[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 213 (Monday, November 4, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67144-67147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-27787]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Modoc National Forest; California; Modoc National Forest Noxious 
Weed Strategy Implementation Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Revision of notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact 
statement published at 63 FR 20375, April 24, 1998.

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

SUMMARY: This environmental analysis focuses on the planning and 
control element of the Modoc National Forest Noxious Weed Strategy. 
Physical treatment and herbicide application will be analyzed, other 
elements identified in the strategy are very important aspects of the 
Forest weed program, but environmental analysis and documentation are 
not required to implement those activities. An Integrated Weed 
Management (IWM) approach was used to determine treatment methods for 
all known noxious weed occurrences. Treatment will occur to noxious 
weeds spread geographically over <1% of the Forest, at known 
infestation sites, by a variety of treatment methods. Sites planned for 
treatment range in size from single plants to infestations covering up 
to 1,500 acres. Actual treatment would not exceed 1,500 acres per year.
    Physical treatment includes hand pulling, digging, and grubbing. 
These treatments will be applied within 10 feet of streams and other 
water features or to small, isolated populations of 100 plants or less 
where mechanical treatments can be effective.
    Herbicide application will occur directly to weed leaves and stems. 
Two types of foliar applications will be used: Spot applicators --
herbicide is sprayed directly onto target plants only; other desirable 
plants are avoided. These applicators include motorized rigs with spray 
hoses, backpack sprayers, and hand-pumped spray or spray bottles that 
can target very small plants or parts of plants, and Wick (wipe-on) 
applicators --A sponge or wick on a handle wipes herbicide onto weed 
foliage and stems. The wick generally prevents drift or droplets from 
falling onto non-target plants and soil.
    All herbicides proposed for use are registered in the U.S. and 
California and have a label certifying that the Federal Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Department of Pesticide 
Regulation (DPR) have approved the chemical for use. No biological 
control or aerial spraying of herbicides is planned in the proposed 
action. Implementation would begin in the spring and summer following 
the decision and extend for a period of at least 5 years.

DATES: The draft environmental impact statement is expected November 
29, 2002, and the final environmental impact statement is expected 
January 31, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Kathleen Jordan, Acting Forest 
Supervisor, Modoc National Forest, Supervisor's Office 800 W. 12th, 
Alturas, CA 96101 ([email protected]).
    For further information, mail correspondence to Irene Davidson, 
Project Team Leader, Modoc National Forest, Supervisor's Office 800 W. 
12th, Alturas, CA 96101 ([email protected]).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Davidson, Project Team Leader, 
Modoc National Forest, Supervisor's Office 800 W. 12th, Alturas, CA 
96101 ([email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The electronic copy of the draft 
environmental impact statement can be viewed at the Modoc National 
Forest Planning page: http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/modoc/management/nepa/nepa.html.

Purpose and Need for Action

    This environmental impact statement (EIS) is the site-specific 
decision level for implementing treatment activities identified in the 
Modoc National Forest Noxious Weed Strategy. This strategy was prepared 
to tier to the Forest Service National and Regional strategies that are 
currently in place to address key elements of a comprehensive weed 
program. The Forest completed a Noxious and Invasive Plant Strategy in 
2002. The Forest is directed to develop and implement weed programs and 
work cooperatively with other Federal, State, and local agencies and 
groups in the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
2801, et seq.), FSM Direction (FSM 2080), the Modoc Land and Resource 
Management Plan (MLRMP), and Presidential Executive Order 
13112. Forest Service regulation at 36 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) 222.8 acknowledges the Agency's obligation to work 
cooperatively in identifying noxious weed problems and developing 
control programs in areas where NFS lands are located.
    The objectives of implementing the proposed treatment activities 
through the Modoc National Forest Noxious Weed Strategy Implementation 
Project are to:
    [sbull] Protect the ecosystem function and biodiversity of the 
Modoc by preventing the continued spread of non-native noxious and 
invasive plant species.
    [sbull] Prevent the spread of established non-native noxious and 
invasive plants into areas containing little or no infestation.
    [sbull] Eradicate new invaders (non-native noxious and invasive 
plant species not previously reported in the area) before they become 
established.
    [sbull] Eradicate or control known non-native noxious and invasive 
plant infestations in areas that are considered infestation pathways 
for the establishment and movement of these plants on the Modoc (roads, 
trails, streams, intensely burned areas).
    On the Forest, the numbers of exotic invasive plant species and 
areas infested are relatively small compared to other parts of the 
west. There are still opportunities to prevent extensive weed 
infestation and spread if aggressive, consistent treatment is employed. 
The species of highest priority for treatment (e.g. the knapweeds, 
yellow starthistle, Dalmatian toadflax) are in relatively small, 
scattered populations on the scale of hundreds of gross acres.
    Prevention is recognized as the best, most cost-effective strategy, 
but once infestation has occurred, actions must be taken to prevent 
further establishment and spread of the alien species. As discussed 
below, treatments are a part of a larger overall strategy. Noxious 
weeds and invasive exotic plants are an increasing threat to the 
function, composition, and structure of native ecosystems.
    All ecosystems (rangelands, forests, grasslands, riparian areas, 
wetlands, lakes, and streams) are vulnerable to invasion by non-native 
weed species. Noxious weeds and invasive exotic plants are a serious 
biodiversity issue of great significance to human and natural resource 
conditions on the Modoc National Forest (Forest). Noxious weeds have 
traditionally been considered primarily rangeland and agricultural 
problems in the western United States.
    Aggressive noxious weed species often out-compete native plants for 
water, nutrients, sunlight, and space. Many species contain chemical 
compounds that prevent other plant seeds from germinating 
(allelopathic) at the same site. When noxious weeds dominate sites, the 
composition, structure, and function of the entire ecological community 
is altered. Weed

