Title: U.S. Forest Service officials withdraw decision to attack invasive species
[The Daily Register 09 Aug 2011 by Brian DeNeal] -- The U.S. Forest Service has withdrawn its decision to implement a policy of attacking invasive species using prescribed fire and manual, mechanical and herbicide treatment on the Shawnee National Forest. The plan involved using these methods in areas of known locations of four highly invasive species, in the management of natural areas and in a corridors up to 300 feet on each side of trails, roads and creeks. Two appeals filed by environment organizations have caused the Forest Service to withdraw the plan and begin the process again.
"We received two appeals and after looking at the issues in the appeals we have decided to withdraw the decision, revise it and will issue another environmental analysis and comment period," Shawnee National Forest Natural Resources Program Manager Matt Lechner said.
Appeals of the Forest Service's decision came from the Regional Association of Concerned Environmentalists and Sierra Club Shawnee Chapter. Mark Donham wrote the RACE appeal also on behalf of himself and his wife, Kristi Hanson who own Pope County land bordering the forest, Sam and Geneil Stearns who own Pope County land bordering the forest and Tony Jones and Carol Westerman Jones who own land bordering the forest in Jackson County. Jim Bensman wrote the Sierra Club appeal.
Lechner said among the issues of contention were a belief the wording could open the door for timber sales. Lechner said there is no intent to use the rule for timber sales and parts of the environmental impact statement will be rewritten to clarify the policy will not allow timber sales. The Sierra Club's appeal maintains the current wording could lead to an interpretation trees such as pines and maples could be considered invasive species under the policy and logged.
"Clearly we are not doing timber sales in the name of invasive species treatment," Lechner said.
The policy would allow girdling or cutting of native species in the instance of a tree growing in a seep spring in a glade and sucking up water needed for rare plant communities in natural areas, the Forest Service said, according to the Sierra Club appeal.
The Sierra Club appeal says the Forest Service also needs clearer definitions of "native species" and "invasive species," Lechner said.
"They are afraid 10 years from now maybe someone in charge may interpret those differently," Lechner said.
Lechner said the Forest Service may review invasive treatment in "main pathways of invasion" which gives the agency the ability to treat invasives found up to 300 feet away from any trail, road or creek.
"(The Sierra Club's believes) that's a pretty broad brush. They were not comfortable with that, because there is not site-specific analysis. We'll revise the EA, make the changes and do it again," Lechner said.
The RACE appeal cites information on harmful effects of some of the herbicides the forest may use. The appeal maintains the plan is in violation of the Wilderness Act, Illinois Natural Areas Protection Act and the Clean Water Act.
The appeal also maintains the decision is in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act in that it cites studies related to herbicide risk nearly 10 years old in studies that had not been available for public scrutiny.
"This project is full of uncertainty. It has the potential to have a major impact on the Shawnee National Forest, users and neighbors. It is unwise and expensive. It should be withdrawn, but if the agency is dead set on moving forward, it should do the detailed EIS analysis with full public scrutiny," the RACE appeal states.
Lechner said it is his hope to produce a revised environmental assessment for the proposal by the end of September. That environmental assessment will be open for comment, the Forest Service will make a decision taking comments into consideration and the public will have an opportunity to appeal that decision with the Regional Forest in Milwaukee, Wisc.
