[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34442-34444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11683]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Dakota Prairie Grasslands; North Dakota and South Dakota; Dakota 
Prairie Grasslands Noxious Weed Management Strategy EIS

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) proposes to use an 
integrated approach to treat and control noxious weeds on approximately 
35,000 acres of existing infestation sites, and 8,000 acres of new or 
previously unknown acres in a manner consistent with Dakota Prairie 
Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan direction and applicable 
laws. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will analyze the methods 
to be used in an integrated approach, and disclose the environmental 
effects of the proposal and alternatives.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. 
The draft EIS is expected by September 2005 and the final EIS is 
expected by February 2006.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Sheila McNee, Noxious Weed EIS, 
Dakota Prairie Grasslands, 240 W. Century Ave., Bismarck, ND 58503 or 
e-mail your comments to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila McNee, Project Leader, Dakota 
Prairie Grasslands, USDA Forest Service at the above address or call 
(701) 250-4443.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Action

    An aggressive and effective weed control program is dictated by 
U.S. Forest Service policies (FSM 2080), the DPG Land and Resource 
Management Plan (Grasslands Plan), other Forest Service objectives, and 
by the February 3, 1999 Executive Order 13112 ``to prevent the 
introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to 
minimize the economic, ecological and human health impacts that 
invasive species cause.'' The DPG has been treating noxious weeds on 
each Ranger District under previous NEPA decisions including the 1986 
Custer National Forest Noxious Weed Environmental Impact Statement; 
however, an updated noxious weed control analysis is needed to address 
newly listed noxious weeds species, to identify additional acres of 
noxious

[[Page 34443]]

weed infestations, to ensure we are complying with the revised 
Grasslands Plan, and to incorporate the use of new, more effective 
herbicides, technologies, and biological controls as appropriate.

Proposed Action

    The Dakota Prairie Grasslands consists of four National Grasslands 
and two experimental forests. The Forest Service proposes to treat 
noxious weeds using an integrated approach on approximately 14,500 
acres of existing infestation sites distributed across the Little 
Missouri, Cedar River and Grand River National Grasslands and the 
Denbigh and Souris Experimental Forests. This proposal also allows up 
to 15 percent or about 2,000 additional acres of new or previously 
unknown infestations to be treated as they are discovered. On the 
Sheyenne National Grassland, all 20,500 acres of existing infestation 
sites are proposed for treatment. The proposal would allow treatment up 
to 30 percent more or 6,000 acres of new or previously unknown 
infestations on the Sheyenne Ranger District. Some acres may need 
annual treatments while others may only need to be treated once.
    An integrated management approach would be used to control noxious 
weeds. This approach may combine methods where it is deemed appropriate 
and effective. Proposed methods include the following: (1) Mechanical 
methods, such as hand pulling, mowing, or burning. (2) Revegetation, 
where competitive native vegetation is seeded to reduce noxious 
species, possibly after other treatments to remove the noxious weeds. 
(3) Grazing with livestock such as goats or sheep. (4) Biological 
control through the use of predators, parasites, and pathogens. (5) 
Herbicide control using ground-based and aerial based application 
methods.

Possible Alternatives

    A No Action alternative will be analyzed. No treatments would 
occur, except for those biological controls already in place on the 
ground.
    Using public and internal input, the Forest Service team will 
identify additional action alternatives to the proposed action, and 
determine which ones need to be fully analyzed.

Responsible Official

    David M. Pieper, Grasslands Supervisor, is the responsible 
official. See address under the ADDRESSES section above.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The Responsible Official will decide what level of weed control to 
implement, where and what kind of weed controls will be used, what 
mitigation measures will be required, what monitoring will be required 
to ensure that project objectives are being met and what, if any, 
Grassland Plan amendments are required.

Scoping Process

    The Forest Service mailed scoping packages on the proposed action 
to approximately 177 potentially interested or affected individuals, 
organizations, local and state governments, and local, State and 
Federal agencies on March 31, 2004, with a request for responses by 
April 30, 2004. Eleven comments were received. In the cover letter, it 
was stated that the Forest Service may prepare either an environmental 
assessment or an environmental impact statement, but that if aerial 
spraying was considered, and/or scoping results or further analysis 
indicated that the project might have significant environmental 
impacts, an environmental impact statement would be prepared.
    With the inclusion of aerial spraying, the Forest Service has 
decided to prepare an environmental impact statement. This notice of 
intent invites additional public comment on the proposal and initiates 
the preparation of the environmental impact statement. Due to the 
scoping effort already conducted, no further scoping meetings or 
mailings are planned. The public is encouraged to take part in the 
process and to visit with Forest Service officials any time during the 
analysis and prior to the decision. While public participation in this 
analysis is welcome at any time, comments received within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice will be especially useful in the 
preparation of the draft environmental impact statement. Two minor 
changes have been made since the original scoping. The total number of 
acres proposed to be treated has increased 2,000 acres and the no 
action alternative is now no treatment instead of continuing the 
existing management.

Preliminary Issues

    The following are the preliminary issues identified for this 
project:
    (1) Treatments may have adverse effects on the prairie fringed 
orchid, a federally threatened plant species that occurs on the 
Sheyenne National Grassland.
    (2) Treatments may have adverse effects to soil and water quality.
    (3) Treatments may have adverse effects on sensitive butterfly 
species or their habitats.
    (4) Treatments may have adverse effects on fish species or their 
habitats.
    (5) Aerial application of herbicides may have adverse effects on 
non-target species.
    (6) The use of herbicides for invasive weed control may cause acute 
(short term) or chronic (long term) health problems for people who come 
into contact with the herbicides and/or treated areas.

Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides 
the development of the environmental impact statement.
    Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be 
prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental 
impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental 
Protection Agency 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

[[Page 34444]]

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.
    Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who 
comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal 
and will be available for public inspection.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 
1909.15, Section 21)


    Dated: May 31, 2005.
Thomas J. Turck,
Planning Staff Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-11683 Filed 6-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M