[Federal Register: April 25, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 20367-20368]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25ap03-22]
[[Page 20367]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Diamond Lake Restoration Project, Umpqua National Forest, Douglas
County, OR
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) for improvement of water quality and the recreational
fishery at Diamond Lake in the Umpqua National Forest. Eradication or
control of the existing tui chub (Gila bicolor) population, an
introduced minnow species, is considered essential for accomplishing
restoration objectives. Proposed actions include: canal reconstruction,
lake draw down, mechanical fish removal and utilization, a September
rotenone (fish toxicant) treatment, fish carcass removal and
utilization, water management during lake refilling, monitoring, fish
restocking, educational activities, and contingency measures for
controlling tui chub if they are reintroduced to Diamond Lake in the
future. The planning area is located approximately 61 miles east of
Roseburg, Oregon and 11 miles north of Crater Lake. The project is
expected to be implemented in 2004 through 2006. 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 can participate in the process and
contribute to the final decision.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received
in writing, by May 30, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments and suggestions concerning this
proposal to James A. Caplan, Forest Supervisor, Umpqua National Forest,
2900 NW Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, Oregon 97470.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Direct questions about the proposed action or
EIS to Sherri L. Chambers, ID Team Leader, North Umpqua Ranger
District, 18782 North Umpqua Highway, Glide, Oregon 97443, or (541)
496-3532.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The area being analyzed in the Diamond Lake
Restoration Project EIS encompasses Diamond Lake proper, Lake Creek,
Lemolo Lake, and the North Umpqua River. The project area is Diamond
Lake proper, an approximately 3,031 acre lake located on National
Forest System land on the Diamond Lake Ranger District. The project
area is bounded to the North by the North Umpqua River, to the South by
Crater Lake, to the East by Mt. Thielsen, and to the West by Mt.
Bailey. The project area includes all or portions of sections 30
through 32, T27S, R6E; sections 25 and 36, T27S, R5E; sections 4
through 9 and sections 16 through 21, T28S, R51/2E; and sections 1 and
12, T28S, R5E Willamette Meridian, Douglas County, Oregon.
Purpose and Need for Action. The proposed action is based on the
need for improvement of Diamond Lake's water quality and recreational
fishery. Diamond Lake is included in the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality's (ODEQ) 303(d) list of water quality limited
water bodies for the parameters of pH and algae. In the summers of 2001
and 2002, Diamond Lake experienced severe blooms of the blue-green
``algae'' Anabaena flos-aquae. This type of algae produces a neuro-
toxin that in high concentrations is harmful to humans and other
animals. To protect public health and safety, the Umpqua National
Forest in cooperation with the Douglas County Health Department closed
Diamond Lake to some public uses (wading, swimming, water skiing, and
boating) during portions of both summers. Changes in lake ecology
associated with overpopulation of the lake by tui chub are believed to
be the primary factors influencing the development of toxic algae
blooms at Diamond Lake.
For several decades, Diamond Lake has supported a large and popular
recreational trout fishery of some importance to the local and regional
economy. In recent years, the recreational fishery at Diamond Lake has
declined dramatically from a high annual average harvest rate of about
270,000 trout during the 1963-1978 time period to a 1999 low annual
harvest rate of 5,000 trout. Failure of the formerly successful
recreational fishery is attributed largely to changes in lake ecology
caused by overpopulation of the lake by tui chub.
Proposed Action. The proposed action is to eradicate tui chub from
Diamond Lake as an essential step in improving water quality and the
recreational fishery. Proposed activities are described below in the
order in which they would be implemented.
--A blocked and debris-filled existing earthen canal that connects
Diamond Lake to Lake Creek would be reconstructed to facilitate a lake
draw down. The portion of the canal within Diamond Lake would be
dredged to its original depth using a floating suction dredge. Dredge
spoils would be used to expand an existing wetland. From the lakeshore
to the canal outlet, the canal would be excavated to its original
configuration and fitted with a new head-gate structure to control
water flow. If necessary, new bridges or culverts would be constructed
over the canal to maintain access to the bike trail and summer cabins
using Forest Service Road 4795.
--Diamond Lake's water level would be lowered by eight feet from
its normal summer level, by using both the reconstructed canal and Lake
Creek for water transport. The lake draw down would begin on or around
September 15 in the year prior to a chemical treatment. A gravity-
driven draw down would occur at a discharge rate approximating a
bankfull flow in Lake Creek.
--Several methods would be used to remove and utilize fish biomass
from Diamond Lake prior to chemical treatment including: liberalizing
catch limits on fishing at the lake; harvest of fish by individual
crews using traps, nets and seines; and harvest of fish through
commercial fishing operations. Harvested fish carcasses would be
converted to an organic fish emulsion product on site (lake shore) or
trucked to an off-site plant for utilization as fertilizer.
