Priest Lake Noxious Weed Control Project, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Bonner and Boundary Counties, Idaho

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Priest Lake Noxious Weed Control Project, Idaho Panhandle

National Forests, Bonner and Boundary Counties, Idaho

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact

statement (EIS) to disclose the potential environmental effects of

noxious weed treatment on the Priest Lake Ranger District. Treatment

sites would be at various locations across the district and are within

the Priest River Ecosystem, Priest Lake Ranger District, Idaho

Panhandle National Forests, Bonner and Boundary Counties, Idaho and

Pend Oreille County, Washington. Most treatment sites are located near

or along forest roads, trails, powerline corridors, recreation sites

and meadows within grazing allotments.

The proposed action to control populations of noxious and

undesirable weeds on certain travel corridors and areas is designed to

prevent the spread of these weeds and promote the retention and health

of native and/or desirable plants within this ecosystem. The proposed

action would use an integrated pest management approach to control

weeds. This approach includes mechanical, biological, cultural, and

chemical control.

Over 13 new or potential species of weed will be considered for

control. The major species considered for control include spotted

knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum),

meadow hawkweed (Hieracium pratense), dalmation toadflax (Linaria

dalmatica), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), goat weed (Hypericum

perforatum L.), hound's tongue (cynoglossum officinale) and common

tansy (Tanacetum vulgare). Other species may include diffuse knapweed

(Centaurea diffusa), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria),

[[Page 6345]]

yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), musk thistle (Carduus

nutans), and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare).

This project level EIS will tier to the Idaho Panhandle National

Forests Weed Pest Management EIS, October 1989; the Idaho Panhandle

National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan),

September 1987; the Final EIS Noxious Weed Management Project, Bonners

Ferry Ranger District, September 1995.

DATES: Written comments and suggestions should be received on or before

April 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions on the proposed

management activities or requests to be placed on the project mailing

list to Kent Dunstan, District Ranger, Priest Lake Ranger District, HCR

5, Box 207, Priest River, ID 83856-9612.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Judy York, EIS Team Leader, Sandpoint Ranger District, phone number

(208) 263-5111.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Weed control is proposed on 128 sites that

have been identified on the Priest Lake Ranger District. These sites

range in size from single plants to approximately 25 acres. The total

project area covers approximately 2,610 gross acres; of this area,

approximately 313 net acres will be specifically treated. These sites

represent less than 1% of the 322,527 acres in the Priest Lake Ranger

District.

There are a variety of purposes for weed control on the Priest Lake

Ranger District. The primary purposes are: (1) To protect the natural

condition and biodiversity of the Priest River Ecosystem by preventing

or limiting the spread of aggressive, non-native plant species that

displace native vegetation; (2) prevent or limit the spread of weeds

into areas containing little or no noxious weeds; (3) reduce weed seed

sources at recreation sites and along main travel routes including

roads and trails; (4) reduce the social and economic impacts of

spreading noxious weed populations; (5) comply with Federal and State

Laws regulating management of noxious weeds; and (6) protect sensitive

and unique habitats.

The treatment sites are in scattered locations across the district.

The Idaho Panhandle National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan

provides guidance for management activities within the potentially

affected area through its goals, objectives, standards and guidelines,

and management area direction. The Forest Plan directed that forest

pests be managed by an integrated pest management approach.

The decision to be made is what actions, if any, should be taken to

control weeds in the Priest River ecosystem, where treatment should be

applied, and what type of treatment(s) should be used.

The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. One of

these will be the ``no action'' alternative, in which none of the

proposed treatment activities would be implemented. Additional

alternatives will represent the range of control methods currently

available for treatment of weeds, including non-chemical methods.

Public participation is an important part of the analysis and will

play an important role in developing the alternatives. The initial

scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7) will occur during February, March, and

April, 1996. The mailing list for public scoping will be developed from

responses to this NOI, and to the Idaho Panhandle National Forests

Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions, October, 1995. In addition, the

public is encouraged to visit with Forest Service officials during the

analysis and prior to the decision. The Forest Service will also be

seeking information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and

local agencies and other individuals or organizations who may be

interested in or affected by the proposed actions.

Comments from the public and other agencies will be used in

preparation of the Draft EIS. The scoping process will be used to:

1. Identify potential issues.

2. Identify major issues to be analyzed in depth.

3. Eliminate minor issues or those which have been covered by a

relevant previous environmental analysis.

4. Identify alternatives to the proposed action.

5. Identify potential environmental effects of the proposed action

and alternatives (i.e., cumulative effects).

Some public concerns have already been identified from initial

interdisciplinary review of the weed control proposal. The following

significant issues have been identified so far:

1. Current and potential impacts of the spread of noxious weeds on

the physical, biological, and social environment within the Priest Lake

Ranger District.

2. Potential impacts, effectiveness, and economics of various weed

control methods.

3. Potential effects upon human health from the application of

herbicides.

This list will be verified, expanded, or modified based on public

scoping and interdisciplinary review of this proposal.

The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be filed

with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public

review in June, 1996. At that time, the EPA will publish a Notice of

Availability of the draft environmental impact statement in the Federal

Register. 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 statement stage but that are not raised until after

completion of the final environmental statement may be waived or

dismissed by the courts (City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022

(9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritage, 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 scoping 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.

I am the responsible official for this environmental impact

statement. My address is Priest Lake Ranger District,

[[Page 6346]]

HCR 5, Box 207, Priest River, ID, 83856-9612.

Dated: February 9, 1996.

Kent L. Dunstan,

District Ranger.

[FR Doc. 96-3625 Filed 2-16-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M