Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatment Project-Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Washington and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, 49905-49907 [05-16901]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 164 (Thursday, August 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49905-49907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16901]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 49906]]

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 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: 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 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 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 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 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: https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/
multiforest-sitespecific-information.htm.

[[Page 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