[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 227 (Monday, November 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58324-58326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-11127]



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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service


St. Joe Weed Control Project; Idaho Panhandle National Forests, 
Benewah, Shoshone and Latah Counties, Idaho

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) to disclose the potential environmental effects of 
noxious weed 

[[Page 58325]]
treatment on the St. Joe Ranger District. Treatment sites would be 
located at various locations across the district and are within the St. 
Maries River, St. Joe River, and North Fork of the Clearwater River 
Ecosystems, St. Joe Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, 
Benewah, Shoshone and Latah Counties, Idaho. Most treatment sites are 
located near or along forest roads, trails or developed recreation 
sites.
    The proposed action to control populations of noxious and 
undesirable weeds on certain travel corridors and areas is designed to 
prevent the spread of these weeds and promote the retention and health 
of native and/or desirable plants within these ecosystems. The proposed 
action would use an integrated pest management approach to control 
weeds. This approach includes mechanical, biological, cultural and 
chemical control.
    Over 28 established, new or potential species of weed will be 
considered for control. The major species considered for control 
include spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), diffuse knapweed 
(Centaurea diffusa), orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum), meadow 
hawkweed (Hieracium pratense), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), 
dalmation toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla 
recta L.), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), hound's-tongue 
(cynoglossum officinale) and common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare).
    This project level EIS will tier to the Idaho Panhandle National 
Forests Weed Pest Management EIS, October 1989, the Idaho Panhandle 
National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), 
September 1987, and the Final EIS Noxious Weed Management Projects, 
Bonners Ferry Ranger District, September 1995.

DATES: Written comments and suggestions should be received on or before 
January 11, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions on the proposed 
management activities or request to be placed on project mailing list 
to Brad J. Gilbert, District Ranger, St. Joe Ranger District, P.O. Box 
407, St. Maries, ID 83861.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Laws, EIS Team Leader, St. Joe 
Ranger District, phone number 208-245-4517.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Weed control is proposed on 131 sites that 
have been identified on Joe Ranger District. These sites range in size 
from approximately 0.10 acre to 35 acres and total approximately 3,360 
gross acres. These sites represent less than 0.47% of the 720,000 acres 
of National Forest System Lands on the St. Joe Ranger District.
    There are a variety of purposes for weed control on the St. Joe 
Ranger District. The primary purposes are: (1) To protect the natural 
condition and biodiversity of the St. Maries River, St. Joe River and 
North Fork of the Clearwater River ecosystems by preventing the spread 
of aggressive, non-native species that displace native vegetation; (2) 
prevent or limit the spread of weeds to areas identified as weed free; 
(3) reduce weed seed sources along main travel routes; while also 
complying with Federal and State Laws regulating management of noxious 
weeds; and cooperating with other agencies and private individuals 
concerned with the management of weeds.
    The treatment sites are located across the district. The greatest 
number of sites are located in the St. Joe Ecosystem. Other sites are 
located in the St. Maries River and North Fork of the Clearwater River 
Ecosystems. The Idaho Panhandle National Forests Land and Resource 
Management Plan provides guidance for management activities within the 
potentially affected area through its goals, objectives, standards and 
guidelines, and management area direction. The Forest Plan directed 
that forest pests be managed by an integrated pest management approach.
    The decision to be made is what actions, if any, should be taken to 
control weeds in these ecosystems, where treatment should be applied, 
and what type of treatment(s) should be used.
    The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. One of 
these will be the ``no action'' alternative, in which none of the 
proposed treatment activities would be implemented. Additional 
alternatives will represent the range of control methods currently 
available for treatment of weeds, including non-chemical methods.
    Public participation is an important part of the analysis and will 
play an important role in developing the alternatives. The initial 
scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7) will occur during November and 
December, 1995. The mailing list for public scoping will be developed 
from response to this NOI and to the Idaho Panhandle National Forest 
Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions, October, 1995. In addition, the 
public is encouraged to visit with Forest Service officials during the 
analysis and prior to the decision. The forest Service will be seeking 
information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local 
agencies and other individuals or organizations who may be interested 
in or affected by the proposed actions. Public meetings may be held, 
but have not been scheduled at this time.
    Comments from the public and other agencies will be used in 
preparation of the Draft EIS. The scoping process will be used to:
    1. Identify potential issues.
    2. Identify major issues to be analyzed in depth.
    3. Eliminate minor issues or those which have been covered by a 
relevant previous environmental analysis.
    4. Identify alternatives to the proposed action.
    5. Identify potential environmental effects of the proposed action 
and alternatives (i.e., cumulative effects).
    Some public concerns have already been identified from initial 
interdisciplinary review of the weed control proposal. The following 
significant issues have been identified so far:
    1. Current and potential impacts of noxious weeds on ecosystem 
communities and processes; threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants 
and animals; soils; water quality; aesthetics; wildlife and fish; and 
recreational opportunities.
    2. Potential impacts of week control.
    3. Potential effects upon human health from the application of 
herbicides.
    This list will be verified, expanded, or modified based on public 
scoping and interdisciplinary review of this proposal.
    The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be filed 
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public 
review in March, 1996. At that time, the EPA will publish a Notice of 
Availability of the draft environmental impact statement in the Federal 
Register. The comment period on the draft environmental impact 
statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection 
Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.
    The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important 
to give reviewers notice of several court ruling 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 be raised at the 
draft environmental 

[[Page 58326]]
statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the 
final environmental statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. 
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 scoping comment period so that substantive comments and objections 
are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can 
meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final 
environmental impact statement.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft 
environmental impact statement 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 
environmental impact statement 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.
    I am the responsible official for this environmental impact 
statement. My address is St. Joe Ranger District, P.O. Box 407, St. 
Maries, ID, 83861.

    Dated: November 6, 1995.
Bradley J. Gilbert,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 28774 Filed 11-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M