--The powdered formulation of the fish toxicant rotenone would be
applied to Diamond Lake in September. This would happen when water
temperature and chemistry reached conditions considered optimal for
achieving a complete fish kill. Rotenone would be administered
according to label instructions at the necessary amounts based on water
volume, temperature, and chemistry in Diamond Lake at the time of
application. Sections of Silent Creek and Lake Creek would also be
treated with liquid rotenone.
--A commercial fishing or professional fish mortality recovery and
recycling operation would be employed to collect fish carcasses
following a chemical treatment of the lake. Fish carcasses would be
converted to an organic fish emulsion product on site or trucked to an
off-site plant for utilization as fertilizer.
--An active water management strategy would be implemented to limit
the length of time that Lake Creek is reduced to no or very low flows.
When water in Diamond Lake becomes suitable for release (about
November), canal headgates would be opened to allow approximately 10
cubic feet per second (cfs) of water to flow into Lake Creek and
through the North Umpqua River system.
[[Page 20368]]
--A variety of monitoring activities would be used to verify
assumptions, evaluate project success, and formulate appropriate lake
management strategies including: stream flows and water quality in Lake
Creek; water quality in Diamond and Lemolo Lakes and the North Umpqua
River; tui chub presence; and phytoplankton, zooplankton and benthic
invertebrate and trout populations.
--Diamond Lake would be restocked with fish using an ecologically
appropriate stocking strategy. The Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife would manage the lake for hatchery production under the basic
yield alternative of Oregon's Trout Plan. However, ecological indices
of lake health, existing data and knowledge, annual fish monitoring
data and guidance provided in ODEQ's pending Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) publication would be used to determine appropriate numeric goals
for annual fish stocking and harvest post-project.
--A number of educational activities would be considered to reduce
the likelihood of tui chub reintroduction into Diamond Lake including:
``angler stamps'', interpretive signs and brochures, and boat
inspections.
--Because it is recognized that tui chub may be illegally
reintroduced, several actions designed to control tui chub populations
would be implemented including: An extensive monitoring program to
facilitate early detection of tui chub presence in the lake; stocking
with predacious fish species following rotenone treatment and
increasing the numbers of predacious fish if tui chub are detected; and
using mechanical treatments such as netting and electro-shocking to
limit tui chub population growth.
Alternatives. The alternatives to be considered include the No
Action Alternative, the Proposed Action, and alternatives to the
proposed action.
Issues. Preliminary issues, as identified to date by the Forest and
by scoping, include the following: Potential effects of rotenone on
non-target species in and around Diamond Lake; Potential effects of
rotenone on non-target species in the North Umpqua River if treated
water escaped Diamond Lake through Lake Creek or groundwater; potential
effects of a lake draw down on the physical integrity of Lake Creek and
on water quality in Lake Creek, Lemolo Lake, and the North Umpqua
River; potential effects of added nutrients from decomposed fish on
water quality in Lake Creek, Lemolo Lake, and the North Umpqua River;
the ecologic and economic expense of the proposed action, if history
repeated itself and another chemical treatment were needed to eliminate
tui chub in the next several decades; the ability and effectiveness of
the proposed action to improve water quality in Diamond Lake; and the
concern that legislative action would be used to establish fish
stocking goals if the proposed ecologically based fish stocking
strategy failed to provide an adequate recreational fishery.
Scoping Process. The scoping effort is intended to identify issues,
which may lead to the development of alternatives to the proposed
action. One of the purposes of this notice of intent is to solicit
input from the public as part of the overall scoping effort. In
addition to this notice, the public will be notified of the EIS through
the Umpqua National Forest's April 2003 Schedule of Proposed Actions.
Public Comments. Comments received in response to this notice and
through scoping, including names and addresses of those who comment,
will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action
and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted
anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit
anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent
decision under 36 CFR Parts 215. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR
1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission
from the public record by showing how the Freedom of information Act
(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 within a specified number of days.
Public comments are appreciated throughout the analysis process.
The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and be available for public review by February 2004. The
comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA
publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register. The final
EIS is scheduled to be available in May 2004.
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 a draft EIS 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 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 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 of
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 Official is Forest
Supervisor of the Umpqua National Forest. The Responsible Official will
document the Diamond Lake Restoration Project decision and rationale
for the decision in a Record of Decision. The decision will be subject
to review under Forest Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR Part 215).
Dated: April 18, 2003.
James A. Caplan,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 03-10241 Filed 4-24-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M