[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 12 (Friday, January 17, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2493-2494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-1044]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Gallatin National Forest Invasive Plant Treatment EIS, Gallatin 
National Forest, Gallatin County, Madison County, Meagher County, Park 
County, Sweet Grass County, and Stillwater County, MT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: Invasive plants can alter ecosystem processes, including: 
productivity; hydrologic function; 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 plant habitat, recreational 
opportunities, livestock forage, and scenic values. The Forest Service 
has identified that at least 15,500 acres on the Gallatin National 
Forest that are in a downward trend due to the infestation of invasive 
plants. The Forest Service will evaluate these known infestations and 
high-risk areas or conditions that may cause infestations over the next 
ten to fifteen years and analyze various management activities to 
reduce the spread and density of invasive plants and allow desirable 
native vegetation to re-establish and regain vigor. Based on previous 
trend information, it is estimated that infestations could increase to 
approximately 155,000 acres over the next ten to fifteen years at 
historic funding levels. The purpose and need for this project is for 
the Forest Service to improve the trend of the ecological condition for 
the known infestations, prevent infestations in areas that have 
potential for invasion, and allow for adaptive management to treat 
anticipated new infestations across the Gallatin National Forest over 
the next ten to fifteen years. The proposed actions being considered to 
achieve the purpose and need include implementing an integrated pest 
management program aimed at controlling new starts, priority areas and 
areas of minor infestations; and implementing holding actions on areas 
of existing large infestations. The Gallatin National Forest is 
proposing to continue control of invasive plants through the 
integration of mechanical, biological, ground and aerial (helicopter) 
herbicide control methods.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing on or before February 28, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Hebgen Lake Ranger District, 
Gallatin National Forest, PO Box 520, West Yellowstone, MT 59758.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions about the proposed 
action and EIS to Susan LaMont, Project Coordinator, PO Box 520, West 
Yellowstone, Montana 59758, phone (406) 823-6976.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These management activities would be 
administered by the Gallatin National Forest in Gallatin, Madison, 
Meagher, Park, Sweet Grass, and Stillwater Counties, Montana. The EIS 
will tier to the 1987 Gallatin National Forest and Grasslands Land and 
Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), which provide the overall 
management direction for the area. The proposed action is consistent 
with the Forest Plan. The purpose of the Forest Service proposal is to 
further movement towards desired conditions outlined in the Forest 
Plan, by:
    [sbull] Protecting the natural condition and biodiversity on the 
Gallatin National Forest by preventing or limiting the spread of 
aggressive, non-native plant species that displace native vegetation;
    [sbull] Promptly eliminating new invaders (species not previously 
reported in the area) before they become established;
    [sbull] Reducing known and potential invasive plant seed sources on 
trailheads and campsites, along main roads and trails, within powerline 
corridors, and in wildlife and livestock use areas;
    [sbull] Preventing or limiting the spread of established invasive 
plants into areas containing little or no infestation;
    [sbull] Protecting sensitive and unique habitats including the 
Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area, LeeMetcalf Wilderness, municipal 
watersheds, critical winter ranges, research natural areas, riparian 
areas, and sensitive plant populations.
    The proposed action will be consistent with the Forest Plan, which 
provides goals, objectives, standards and guidelines of the various 
activities and land allocations on the forest. The Forest Plan 
allocates the project area into twenty-six management areas (MAs), the 
invasive plants occur within most of these management areas. Private 
lands are also included within the project area boundary. Although 
excluded from Forest Service activities, project access and the 
condition of private lands will be considered during alternative 
development and when analyzing potential cumulative efforts.
    The key issue topics identified to date include:
    [sbull] The current and potential impacts of invasive plants on 
natural resources such as critical big game habitat, native plant 
communities, wilderness values, watersheds, and threatened, endangered, 
or sensitive species;
    [sbull] Economics, effectiveness, and potential impacts of various 
control methods on natural resources;
    [sbull] Potential effects on non-target native plants, wildlife and 
fish populations, and human health from the application of herbicides 
(both ground base and aerial applications).
    The areas the Forest Service plan to analyze include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Maximum treatment acreage        Estimated aerial
      Ranger district         Location (township range)               \1\                  treatment acreage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Timber.................  Between T5N--T5S; and        900 Acres..................  0 Acres.
                              Between R15E--R10E,
                              Montana Principle
                              Meridian..
Livingston.................  Between T6N--T8S; and        2,000 Acres................  0 Acres.
                              Between R12E--R5E, Montana
                              Principle Meridian..
Gardiner...................  Between TFS--T9S; and        6,200 Acres................  0 Acres.
                              Between R17E--R5E, Montana
                              Principle Meridian..
Bozeman....................  Between T4N--T9S; and        3,700 Acres................  171 Acres.
                              Between R8E--R1E, Montana
                              Principle Meridian..
Hebgen Lake................  Between T8S--T15S; and       2,700 Acres................  172 Acres.
                              Between R5E--R2E, Montana
                              Principle Meridian..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These are the maximum projected treatment acres, actual treatment acres may be less.

    A range of reasonable alternatives will be considered, including a 
no action alternative. Other alternatives will examine various 
combinations of invasive plant treatment. Based on the issues gathered 
through scoping, the

[[Page 2494]]

action alternatives will vary in the amount and location of acres 
considered for treatment and the number, type, and location of 
activity.
    Public participation will be especially important at several points 
during the analysis, beginning with the scoping process (40 CFR 
1501.7). The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and 
assistance from Federal, State, local agencies, tribes and other 
individuals or organizations who may be interested in or affected by 
the proposed project. This input will be used in preparation of the 
draft EIS. Continued scoping and public participation efforts will be 
used by the interdisciplinary team to identify new issues, determine 
alternatives in response to the issues, and determine the level of 
analysis needed to disclose potential biological, physical, economic, 
and social impacts associated with this project.
    The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by 
February 2003. The EPA will publish a notice of availability of the 
draft EIS in the Federal Register. The comment period on the draft EIS 
will be 45 days from the date the EPA notice appears in the Federal 
Register. At that time, copies of the draft EIS will be distributed to 
interested and affected agencies, organizations, and members of the 
public for their review and comment. It is important that those 
interested in this proposal on the Gallatin National Forest participate 
at that time.
    The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers 
notice, at this early stage, of several court rulings related to public 
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of 
a draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental 
review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency 
to the reviewer's position contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant 
Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections 
that could be raised at the draft EIS stage but that are not raised 
until after completion of the final EIS 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 and respond to them in the final EIS. To 
assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and 
concerns on the proposed actions, 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 also address 
the adequacy of the draft EIS or 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.)
    The final EIS is scheduled for completion by February 2003. In the 
final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to substantive 
comments received during the comment period for the draft EIS. Rebecca 
Heath, Forest Supervisor of the Gallatin National Forest, is the 
responsible official for all except use of herbicides within designated 
Wilderness Areas. The responsible official for use of herbicides within 
designated Wilderness Areas is Brad Powell, Regional Forester of the 
Northern Region. They will decide which, if any, of the proposed 
project alternatives will be implemented.
    Their decisions and reasons for the decisions will be documented in 
appropriate Records of Decision. Those decisions will be subject to 
Forest Service appeal regulations (36 CFR part 215).

    Dated: December 18, 2002.
Rebecca Heath,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 03-1044 Filed 1-16-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M