September 20, 2004

Teri Banka

Interdisciplinary Team Leader

Sierraville Ranger District

Tahoe National Forest

P.O. Box 95

Sierraville, CA 96126

Subject: EPA Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for

Cottonwood Fire Vegetation Management Project (CEQ # 040352)

Dear Ms. Banka:

The US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the above-referenced draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. Our detailed comments are enclosed.

EPA supports project design and mitigation measures to address public concerns regarding herbicide use and potential impacts to water quality, fish and wildlife, and human health and safety. Of special note are the 25- to 150-foot buffer zones for streams, wet areas, and riparian areas; hand application with backpack applicators, no treatment zones, spatial and temporal spacing of treatments, and the no treatment plant list.

EPA continues to have concerns regarding potential impacts to water quality and sensitive resources, especially in regards to the potential use of triclopyr and cumulative impacts from past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. We have rated Alternative 3, the preferred alternative, as Environmental Concerns - Insufficient Information (EC-2). Please see the enclosed Rating Factors for a description of EPA’s rating system.

We appreciate the opportunity to review this DEIS. When the Final EIS is released for public review, please send one copy to the address above (mail code CMD-2). If you have any questions, please contact me or Laura Fujii, the lead reviewer for this project. Laura can be reached at 415-972-3852 or fujii.laura@epa.gov.

Sincerely,

/s/

Lisa B. Hanf, Manager

Federal Activities Office

Cross Media Division

EPA DETAILED COMMENTS FOR THE DEIS COTTONWOOD FIRE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT. CA, SEPTEMBER 20, 2004

Herbicide Use

1. The DEIS states that triclopyr applications could be of concern for human health and safety, fish and sensitive amphibian species (e.g., ranid frogs), and aquatic plants (pgs. 3-56 to 3-90). Exposure scenarios evaluated in the human health risk assessment (Appendix A) result in hazardous quotients greater than 1 which indicate a level of concern (pg. 3-57). A hazard quotient (HQ) equals the exposure dose divided by EPA’s reference dose (pg. 9-39). Garlon 4, which is proposed for use, contains the triclopyrester (TBEE) which may be chronically toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates at low levels. TBEE also has a higher propensity to adhere to soil and sediment which can then be delivered into sensitive aquatic ecosystems through erosion. Although the risk of exposure to triclopyr may be low, EPA is concerned with use of this herbicide due to the above human health and environmental issues.

Recommendation:

We recommend the Forest Service reconsider the proposed use of triclopyr.

We acknowledge the proposed measures to avoid and minimize acute or chronic exposure to triclopyr such as worker use of gloves, goggles, and coveralls; exclusion of the public from treatment areas via posting of warning signs, and extra-wide stream, wet area, and riparian no treatment buffer zones. Given the higher risk of adverse exposure of workers, public, and aquatic species; past public concern with herbicide use, and proposed infrequent use of triclopyr, it may be appropriate to consider modification of the preferred alternative to use only glyphosate.

2, The Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest proposes to apply herbicide to competing vegetation an 13,500 acres within the Cottonwood Fire area over the next five to seven years to accelerate the development of a structurally diverse conifer forest. The Forest Service proposes to use Garlon 4 and Accord Concentrate. It is not clear whether Accord Concentrate and Garlon 4 will be used together as a tank mix to broaden the spectrum of vegetation controlled.

Recommendations:

Under federal law, when products are mixed, the most restrictive label must be followed. Also, please note that the Garlon 4 label contains the following Environmental Hazard Statement, Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present. Garlon 4 is registered and Federally allowed uses include "noncrop areas" and control of unspecified broadleaved weeds.

The FEIS should state the EPA Registration Number of any products anticipated to be used for the project. The pesticides used must be registered with EPA and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and used according to the label directions and Federal and State pesticide laws (Executive Order 12088).

Since the regulatory status of chemicals can constantly change, a review of the current status of all herbicides considered for use should be conducted prior to each application season.

Cumulative Impacts Analysis

1. The DEIS states that herbicide applications would be spatially and temporally separated to ensure large contiguous areas would not be treated at one time (pg. 2-6). We are concerned with the potential cumulative impacts of herbicide treatments in multiple units within the same watershed. It is not clear in the DEIS whether multiple units within the same watershed would be treated at the same time.

Recommendation:

The FEIS should provide additional information on the herbicide treatment schedule by treatment unit within each watershed. If more that one unit per watershed would be treated at the same time, describe the potential cumulative impacts to water quality, aquatic ecosystems, fuels, and fish and wildlife. Describe proposed project design and mitigation measures to minimize potential cumulative impacts within the same watershed.

2. EPA provided comments on the Draft EIS for the Cottonwood Fire Restoration Project (February 27, 1995 letter to John H. Skinner from David J, Farrel). While we supported the overall goals of the project, we objected to the potential adverse impacts to soil productivity, hydrology, and water quality from the proposed extensive use of ground-based logging systems, associated road creation, and proposed harvesting within the streamside management zones. Potential cumulative impacts were of specific concern, especially since many watersheds were close to or exceeded the Threshold of Concern in the Cumulative Watershed Effects analysis. We continue to be concerned with potential cumulative impacts within the project area that could be caused by additional management treatments, high rainfall events, floods, and wildfire. Cumulative effects to water quality and watershed effects are of specific concern.

Recommendation:

The FEIS should provide a more in-depth cumulative effects analysis for water quality and watershed effects. For instance, provide an updated Cumulative Watershed Effects analysis and the current Threshold of Concern rating for each watershed to receive herbicide treatment.

General Comments

1. The DEIS references the 1998 Biological Evaluation (BE) for Birds, Mammals, Amphibians, Reptiles, Fish, Invertebrates and Gastropods (pg. 3-84); 2004 BE of Aquatic Wildlife (pg. 3-80); 2004 BE for Birds, Mammals, Invertebrates (Terrestrial) (pg. 3-91); and 2404 BE for Sensitive Plants (pg. 3-32) for this project. Information from these BEs is included in the environmental consequences evaluation. Information on the status of consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service {FWS} or California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is not provided. The status of these consultations is of interest given the potential adverse effects of triclopyr on amphibians and fish.

Recommendation:

We recommend the FEIS provide specific information on the status of consultations with the FWS and CDFG. Describe the decisions of these agencies regarding the proposed project (e.g. concurrence or nonconcurrence on the likely effects of the project) and, if applicable, their recommended "reasonable and prudent measures" to avoid and minimize potential impacts to fish and wildlife.

In the interest of full disclosure and clarity, we recommend including in an appendix the executive summary of each project specific BE.

2. Although the DEIS provides a general description of current conditions, it does not provide a clear picture of conditions on-the-ground. To ensure decisionmakers and the public have sufficient information, it is important to provide a clear picture of the direct effects of the Cottonwood Fire, past fire restoration actions, and the amount of existing revegetation, soil erosion, soil hardening, water quality, and watershed conditions.

Recommendation:

The FEIS should provide a detailed description of project area conditions now, before the 1994 Cottonwood Fire, after the Fire, and after Cottonwood Fire restoration actions. Comparative photographs of on-the-ground conditions at each point in time would be very helpful.