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

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