Jump to main content.

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

 

Priest Lake Noxious Weed Control Project, Idaho Panhandle 



[Federal Register: February 20, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 34)]
[Notices]               

[Page 6344-6346]

>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]







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 112f 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:

  6.  Current and potential impacts of the spread of noxious weeds on 
the physical, biological, and social environment within the Priest Lake 
Ranger District.
    

  7.  Potential impacts, effectiveness, and economics of various weed 
control methods.
    

  8.  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

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.