[[Page 67145]]

infestations affect wildlife by reducing important food plants and 
modifying habitat characteristics such as cover and movement corridors.
    Noxious weed altering of habitat and competition for resources 
adversely affects more than 50% of all threatened and endangered 
species in the United States.
    Because of the root structure and growth characteristics of some 
noxious weeds, soil erosion will increase, affecting water quality and 
aquatic habitat. Some exotic weeds, such as cheat grass, create 
unnatural fuel conditions and alter the natural fire regime.
    Exotic weeds decrease the quantity and quality of desired forage 
species and rangeland production. Many weed species contain compounds 
that are toxic to livestock when eaten in abundance. Noxious weeds 
negatively affect many recreational experiences, hamper vegetation 
restoration efforts, interfere with the maintenance and function of 
aquatic and riparian habitats, and potentially displace plant 
communities with important cultural values.
    Conservation organizations now recognize invasive weed species as a 
threat to wildland biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, which is 
second only to habitat loss. Invasive alien species can cause 
significant irreversible environmental and socio-economic impact at the 
genetic, species, and ecosystem levels.
    On this Forest, the major habitat and source of dispersal for weeds 
is roads. The constantly disturbed cut and fill slopes of a road prism 
and associated high traffic create ideal conditions for many weed 
species. Forested habitats are not immune from weed invasion. Intact 
forest ecosystems are less vulnerable to invasion, but both natural and 
human-related disturbances such as fire, floods, mineral extraction, 
grazing, and timber harvest can create opportunities for weeds to 
become established and spread. Many weed species are located and spread 
along stream courses and river corridors. These areas are particularly 
vulnerable to weed infestation due to frequent flooding events and 
associated water use and recreation. High water can move weed seeds and 
root material long distances downstream where they establish new plant 
populations.

Proposed Action

    This environmental analysis focuses on the planning and control 
element of the Modoc National Forest Noxious Weed Strategy. Other 
elements identified in the strategy are very important aspects of the 
Forest weed program, but environmental analysis and documentation are 
not required to implement those activities.
    Sites planned for treatment range in size from single plants to 
infestations covering up to 1,500 acres. Actual treatment would not 
exceed 1,500 acres per year. The word ``control'' refers to eradication 
(elimination) or reduction for some weed populations, and slowing the 
rate of spread for others.
    There are currently nine A-rated weed species known to occur on the 
Forest: Common crupina, dalmatian toadflax, diffuse knapweed, musk 
thistle, plumeless thistle, Scotch thistle, spotted knapweed, squarrose 
knapweed, and wavyleaf thistle. The goal for A-rated weed species 
(using the State of California Noxious Weed list and County ratings) is 
eradication.
    Based on current inventories, known sites of A-rated weeds 
currently occupy a gross area of approximately 27,000 acres on the 
Modoc. These acres are calculated as gross acres and reflect the entire 
perimeters of areas in which those weed species occur. Forest-wide data 
indicate that these species occur in scattered, dispersed patches and 
generally occupy less than 10 percent of the gross acreage.
    Six species of B- and C-rated weed pests in areas of local concern 
will be treated: Canada thistle, dyers woad, Klamath weed, 
Mediterranean sage, perennial pepperweed and yellow starthistle. Small 
infestations will be eradicated. Larger infestations will be 
controlled. These species occur in roughly the same numbers as the A-
rated species and their density and frequency varies according to 
individual site locations. These species are generally widespread in 
the State of California and in Modoc, Lassen and Siskiyou Counties, and 
eradication is not an achievable goal on a broad scale. Treatment of 
these species will receive a different priority. The strategy will be 
to control the more extensive infestations by keeping them within 
currently identified boundaries and treating new invasions into 
previously uninfested areas.

