[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26921-26923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7022]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Plumas National Forest; Beckwourth Ranger District, California; 
Beckwourth Ranger District Tall Whitetop Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service Plumas National Forest will prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to eradicate populations of the 
noxious weed tall whitetop (Lepidium latifolium), along the Middle Fork 
of the Feather River approximately one-mile southwest of the town of 
Beckwourth.

DATES: Although comments will be accepted throughout any phase of this 
project, it would be most helpful if comments on the scope of the 
analysis were received within 30 days of the date of publication of 
this notice of intent in the Federal Register. The draft EIS is 
expected in September 2006 and the final EIS is expected in January 
2007.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Acting District Ranger, Ronald L. 
Baer, Plumas National Forest, P.O. Box 7, Blairsden, CA 96103. Fax: 
(530) 836-0493. Comments may be: (1) Mailed to the Responsible 
Official; (2) hand delivered between the hours of 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m. 
weekdays Pacific Time; (3) faxed to (530) 836-0493; or (4) 
electronically mailed to: [email protected]. 
Comments submitted electronically must be in Rich Text Format (.rtf).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry R. Miller, Interdisciplinary 
Team Leader, Plumas National Forest, Beckwourth Ranger District, P.O. 
Box 7, Blairsden, CA 96103 (530) 836-2575.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Project Location

    The project area is one-mile southwest of the town of Beckwourth, 
T23N, R14E Sec. 26, 27, 28, and 29. It is comprised of the river 
corridor on either side of the junction of county road A-23 and highway 
70.

Purpose and Need for Action

    The effects of eradicating a noxious weed using an integrative pest 
management strategy will be analyzed in this EIS. The purpose of the 
project is to eradicate tall whitetop in the project area. Tall 
whitetop is invading the project area along the Middle Fork of the 
Feather River at a rapid rate. In 2003 there was one known location. 
Currently there are eighty-six tall whitetop locations. These locations 
total an estimated 36,000 plants over approximately 8 total acres. Hand 
pulling, over the last four years, at the original known site has 
proven ineffective for controlling the relatively small population 
there. Without effective treatment tall whitetop would continue to 
spread, invading additional acres nearby and potentially spreading 
throughout the entire corridor of the Middle Fork of the Feather River.

Proposed Action

    Scattered populations of the noxious weed, tall whitetop, would be 
treated in order to eradicate it from the 844-acre project area. These 
scattered areas total approximately 8 acres, less than 1 percent of the 
project area.
    A three-step process would be used over a period of five years to 
ensure successful eradication of tall whitetop from the project area. 
First plants would

[[Page 26922]]

be mechanically removed by hand pulling or mowing. Then resprouting 
plants would be chemically treated with herbicides. The three 
herbicides that are being proposed for use are glyphosate (such as 
RodeoTM), 2,4-D (such as Weedar 64TM), and 
chlorsulfuron (such as TelarTM). Finally, the areas would be 
seeded with native grasses to revegetate the areas.
    Herbicide treatments would be designed to be as effective as 
possible in eradicating noxious weeds while protecting sensitive 
resources. By using different herbicides on uplands (areas upslope from 
the river) and floodplains (areas along the river), treatments would 
balance effectiveness and resource protection.
    Upland habitat in the project area consists of 504 acres, of which 
two areas totaling 50 square feet are currently infested with tall 
whitetop. Within this area the use of more persistent herbicides will 
be prescribed for this area and if new populations are discovered in 
this habitat over the life of the project. Chlorsulfuron has the 
necessary persistence and selectivity to be the most effective choice 
for treatment in upland areas where water quality and riparian habitats 
are not affected. The advantage of using this herbicide is that the 
treatment is more effective. Therefore, the number of times the area 
will be retreated is limited.
    Floodplains can generally be described as the area between the 
water's edge and its high water line. Floodplains make up 340 acres in 
the project area. Currently, most of the tall whitetop, approximately 8 
acres, within the project area exists within the floodplain of the 
Middle Fork of the Feather River. The least persistent herbicides 
(glyphosate and the amine formulation of 2,4-D) would be used in the 
floodplain area where the intent is to minimize any opportunity for 
residual chemicals to be present in the soil and wash or leach into the 
watercourse. Herbicides selected for these areas are those approved for 
use because they are proven to have the lowest potential impacts to 
water and aquatic species and related habitat. The application of 
herbicides in these areas would occur after the last high water event 
of the season, with ample time allowed for chemical degradation prior 
to the first high water event of the next year. It is anticipated that 
chemical treatment in the floodplain zone would occur from May through 
July.
    The proposed herbicides and their maximum application rates in acid 
equivalent per acre or active ingredient per acre are 2,4-D (1.9 lbs 
AE/ac ), Glyphosate (3.0 lbs AE/ac), Chlorsulfuron (1.125 oz a.i./ac/). 
In addition to the specific herbicides, the additive R-11 and a 
colorant would be utilized. R-11 is a spreader/activator that improves 
the activity and penetration of the herbicide by reducing surface 
tension, allowing the herbicide mixture to spread evenly over the 
surface of the vegetation. The colorant is added to indicate where the 
herbicide has been applied.
    Lead Agency: The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this 
proposal.
    Responsible Official: Beckwourth Ranger District Acting District 
Ranger, Ronald L. Baer is the responsible official. Beckwourth Ranger 
District, P.O. Box 7, Blairsden, CA 96103.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The responsible official will decide whether to implement this 
project as proposed, implement the project based on an alternative to 
this proposal that is formulated to resolve identified issues or not 
implement this project at this time. The responsible official will be 
the Beckwourth Ranger District Acting District Ranger.

Scoping Process

    Public questions and comments regarding this proposal are an 
integral part of this environmental analysis process. Comments will be 
used to identify issues and develop alternatives to the proposed 
action. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering 
issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments should be as 
specific as possible.
    A copy of the proposed action and/or a summary of the proposed 
action will be mailed to adjacent landowners, as well as to those 
people and organizations that have indicated a specific interest in the 
Beckwourth Ranger District Tall Whitetop project, to Native American 
entities, and federal, state and local agencies. The public will be 
notified of any meetings regarding this proposal by mailings and press 
releases sent to the local newspaper and media. There are no meetings 
planned at this time.
    Permits or Licenses Required: None.

Comment

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides 
the development of the EIS. Our desire is to receive substantive 
comments on the merits of the proposed action, as well as comments that 
address errors, misinformation, or information that has been omitted. 
Substantive comments are defined as comments within the scope of the 
proposal, that have a direct relationship to the proposal, and that 
include supporting reasons for the responsible official's 
consideration.
    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 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.


[[Page 26923]]


    Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 
1909.15, section 21.

    Dated: May 1, 2006.
Ronald L. Baer,
Acting District Ranger.
 [FR Doc. E6-7022 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P