[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20375-20376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10954]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Modoc National Forest Noxious Weed Control Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement to eradicate between 100 and 300 acres of noxious weeds 
annually, beginning 1999 for a period of 10 to 20 years, within site 
specific areas of the Modoc, Lassen, and Siskiyou Counties in 
northeastern California. The proposed 26 target weeds are Plumeless 
thistle, Musk thistle, Canada thistle, Yellowspine thistle, Scotch 
thistle, Russian knapweed, Rush skeletonweed, Diffuse knapweed, Spotted 
knapweed, Yellow starthistle, Hoary cress or whitetop, Squarrose 
knapweed, Marlahan mustard, Leafy spurge, Halogeton, St. Johnswort, 
Dalmation toadflax, Purple loosestrife, Mediterranean sage, Puncture 
vine, Perennial pepperweed, Medusahead, Jointed goatgrass, Barbed 
goatgrass, Common crupina, and Wavyleaf thistle. The proposed treatment 
methods are mechanical, biological, cultural, preventive, chemical, and 
through land management practices such as livestock grazing. The 
herbicides which will be used are chloraulfuron, dicamba, clopyralid, 
2,4-D, picloram, hexazinone, glyphosate, triclopyr, sulfometuron 
methyl, and simazine. The proposed herbicides are distributed under a 
number of trade names and strengths. The agency invites written 
comments and suggestions on the proposed project.
    In preparing the environmental impact statement, the Forest Service 
will identify and consider a range of alternatives. Possible 
alternatives to this proposal are no action, utilize all treatments 
except aerial, and all treatments except chemical.

DATES: Comments concerning the proposal should be received in writing 
by May 25, 1998, to receive timely consideration in the preparation of 
the draft EIS. The draft EIS will be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review in August 
1998. The final EIS and Record of Decision are expected to be issued in 
November 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions concerning the scope 
of the analysis to Steven F. Bishop, Acting Forest Supervisor, Modoc 
National Forest, 800 West 12th Street, Alturas, CA 96101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions about the proposed 
action and environmental impact statement to Jim Irvin, or Allison 
Sanger, Project Leader, Modoc National Forest, 800 West 12th Street, 
Alturas, CA 96101, 530-233-5811.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: There are 26 noxious weed species which 
receiving intensive control in or near the Modoc National Forest. 
Thirteen of the 26 species are listed as ``A'' rated weed pests which 
means they have limited distribution in California and are subject to 
eradication, quarantine, or other holding actions at the State and 
County levels. All 26 of these are exotic pests, not native to 
California and thus replace the native species then they invade 
different plant communities.
    In 1997, approximately 90 acres of noxious weeds were treated on 
the Modoc National Forest in Modoc, Lassen, and Siskiyou Counties. 
Infestations are scattered primarily over Lassen and Modoc Counties, 
the largest being the common crupina infestation above Round Valley 
which covers a total of 740 acres of private and Forest Service lands. 
Most infestations are less than one acre in size.
    An Integrated Weed Pest Management approach will be use to control 
and eradicate these weeds species. This approach uses a combination of 
control methods which include; mechanical control such as hand pulling, 
clipping, mowing, and burning of weeds; cultural control such as 
fertilization, seeding, and cultivation; biological control through the 
use of parasites and pathogens; preventive through the use of education 
and guidelines to increase awareness and prevent new infestations onto 
Forest lands; chemical control through the use of herbicides; and 
control by land management practices such as livestock grazing.
    Chemical methods include the use of backpack sprayers, truck 
mounted power sprayers, or aerial application of a specific area only. 
The chemicals (herbicides) would be in either liquid or granular form. 
Helicopters are used for aerial application to minimize resource damage 
in areas with limited access, and large infestations. To obtain the 
greatest reduction of weeds from chemical control, selection of the 
proper herbicide with application at the proper time and method are of 
the utmost importance.
    Aerial application is being proposed for only one area on the 
Forest, a 160 acre (740 acre total) infestation of common crupina found 
on private and

[[Page 20376]]

Forest Service lands in the northeastern corner of Round Valley. This 
will be a one-time aerial application of herbicides with follow-up by 
ground treatment. No other aerial application of herbicides will be 
analyzed in this document.
    Public participation is especially important at several points 
during the analysis. The first point is during the scoping process (40 
CFR 1501.7). 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 action. This input will be used in preparation of the 
draft environmental impact Statement (DEIS). The scoping process 
includes:
    1. Identifying potential issues.
    2. Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth.
    3. Eliminating insignificant issues or those which have been 
covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis.
    4. Exploring additional alternatives.
    5. Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed 
action and alternatives (i.e., direct, indirect, cumulative effects and 
connected actions).
    The Modoc County Agriculture Department will be invited to 
participate as a cooperating agency to supervise the eradication of 
this weed.
    The DEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review in August 1998. The 
comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 
days from the date the EPA 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 rulings 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 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 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 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.
    After the comment period ends on the draft EIS, the comments will 
be analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in preparing the final 
environmental impact statement. In the final EIS the Forest Service is 
required to respond to the comments received (40 CFR 1503.4). The 
responsible official will consider the comments, responses, 
environmental consequences discussed in the EIS, and applicable laws, 
regulation, and policies in making a decision.

    Dated: April 9, 1998.
Stephen F. Bishop,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 98-10954 Filed 4-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-32-P