requested the ROD in a different format 

or opted off of the distribution list. 

Requests to receive printed or CD copies 

of the ROD should be sent to one of the 

addresses listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final 

EIS for Vegetation Treatments Using 

Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon 

provides a comprehensive analysis of a 

proposal to make an additional 13 

herbicides available (above the current 

4) to BLM districts in Oregon and to 

expand on the management objectives 

for which they may be used (beyond just 

noxious weed control). The selected 

alternative, a slightly modified 

Alternative 4, would allow for the use 

of 17 herbicides east of the Cascades 

and 14 herbicides west of the Cascades 

to control noxious and invasive weeds; 

treat vegetation along roads, rights-ofway, and BLM improvements; and 

conduct habitat improvement projects 

for special status species. The Oregon 

BLM currently uses four herbicides only 

for the treatment of noxious weeds. A 

noxious weed is any plant designated by 

a Federal, State or county government as 

injurious to public health, agriculture, 

recreation, wildlife, or property. The list 

of invasive weeds includes not only 

noxious weeds but also other nonnative, aggressive plants that have the 

potential to cause significant damage to 

native ecosystems and/or cause 

significant economic losses. 

In 1984, the BLM was prohibited from 

using herbicides in Oregon by a U.S. 

District Court injunction issued in 

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to 

Pesticides, et al. v. Block, et al., (Civ. 

No. 82–6273–E). Following completion 

of an EIS examining the use of four 

herbicides for the treatment of noxious 

weeds only, the injunction was 

modified by the court in November 

1987, (Civ. No. 82–6272–BU). For the 

subsequent 23 years, the BLM in Oregon 

has limited its herbicide use to the four 

herbicides analyzed and limited the use 

of those four herbicides to the control 

and eradication of Federal-, State-, or 

county-listed noxious weeds. In that 

time, new herbicides have become 

available that can be used in smaller 

doses, are more target-specific, and are 

lower risk to people and other nontarget organisms. In 2007, the BLM 

Washington Office Rangeland Resources 

Division completed the Vegetation 

Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau 

of Land Management lands in 17 

Western States Programmatic EIS and 

related Record of Decision 

(Programmatic EIS), making 18 

herbicides available for a full range of 

vegetation treatments in 17 western 

states including Oregon. Oregon cannot 

fully implement that decision, however, 

until and unless the 1984 District Court 

injunction is lifted. The Vegetation 

Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM 

Lands in Oregon Final EIS, upon which 

today’s decision is based, tiers to the 17 

Western States Programmatic EIS, 

incorporates its standard operating 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
60808 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 

procedures and adopted mitigation 

measures for the use of herbicides, 

provides additional detailed analysis 

regarding the potential for human and 

environmental risks generated in 

support of the Programmatic EIS, and 

addresses the concerns raised by the 

District Court in its 1984 Order. 

A June 2009 stipulated agreement 

says the 1984 injunction, as modified in 

1987, shall cease to be in force and 

effect regarding BLM applying 

herbicides to treat invasive species upon 

the completion of the protest and 

appeals period following issuance of 

this ROD. Preparation of the Oregon EIS 

began with a Notice of Intent to Prepare 

an Environmental Impact Statement in 

the Federal Register on June 23, 2008 

(73 FR 35408). The scoping period 

included the mailing of 17,000 

postcards to potentially interested 

persons or groups, statewide radio and 

newspaper news releases, and 12 public 

scoping meetings held throughout 

Oregon. A Draft EIS was released on 

October 2, 2009 (74 FR 50986). Over 

1,000 comment letters received through 

January 6, 2010, on the Draft EIS and the 

ideas presented in those comments were 

used to improve the analysis presented 

in the Final EIS. Comment responses 

and resultant changes are documented 

in the Final EIS, Appendix 10. 

The Final EIS addressed all 15.7 

million acres of BLM lands in Oregon 

and all 18 herbicides approved for use 

by the 2007 ROD for the Programmatic 

EIS, which are being used in the other 

16 western states. The Final EIS 

analyzed a ‘‘no action’’ and three action 

alternatives, which were shaped in part 

by the comments received during 12 

public scoping meetings held 

throughout Oregon in July 2008. A ‘‘no 

herbicides’’ reference analysis was also 

included. The alternatives addressed 

eight ‘‘purposes’’ or issues also 

identified during scoping. 

