[Federal Register: August 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 164)]
[Notices]
[Page 49903-49905]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25au05-23]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 comments-pacificnorthwest-mthood-hoodriver@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 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:
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]]
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