[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 177 (Monday, September 14, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49076-49077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24550]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Control of Noxious Weeds on Remote Sites, Wallowa-Whitman 
National Forest and Umatilla National Forest; Columbia and Asotin 
Counties, Washington; Union, Baker, and Wallowa Counties, OR; Idaho 
County, ID

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) on control of noxious weeds on remote sites on two 
National Forests including aerial application of herbicides as a 
treatment on specific sites and under specific constraints. These sites 
are generally unroaded, back-country sites with difficult access. 
National Forest System lands within the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman 
National Forests, including lands within the Hells Canyon National 
Recreation Area (NRA) and Hells Canyon Wilderness, will be considered 
in the proposal. Management actions are planned to be implemented 
beginning in 2000. The agency gives notice of the full environmental 
analysis and decision-making process that will occur on the proposal so 
that interested and affected people may become aware of how they may 
participate and contribute to the final decision.

DATE: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing by October 31, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments and suggestions concerning this 
proposal to Karyn L. Wood, Forest Supervisor, Wallowa-Whitman National 
Forest, P.O. Box 907, Baker City, OR 97814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Direct questions about the proposed action and 
EIS to Chuck Quimby, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Wallowa-Whitman 
National Forest, P.O. Box 907, Baker City, OR 97814, phone (541) 523-
6391.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action is designed to treat 
existing populations of weeds to promote native and/or desirable 
plants, and treat existing populations of weeds to reduce weed seed 
sources. Projects will also evaluate means of avoiding the potential 
for spread of the existing infestations off-site. The action is needed 
to respond to the increased incidence, extent, and spread of unwanted 
nonnative noxious weeds in remote sites where access is difficult and 
hazardous, and where management of these infestations for control, 
containment, and reduction is consequently limited in effectiveness. 
These kinds of unwanted vegetation are legally designated as noxious 
weeds by State and Federal laws because they are generally unsuited as 
forage for either wildlife or livestock, may be hazardous if ingested, 
are often nonnative intrusions, compete with native plants, impact 
recreation and aesthetic values, and negatively impact wildlife 
habitat.
    Treatment sites included in this proposal are scattered across 
uplands on the Wallowa-Whitman and Umatilla National Forests in 
northeastern Oregon. The primary management areas from the Forest Plans 
affected by this proposal include general forest, big game winter 
range, HCNRA dispersed recreation/native vegetation, and wilderness. 
The primary targeted weed species for aerial application of herbicide 
is yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitalis), although other noxious 
weeds will be included. All of the proposed treatment sites are being 
negatively impacted by the invading noxious weeds. For some of the 
sites, past impacts to the plant community may have contributed to the 
susceptibility of invasion by the noxious weeds through a reduction in 
native plant cover and vigor. Of the 14 sites to be considered in this 
analysis, six are within allotments where grazing by domestic livestock 
may occur, while the remainder are in areas either closed to domestic 
livestock or where no livestock have grazed for a number of years. All 
of the lands are used by big game, including elk and deer. Some of the 
sites are used by backcountry recreationists, while others are seldom 
used. All sites are upland sites located away from perennial water. 
These sites range in size from approximately 10 acres to 500 acres net, 
but cover several thousand gross acres because the weeds are scattered 
and do not necessarily fill all growing space. Estimated gross acreage 
covered for the 14 sites ranges from 4000 to 5000 acres with weed 
spread increasing this number each year.
    The proposed action is intended to implement the Wallowa-Whitman 
Forest-wide integrated noxious weed environment (EA) and management 
plan, including supplemental decisions to incorporate additional sites, 
and the Umatilla integrated noxious weed EA. Both documents provide for 
management of noxious weeds throughout the Forests but have proven most 
effective on the more accessible sites (for example, along roads). The 
affected Forests are adjacent and share common habitats, noxious weed 
species, and problems associated with management of these infestations. 
These current environmental analyses and decisions for integrated 
noxious weed management on the two Forests provide for treatments 
described in an integrated weed management program. These include 
chemical, biological, manual, mechanical, and cultural. The treatment 
methods include backpack sprayer, wick application, and boom sprayer 
application of herbicides; release of approved biological agents; hand