The Final EIS analysis indicated that 

by using standard operating procedures 

identified in applicable BLM manuals 

and policy direction, along with 

Programmatic EIS-adopted mitigation 

measures, human and environmental 

risk from the use of herbicides is both 

minimized and reduced from current 

levels. The analysis indicates the 

selected alternative will also slow the 

spread of noxious weeds on BLM lands 

by approximately 50 percent and result 

in an estimated 2.2 million fewer 

infested acres in 15 years than under 

current program capabilities, will 

reduce rights-of-way maintenance costs 

by about $1 million per year, and will 

make possible an additional 3,700 acres 

of habitat improvement for federally 

listed and other special status species 

each year. The ROD does not authorize 

any specific herbicide treatment 

projects. No site-specific projects (i.e. 

application of herbicides beyond 

current authorized uses) will proceed 

until completion of additional, sitespecific NEPA analysis and decisionmaking. 

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service was conducted 

to ensure continued applicability of 

informal consultation and the Biological 

Opinion issued on the Programmatic 

EIS by those two agencies respectively. 

The signing official for the ROD is the 

BLM Oregon and Washington State 

Director. 

Administrative Appeals: The decision 

may be appealed to the Interior Board of 

Land Appeals (IBLA), Office of the 

Secretary, in accordance with 

regulations contained in 43 CFR part 4 

and Form 1842–1. If you file an appeal, 

your notice of appeal must be mailed to 

the Oregon/Washington BLM State 

Director, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, 

Oregon 97208–2965, and be postmarked 

by November 1, 2010. The appellant has 

the burden of showing the decision 

appealed is in error. 

A copy of the appeal, statement of 

reasons, and all other supporting 

documents must also be sent to the 

Regional Solicitor, Pacific Northwest 

Region, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

805 SW. Broadway #600, Portland, 

Oregon 97205–3346. If the notice of 

appeal does not include a statement of 

reasons for the appeal, it must be sent 

to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, 

Office of Hearings and Appeals, 801 

North Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia 

22203 within 30 days of filing the notice 

of appeal (43 CFR 4.412). It is suggested 

that appeals be sent certified mail, 

return receipt requested. 

Requests for Stay: Should you wish to 

file a motion for stay pending the 

outcome of an appeal of this decision, 

you must show sufficient justification 

based on the following standards under 

43 CFR 4.21: 

• The relative harm to the parties if 

the stay is granted or denied; 

• The likelihood of the appellant’s 

success on the merits; 

• The likelihood of immediate and 

irreparable harm if the stay is not 

granted; and 

• Whether or not the public interest 

favors granting the stay. 

As noted above, the motion for stay 

must be filed in the office of the 

authorized officer and the Regional 

Solicitor. 

Edward W. Shepard, 

State Director, Oregon/Washington. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24641 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R4–R–2010–N134; 40136–1265–0000– 

S3] 

Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife 

Refuge, Chesterfield County, SC 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability: Final 

comprehensive conservation plan and 

finding of no significant impact. 

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), announce the 

availability of our final comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) and finding of 

no significant impact (FONSI) for the 

environmental assessment for Carolina 

Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR). In the final CCP, we describe 

how we will manage this refuge for the 

next 15 years. 

ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of 

the CCP by writing to: Ms. Allyne 

Askins, Refuge Manager, Carolina 

Sandhills NWR, 23734 U.S. Highway 1, 

McBee, SC 29101. The CCP may also be 

accessed and downloaded from the 

Service’s Web site: http:// 

southeast.fws.gov/planning/ under 

‘‘Final Documents.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Allyne Askins; telephone: 843–335– 

8350; fax: 843–335–8406; e-mail: 

allyne_askins@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we finalize the CCP 

process for Carolina Sandhills NWR. We 

started this process through a notice in 

the Federal Register on August 22, 2007 

(72 FR 47062). 

Carolina Sandhills NWR was 

established by Executive Order 8067, 

dated March 17, 1939. This Executive 

Order authorized the Federal 

Government to purchase lands from 

willing sellers to restore habitats and 

wildlife species. Today, the 45,348-acre 

refuge is managed to restore the longleaf 

pine/wiregrass ecosystem for the benefit 

of the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) 

and other endangered species; to 

provide habitat for migratory and 

upland game birds; to provide 

opportunities for environmental 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES