[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 241 (Friday, December 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64799-64800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-30885]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Salmon-Challis National Forest Noxious Weed Environmental Impact 
Statement; Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
(DEIS) for a Proposed Forest-Wide Noxious Weed Management Program

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

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: 
Protect the natural condition and biodiversity of ecosystems by 
preventing and/or limiting the introduction and subsequent spread of 
invasive, non-native plant species that displace native vegetation; 
eliminate new invaders before they become established; contain and 
reduce known and potential weed seed sources throughout the forest; 
prevent or limit the spread of established weeds into areas containing 
little or no infestation; protect sensitive and unique habitats 
including research natural areas, wetlands, riparian areas, and 
sensitive plant populations; and develop criteria to prioritize 
invasive weed species and treatment areas. Prioritization will be given 
to treating areas that may contribute to the spread of weeds into 
Lemhi, Custer, and Butte Counties within the Salmon-Challis National 
Forest (S-CNF).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Salmon-Challis NF embraces Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 
practices (as defined in Forest Service Handbook 3409) in managing 
various pests, including noxious and invasive non-native weeds. This 
philosophy is

[[Page 64800]]

predicated on the principle that a single management method will not be 
successful; but that implementing a fully integrated approach in weed 
management significantly improves the chances of a successful program. 
A variety of activities can be carried out under an IPM program and 
provides for a full range of management strategies, including 
prevention and public education.
    Weeds can alter ecosystem processes, including productivity, 
decomposition, hydrology, nutrient cycling, and natural disturbance 
patterns such as frequency and intensity of wildfires. Changing these 
processes can lead to displacement of native plant species, eventually 
impacting wildlife and native plant habitat, recreational 
opportunities, natural hydrologic processes, and scenic beauty. The 
economic effects from the subsequent loss of productivity and resource 
values can be considerable.
    The Draft EIS will focus on restoring native species and wildlife 
habitat while reducing runoff and erosion by containing and reducing 
weed infestations and seed sources throughout the forest, controlling 
the spread of existing weeds, and preventing the establishment of new 
weed species. This project will encompass portions of the S-CNF, with 
complete analysis expected by January 2003.

EIS Scope

    Potential alternatives for weed management may include mechanical, 
biological, vegetative (e.g. seedings), controlled grazing, and ground-
based and aerial herbicide applications. Methods of management will be 
evaluated based on environmental concerns, management restrictions, and 
site characteristics to ensure weed management activities are as 
successful as possible. The project area and analysis will encompass 
the entire Salmon-Challis National Forest excluding the Frank Church 
River of No Return Wilderness, an area of approximately 3,108,827 
acres. Specific treatment areas may be throughout the project area and 
would include big game summer and winter range, roads, trails, 
trailheads, administrative sites, and other emphasis areas such as 
disturbed sites and high use areas. preliminary issues identified for 
analysis in the EIS include the potential effects and relationship of 
the project to human health risk, water quality, fisheries, native 
plant communities, wildlife habitat, soil productivity, recreation, 
scenery, heritage resources, and sensitive plants.

Public Involvement

    The Forest Service intends to schedule at least three public 
information meetings before the close of the comment period. For the 
Forest Service to best use the scoping input, comments should be 
received by January 31, 2002.
    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, (3) 
identification of alternatives and (4) elimination of non-significant 
issues or those that have been covered by previous environmental 
reviews. Written scoping comments will be solicited through a scoping 
package that will be sent to the project mailing list and local 
newspapers.
    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 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 any objections are made available to the 
Forest Service at a time when they can be meaningfully considered and 
responded to 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 EIS. Comments may address the 
adequacy of the Draft EIS, as well as the merits of the alternatives 
formulated and discussed in the Draft EIS. 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.

DATES: Dates, times and locations of these meetings will be announced. 
Written comments concerning the scope of this project should be 
received by the Salmon-Challis National Forest by January 31, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments to: Salmon-Challis National 
Forest, 50 Highway 93 South, Salmon, ID 83467. Attn: Lyle Powers, RE: 
Salmon-Challis NF Noxious Weed EIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyle Powers, Planning Staff Officer, 
telephone (208) 756-5557, E-mail: [email protected], or Bill Diage, 
Planning Team Ecologist, telephone (208) 756-5562, E-mail: 
[email protected], Salmon-Challis National Forest, 50 Highway 93 South, 
Salmon, ID 83467.
    Permits/Authorizations: The proposed action will not require any 
site-specific amendments to the Salmon nor Challis National Forest Land 
and Resource Management Plans.
    Responsible Official: George Matejko, Forest Supervisor, Salmon-
Challis 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: December 7, 2001.
George Matejko,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 01-30885 Filed 12-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M