[[Page 49077]]

pulling; lopping seed heads; discing or tilling; prescribed fire; 
revegetation; etc. However, aerial application of herbicide was not 
considered in prior analyses. This analysis will include aerial 
application as a possible treatment of the selected sites using an 
integrated weed management program.
    The Regional EIS for Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation 
(1998) and its associated mediated agreement, along with the Forest-
wide environmental assessments, the biological assessments, and 
concurrence documents from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
and National Marine Fisheries Service, all provide a strong background 
for controlling or mitigating the effects of treatment actions. Sites 
will be surveyed for the presence of threatened, endangered, proposed 
or sensitive species, and any necessary protective measures will be 
developed through the consultation process with the regulatory 
agencies.
    This decision is needed due to the increasing incidence and spread 
of noxious weeds into back-country areas. These sites are remote and 
difficult to access with equipment and supplies used for treatment 
measures. In addition, they are difficult to treat effectively due to 
the hazardous conditions for on-the-ground workers and the difficulty 
in covering the site thoroughly enough to ensure that no plants are 
missed and allowed to go to seed. For these reasons, treatments allowed 
under the existing decisions have been shown to be inadequate, have 
caused individual hazards to applicators, and have been expensive to 
use on these less accessible sites.
    This proposal tiers to the Regional FEIS for Managing Competing and 
Unwanted Vegetation and to the EIS for each Forest's Land and Resources 
Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended through completion of the 
integrated noxious weed plans for the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman 
National Forests. This project will also be consistent with all 
pertinent Forest Plan amendments, including; (1) Interim Strategies for 
Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and 
Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (commonly referred to as 
PACFISH) and (2) Inland Native Strategies for Managing Fish-producing 
Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana, 
and Portions of Nevada (commonly referred to as INFISH). The project 
also evaluates and incorporates scientific findings from the Interior 
Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Program.
    Public involvement will be especially important at several points 
during the analysis, beginning with the scoping process. The Forest 
Service will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from 
Federal, State, local agencies, tribes, and other individuals or 
organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposals. 
The scoping process includes:
    1. Identifying and clarifying issues.
    2. Identifying key issues to be analyzed in depth.
    3. Exploring alternatives based on themes which will be derived 
from issues recognized during scoping activities.
    4. Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposals and 
alternatives (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and 
connected actions).
    5. Determining potential cooperating agencies and task assignments.
    6. Developing a list of interested people to keep apprised of 
opportunities to participate through meetings, personal contacts, or 
written comments.
    7. Developing a means of informing the public through the media 
and/or written material (e.g., newsletters, correspondence, etc.).
    Preliminary public issues identified during scoping to date 
include: risks to applicators while working on steep remote sites; 
treatment effectiveness and cost effectiveness; and risks of nontarget 
effects relative to the use of aerial application of herbicides as a 
treatment method.
    Public comments are appreciated throughout the analysis process. 
The draft EIS is expected to be completed about February 1999. The 
final EIS is scheduled for completion about June 1999. The comment 
period on the draft EIS will be 90 days from the date the Environmental 
Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal 
Register.
    The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers 
notice of this early stage of public participation and of several court 
rulings related to public participation in the environmental review 
process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements 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 objections that 
could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived or dismissed by 
the court if not raised until after completion of the final EIS. City 
of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 f.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir, 1986) and Wisconsin 
Heritage, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (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 90-
day comment period so substantive comments and objections are made 
available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully 
consider 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 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 provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 
40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.)
    In the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to 
substantive comments and responses received during the comment period 
that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the draft 
EIS and applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in making 
a decision regarding the proposal. The Responsible Officials are Karyn 
L. Wood, Forest Supervisor for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, and 
Jeff D. Blackwood, Forest Supervisor for the Umatilla National Forest. 
The inclusion of management activities in Congressionally designated 
areas (such as wilderness) may require a different signing authority 
depending on the final decision. The responsible officials will 
document the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of 
Decision. That decision will be subject to appeal under 36 CFR 215.

    Dated: August 28, 1998.
Karyn L. Wood,
Forest Supervisor, Wallowa-Whitman NF.
    Dated: September 3, 1998.

Jeff D. Blackwood,
Forest Supervisor, Umatilla NF.
[FR Doc. 98-24550 Filed 9-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M