# Priest Lake Noxious Weed Control Project, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Bonner and Boundary Counties, Idaho > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-3625 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Notice - **Published:** February 20, 1996 - **Citation:** 61 FR 6344 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-3625. Public record. Not legal advice.