Treatment

    An Integrated Weed Management (IWM) approach has been used to 
determine treatment methods for all known noxious weed occurrences. IWM 
is the subset of Integrated Pest Management specific to weed control.

Methods

Physical Treatment

    This method includes hand pulling, digging, and grubbing. These 
treatments will be applied within 10 feet of streams and other water 
features described below or to small, isolated populations of 100 
plants or less where mechanical treatments can be effective.

Release of Biological Control Agents

    No Biological control is planned in the proposed action.

Herbicide Application

    No aerial spraying of herbicides is planned in the proposed action.
    All herbicides registered for use in the U.S. and California must 
have a label certifying that the Federal Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation 
(DPR) have approved the chemical for use. The label contains 
information about the product, including its relative toxicity, 
potential hazard to humans and the environment, directions for use, 
storage and disposal, and first aid treatment in case of exposure. 
Product labels are legal documents whose language is determined and 
approved by the EPA during the pesticide registration process. Chemical 
herbicide treatment will include the use of the following herbicides: 
2,4-D, clopyralid, dicamba, glyphosate, hexazinone, and triclopyr, 
applied at appropriate rates according to label directions, and EPA and 
DPR requirements. These label directions provide for public and worker 
safety by requiring posting of treated areas, pre-designation of 
mixing, storage and filling sites, and transportation and handling 
practices in accordance with toxicity of each formulation.
    Weed treatment areas will be evaluated for presence of culturally 
significant plants through consultation with a designated tribal 
representative. Consultation may alter treatment methods, timing or 
allow for controlled harvest before treatments. Areas treated with 
herbicides will be posted on the ground and written notification sent 
to tribal officials and basket weavers.
    High treatment priority will be placed on known sites and pathways 
of spread from those sites. Areas adjacent to stream courses and road 
and trail systems have moderate incidences of weed infestations and 
great potential for spread. Administrative sites (campgrounds, parking 
lots, trail heads, river accesses) are at risk of infestation and will 
be included in the treatment analysis.
    Herbicide will be applied directly to weed leaves and stems. A 
surfactant may be used to enable herbicide penetration of the plant 
cuticle (a thick, waxy layer present on leaves and stems

[[Page 67146]]

of most plants). The following types of foliar applicators will be 
used:
    a. Spot applicators--Herbicide is sprayed directly onto target 
plants only; other desirable plants are avoided. These applicators 
include motorized rigs with spray hoses, backpack sprayers, and hand-
pumped spray or spray bottles that can target very small plants or 
parts of plants. Crook-necked spray bottles and similar equipment may 
be used to carry herbicide over distances and through dense vegetation 
for safety reasons.
    b. Wick (wipe-on) applicators--A sponge or wick on a handle wipes 
herbicide onto weed foliage and stems. The wick generally prevents 
drift or droplets from falling onto non-target plants and soil. Wick 
applicators will be used in riparian and streamside areas.
    Implementation would begin in the spring and summer following the 
decision and extend for a period of at least 5 years.

Possible Alternatives

Control With Aerial Spraying

    This alternative would utilize aerial spraying as a viable option. 
Aerial spraying was proposed for the 160-acre infestation of common 
Crupina. The alternative was dropped from consideration because it did 
not provide any distinct environmental advantages over the proposed 
action. Common Crupina populations are such at this time that 
applications would need to be continued over a long period of time and 
the eradication program would be cost prohibitive. It was determined 
that an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed for this 
occurrence as well as large populations of Scotch thistle.

Control Using Prescribed Fire

    This alternative would utilize prescribed burning as a tool in the 
eradication and control of noxious weeds on the Forest. Prescribed fire 
will not be considered in detail because in the past, fire has proven 
to be a large contributor to the increase of noxious weeds on the 
Forest. For many weeds, there is little or no information on how each 
species will respond to a controlled fire. In fact, several studies 
have concluded that most fires actually increase the density of spotted 
knapweed, even when followed-up with herbicides. What little 
information is found indicates that fire has either no effect or aids 
in the establishment of many noxious weeds. Weeds in general inhabit 
disturbed sites, so in many cases fire will increase potential for many 
opportunistic species to take over an area. Other factors such as high 
costs, and labor-intensive implementation led to this method being 
dropped from consideration.

Responsible Official

    Kathleen Jordan, Acting Forest Supervisor, Modoc National Forest, 
Supervisor's Office, 800 W. 12th, Alturas, CA 96101 
([email protected]).

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The decision to be made is what actions from the Modoc National 
Forest Noxious Weed Strategy, if any, should be taken to control weeds 
on the Modoc National Forest, where treatment should be applied, what 
type of treatment(s) should be used and what additional mitigating 
measures and operating procedures not currently contained in the 
Proposed Action, will be applied, if any.

