Jump to main content.

Vegetation Management for Reforestation

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 
[Federal Register: January 31, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 21)]
[Notices]
[Page 4698-4699]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31ja02-39]

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

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
Forest Service
 
Vegetation Management for Reforestation

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact 
statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 
Southwest Region (Region) will prepare a supplemental environmental 
impact statement (SEIS) to the Region's 1988 EIS ``Vegetation 
Management for Reforestation'' as directed by the Court in a recent 
United States District Court Decision in Californians for Alternatives 
to Toxics, Et Al. v. Michael Dombeck, Et Al., CIV. S-00-2016 LKK/JFM. 
This SEIS will analyze environmental effects at the programmatic level 
on animal endrocrine disruption, immunotoxicity, and neurotoxicity, 
associated with the use of the herbicides glyphosate and triclopyr 
during reforestation projects in the Region.

DATES: The public is not asked to provide any additional information at 
this time. A draft SEIS will be circulated for public review in March, 
2002. The comment period for the draft SEIS will extend 45 days from 
the date its availability is published in the Federal Register and the 
Sacramento Bee, the Newspaper of Record. A final SEIS is expected to be 
released in May, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fiske, Team Leader, USDA Forest 
Service, 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592. Phone number (707) 562-
8687.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Region prepared a final programmatic EIS ``Vegetation 
Management for Reforestation'' in December, 1988, and issued a Record 
of Decision (ROD) in February, 1989. The EIS analyzed and disclosed 
environmental effects of eight alternatives, six of which involved 
application of up to thirteen different herbicides, including 
glyphosate and triclopyr. The selected alternative in the ROD 
established broad Regional policy as to methods that may be used to 
control competing vegetation during reforestation projects. This policy 
permits consideration of all methods at the project-specific planning 
level, but requires that herbicides be used only where essential to 
achieve the project-specific resource management objectives. This 
policy reflected National USDA policy at that time. The ROD also 
established specific restrictions on uses of certain herbicides.
    A recent Court decision, based on a lawsuit filed by the 
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics and two other organizations 
opposing implementation of the Cottonwood Fire Vegetation Management 
Project (Sierraville Ranger District, Tahoe National Forest), ordered 
the Forest Service to supplement this programmatic EIS to disclose 
specific environmental effects. These effects are endrocrine 
disruption, immunotoxicity, and neurotoxicity in humans and other 
animals, associated with the use of glyphosate and triclopyr during 
reforestation projects in the Region.

Proposed Action

    The Forest Service proposes to Supplement the EIS, as directed by 
the Court.

Scoping Process

    This Notice of Intent will not initiate an additional scoping 
process. The Judge's Order in Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, 
Et Al. v. Michael Dombeck, Et Al., CIV. S-00-2016 LKK/JFM identified 
the scope of the draft SEIS. No additional public comment is invited on 
this proposal to prepare the draft SEIS.

Decision To Be Made and Responsible Official

    The Regional Forester, Pacific Southwest Region, will decide 
whether, and if so how, to revise the ROD for the EIS.
    The responsible official is the Regional Forester, 1323 Club Drive, 
Vallejo, California 94592.

Coordination With Other Agencies

    The Forest Service is the lead agency with the responsibility to 
prepare this draft SEIS. Other agencies and local governments will be 
invited to participate, as appropriate.

Commenting

    A draft SEIS is expected to be available for public review and 
comment in March, 2002. The comment period for the draft SEIS will 
extend 45 days from the date its availability is published in the 
Federal Register and in the Sacramento Bee, the Newspaper of Record.
    Comments received on the draft SEIS, including names and addresses 
of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record for 
this proposed action, and will be available for public inspection. 
Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any persons may request the 
agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how 
the Freedom of Information (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.
    The Forest Service believes that it is important to give reviewers 
notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the 
environmental review process. First, reviews of draft environmental 
impact statements must structure their participation in the 
environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and 
alerts the agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont 
Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 533 (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 Heritage, Inc. v. Harris, 490 
F. Supp. 1334 (E.D. Wis.

[[Page 4699]]

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 the Agency can 
meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final 
supplemental environmental impact statement.
    Comments on the draft SEIS should be as specific as possible. It is 
also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the 
draft supplemental statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of 
the draft SEIS. 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.

    Dated: January 24, 2002.
Jack A. Blackwell,
Regional Forester, Pacific Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 02-2310 Filed 1-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.