[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70486-70487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-31190]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
 or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
 and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
 delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
 statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
 appearing in this section.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2003 / 
Notices  

[[Page 70486]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Payette National Forest, Krassel and McCall Ranger Districts, 
Idaho; and Boise National Forest, Cascade Ranger District, Idaho; South 
Fork Salmon River Subbasin Noxious Weed Management

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) for management of noxious and invasive weeds in the 
South Fork Salmon River (SFSR) Subbasin. The analysis area of 
approximately 788,660 acres includes headwater streams to the Salmon 
River and includes portions of the Boise National Forest (BNF) and 
Payette National Forest (PNF) in central Idaho. The subbasin is 
immediately adjacent to and upstream of the Frank Church River of No 
Return (FC-RONR) Wilderness. The purpose of the proposed project is to 
identify and treat noxious and invasive weeds using a variety of 
methods including herbicide application by hand and aerial spraying. 
The need is to minimize the impacts of noxious and invasive weeds. The 
EIS will disclose the environmental effects of the proposed action and 
alternatives. The Forest Service now invites comments on the scope of 
the analysis and the issues to address.

DATES: Comments must be received by January 19th, 2004. The Draft EIS 
is expected in October 2004, and the Final EIS is expected in April 
2005.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: District Ranger, Krassel Ranger 
District, P.O. Box 1026, McCall, Idaho 83638.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ana Egnew, Krassel Ranger District, 
P.O. Box 1026, McCall, Idaho 83638 or phone (208) 634-0600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose of the proposed project is to:
    [sbull] Prioritize weed species and treatment areas;
    [sbull] Identify and treat weed infestations using a variety of 
methods including herbicide application by hand and aerial spraying;
    [sbull] Prevent or limit the introduction and establishment of 
noxious and invasive weed species; and
    [sbull] Maintain native plant communities and watershed function.
    The SFSR Subbasin is an ecologically important, relatively pristine 
area where the spread of noxious and invasive weeds could result in 
unacceptable consequences on fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and 
other resources.

Proposed Action

    The overall management objective of the proposed action is to 
maximize the treatment of noxious and invasive weeds throughout the 
SFSR Subbasin. The proposed action would prioritize noxious and 
invasive weed species and treatment areas within the Subbasin based on 
the following goals:
    1. Treat all known sites less than 5 acres in size with the goal of 
eradication.
    2. Reduce all established areas of noxious and invasive weeds 
greater than 5 acres in size by 50 percent.
    Treatment would begin by determining the minimum tool necessary to 
achieve management objectives (see below). Treatment methods would 
include removal by hand pulling and shovel, herbicide treatment by 
hand, herbicide treatment with truck mounted equipment, aerial 
application of herbicides, and biological control. Limits would be 
placed on the type, amount, and location of herbicide use. Noxious and 
invasive weed management would also include education and preventive 
measures such as area closures and weed-free hay requirements and 
inspections. Weeds would be treated on a maximum area of 3,000 acres 
each year in the SFSR Subbasin. The distribution of treatment acres 
between ground application, aerial application, and mechanical 
treatment, and biological control would likely vary on a yearly basis; 
however, it is expected that ground application would dominate.
    The minimum tool approach means that managers would use the minimum 
necessary weed treatment method(s) to accomplish management objectives.
    The minimum tool approach would be implemented on a site-specific 
basis. A number of steps would be followed to determine and implement 
the most appropriate site-specific treatment method including:
    [sbull] Detection of the weed;
    [sbull] Prioritization of weed treatment at a particular site;
    [sbull] Determination if sensitive environmental receptors are 
present;
    [sbull] Consideration of potential for adverse effects;
    [sbull] Determination of the treatment methods, including minimum 
tool method;
    [sbull] Selection of appropriate treatment method for the weed; and
    [sbull] Treatment followed by restoration and monitoring, as 
necessary.

Possible Alternatives

    A ``No Action'' alternative is required under NEPA regulations and 
also serves as a baseline for comparison of other alternatives. The No 
Action Alternative would be no chemical treatment, because no 
environmental analysis has ever been completed for noxious weed 
treatment in the SFSR Subbasin. Another alternative to be considered 
would include the same noxious weed treatment methods that are used on 
the remainder of the Payette National Forest.

Scoping Process

    The Forest Service is seeking comments from individuals, 
organizations, Tribal governments, and federal, state, and local 
agencies interested in or affected by this project. Public 
participation will be solicited through news releases, scoping meetings 
and requests for written comments. The first formal opportunity to 
comment is to respond to this notice of intent, which initiates the 
scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7). Scoping includes: (1) Identifying 
potential issues, (2) identifying significant issues, (3) exploring 
alternatives, and (4) identifying potential environmental effects of 
the proposed action and alternatives.

Preliminary Issues

    The Forest Service has identified the following nine potential 
issues. Public

[[Page 70487]]

input will help determine which of these issues and what other issues 
merit detailed analyses.
    [sbull] Issue 1--Water Quality: Effects to water quality.
    [sbull] Issue 2--Soil: Effects to soil productivity.
    [sbull] Issue 3--Fisheries Resources: Effects to listed species.
    [sbull] Issue 4--Vegetation: Effects on native plant communities 
and rare plants.
    [sbull] Issue 5--Fire and Fuels: Effects on fire regimes and spread 
of weeds due to fire.
    [sbull] Issue 6--Wildlife Resources: Effects on big game, listed 
species, Forest Service sensitive species, and PNF and BNF Management 
Indicator Species (MIS).
    [sbull] Issue 7--Recreation: Effects to inventoried Roadless Areas, 
Wild and scenic Rivers, adjacent Wilderness, and visual resources.
    [sbull] Issue 8--Cultural Resources: Effects of treatment methods 
on cultural resources, particularly Traditional Cultural Properties 
(TCP).
    [sbull] Issue 9--Human Health: Effects of herbicide use on human 
health.

Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process that guides the 
development of the EIS. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and 
considering issues and alternatives, comments should be as specific as 
possible. 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. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those 
who comment, will be part of the project record and will be available 
for public inspection.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review

    The Draft EIS is proposed to be available for public comment in 
October of 2004. The comment period on the Draft EIS will be 45 days 
from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice 
of availability in the Federal Register.
    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 EISs must 
structure their participation in the environmental review of the 
proposal so that 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 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. Hodell, 803 F .2d 1016, 1002 (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 important that those interested 
in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment 
period so 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 EIS.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    This decision will be whether or not to implement specific noxious 
weed management activities in the SFSR Subbasin, and if so, what types 
of weed treatments would be implemented. The decision would include any 
mitigation measures needed in addition to those prescribed in the 
Forest Plans.

Responsible Official

    I am the responsible official for the preparation of the EIS. The 
deciding officials for the decision to accompany the Final EIS are: 
Mark J. Madrid, Forest Supervisor, Payette National Forest, P.O. Box 
1026, McCall, Idaho 83628; and Richard A. Smith, Forest Supervisor, 
Boise National Forest, 1249 South Vinnell Way, Suite 200, Boise, Idaho 
83709.

    Dated: December 12, 2003.
Mark J. Madrid,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 03-31190 Filed 12-17-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M