[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20231-20232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-9776]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Bitterroot National Forest Noxious Weed Environmental Impact 
Statement

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service is gathering information and 
preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a forest wide 
noxious weed management program. The intent of this program is to deter 
the establishment, and control the spread of existing noxious weeds on 
portions of the Bitterroot National Forest, with special consideration 
given to the areas affected by the 2000 fire season. The methods of 
weed management would include mechanical, biological, vegetative, 
innovative grazing, ground and aerial herbicide applications. Methods 
of management will be evaluated based on environmental and wilderness 
restrictions, and based on site characteristics to ensure weed 
management activities are as successful as possible. Treatment areas 
would include big game summer and winter range and adjacent burned 
areas, roads, trails, trailheads, administrative sites, and other 
emphasis areas. The total treated area will encompass between 15,000 
and 20,000 acres. This project will also include pre and post treatment 
monitoring and follow up treatments for a period of 10 to 15 years.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of this project should be received 
by the Sula Ranger District, Bitterroot National Forest by May 15, 
2001.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments to: Sula Ranger District, 
Bitterroot National Forest; Attn: Forest Weed EIS; 7338 Highway 93 
South; Sula, MT 59871.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Bobzien, Darby/Sula District 
Ranger, telephone: (406) 821-3201, or Frank Guzman, Forest Weed EIS 
Team Leader, Sula Ranger District, 7338 Highway 93 South, Sula, MT 
59871, telephone (406) 821-3201, email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This project will encompass portions of the

[[Page 20232]]

Bitterroot National Forest, and complete analysis is expected by mid 
February 2002. Special concerns have risen within the perimeters of the 
2000 wildfires because of the anticipated increase of noxious weeds due 
to the loss of canopy coverage, competitive native vegetation, and the 
increased ground disturbance. Noxious weeds are a problem of the past, 
present, and future. A shift from timber, shrubs, and bunchgrass 
vegetation to noxious weeds will cause a decrease in wildlife forage, 
reduction of species diversity, increased soil erosion, a decline in 
soil productivity, and a long term increase in overland flow, due to a 
decrease in surface cover. This analysis will focus on restoring native 
species and wildlife habitat while reducing runoff and erosion by 
controlling the spread of existing weeds and preventing the 
establishment of new weed species.
    Public participation will be an integral component of the study 
process, and will be especially important at several points during the 
analysis. The first is during the scoping process. The Forest Service 
will be seeking information, comments and assistance from federal, 
State, County, and local agencies, individuals and organizations that 
may be interested in or affected by the proposed activities. The 
scoping process will include: (1) Identification of potential issues, 
(2) identification of issues to be analyzed in depth, and (3) 
elimination of insignificant issues or those which have been covered by 
a previous environmental review. Written scoping comments will be 
solicited through a scoping package that will be sent to the project 
mailing list and local newspapers. For the Forest Service to best use 
the scoping input, comments should be received by May 31, 2001. 
Preliminary issues identified for analysis in the EIS include the 
potential effects and relationship of the project to human health risk, 
water quality, fisheries and native plant communities, wildlife 
habitat, soil productivity, recreation, scenery, heritage resources, 
sensitive plants.
    Based on the results of scoping and the resource conditions within 
the project area, alternatives (including a no-action alternative) will 
be developed for the draft EIS. The draft EIS is projected to be filed 
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in September 2001. The 
final EIS is anticipated in February 2002.
    The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date 
that the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the Federal 
Register.
    At this early stage, the Forest Service believes it is important to 
give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public 
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of 
draft EIS's 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 EIS stage, but that 
are not raised until the completion of the final EIS, may be waived or 
dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2nd 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 on the draft EIS, so that 
substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest 
Service at a time when they can be meaningfully considered and respond 
to them in the final EIS.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns of 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 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 in 
40 CFR 1503.3, in addressing these points.
    Permits/Authorizations: The proposed action will not require any 
site-specific amendments to the Bitterroot Forest Plan.
    Responsible Official: Rodd Richardson, Forest Supervisor, 
Bitterroot National Forest, is the responsible official. In making the 
decision, the responsible official will consider the comments; 
responses; disclosure of environmental consequences; and applicable 
laws, regulations, and policies. The responsible official will state 
the rationale for the chosen alternative in the Record of Decision.

    Dated: April 5, 2001.
Rodd Richardson,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 01-9776 Filed 4-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M