Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatment Project-Olympic National Forest, Washington, 49903-49905 [05-16897]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
49903
Notices
Federal Register
Vol. 70, No. 164
Thursday, August 25, 2005
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.
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Aug 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM
25AUN1
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Aug 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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: https://
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.
E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM
25AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices
• 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Aug 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49905
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
E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM
25AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 164 (Thursday, August 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49903-49905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 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: https://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