Scoping Process

    Scoping began with the publication of the notice of intent in the 
Federal Register on April 24, 1998. On April 20, 1998, a scoping letter 
was mailed to 504 individuals, organizations, and agencies inviting 
their participation in the planning process. The mailing list for the 
scoping document was developed using lists of people who had contacted 
the Forest in the past and people who specifically might be interested 
in the management and control of noxious weeds on Modoc National Forest 
lands. News releases were sent to two local newspapers. Scoping was re-
initiated in 2001. A news release was sent to the local newspaper and 
postcards were sent to those individuals that had responded to the 
initial scoping.
    Tribal consultation with federally recognized tribes began in March 
1998 with preliminary telephone calls to individual tribes. Later 
formal letters were sent to each tribe and face-to-face consultation 
meetings were held between line officers and tribal officials. Line 
officers traveled to each tribe's preferred meeting location.
    Also in March 1998, contact was made with the California Indian 
Basketweavers Association (CIBA) and the California Department of 
Pesticide Regulation to obtain lists of individuals who were weavers 
that those organizations maintain. A public meeting was planned to 
solicit input from weavers. Letters and follow up phone calls to 
individual weavers were sent for the public meeting to be held in June 
1998. A form was developed for individual weavers to return indicating 
their interest in participation of the public meeting. The form was 
mailed to 36 individual weavers with a preaddressed envelope enclosed. 
One form was returned by a person that was unable to attend the meeting 
and wanted to continue to receive information about the development of 
the Environmental Assessment. The public meeting was held just in case 
some individuals still wanted to attend. The result was that there was 
no participation.
    In January 2001, tribal consultation with federally recognized 
tribes began again with telephone calls, formal letters and face-to-
face meetings between line officers and tribal officials. Line officers 
met with tribal officials at the tribal offices of each respective 
tribe.
    Telephone calls and letters were sent to unrecognized tribes whose 
relationship with the Forest had begun to develop. In February 2001, 
the Forest Botanist and the Forest Tribal Relations Program Manager 
traveled to Yreka, California to solicit input from one of the tribes.
    Scoping meetings with weavers were held in Alturas, Susanville and 
Redding, California and Klamath Falls, Oregon. New mailing lists for 
individual weavers were requested from CIBA. The weavers on the CIBA 
mailing list told the Forest of additional weavers that weren't members 
of CIBA and might be interested. Scoping letters were sent to the new 
contacts and the Forest gave invitations to the meetings. Nineteen 
telephone calls were made to coordinate the meetings. Six home visits 
were made to determine interest.
    Because many of the weavers of the Klamath Tribes do not belong to 
the CIBA, the Culture and Heritage Department of the Klamath Tribes 
suggested an article be placed in the tribal newsletter to invite 
weavers to the meeting in Oregon. A news article was developed to 
invite weavers to the public meetings. The Forest Botanist and the 
Forest Tribal Relations Program Manager meet with weavers in Chiloquin 
and Klamath Falls, Oregon.
    One weaver known to live in Alturas was contacted at their home and 
a meeting was held in the Alturas Supervisor's Office to identify 
scoping issues from a weaver's perspective. No additional scoping is 
planned at this time as the comments and recommendations made during 
previous scoping and tribal consultation were used to revise the 1998 
notice of intent.

Preliminary Issues

    Following are the four issues that were identified during previous 
scoping for this project.
    The effects on human health from the application of herbicides; 
this includes the quantities of herbicides, the

[[Page 67147]]

proposed methods of herbicide application, and the potential effects on 
project workers, nearby residents and visitors to the project area.
    The effects to water quality from the application of herbicides; 
this includes the effects on riparian vegetation, concentrations of 
pesticides found in surface waters, potential bioaccumulation of 
pesticides in aquatic life and the effects of treatments on the 
potential increase of sediment transport and delivery in streams.
    The effects to vegetated communities, including sensitive plants, 
from the application of herbicides; this includes effects on plants of 
importance to local tribes and the potential impacts of treatment 
methods on desired plants species.
    The effects on wildlife and fish, as represented by Threatened, 
Endangered, Sensitive (TES) and other Management Indicator Species 
(MIS), from the application of herbicides.
    Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be 
prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental 
impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental 
Protection Agency 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 
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 be raised at the 
draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised 
until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may 
be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 
1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, 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 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 environmental impact statement.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft 
environmental impact statement 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 
environmental impact statement 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.
    Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who 
comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal 
and will be available for public inspection.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 
1909.15, Section 21)

    Dated: October 25, 2002.
Kathleen A. Jordan,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 02-27787 Filed 11-1-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P