[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33943-33945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15941]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Integrated Treatment of Noxious and Invasive Weeds Within the 
Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement to document the analysis and disclose the effects of 
implementation of an integrated treatment of noxious and invasive weeds 
within the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests.
    The proposed action would authorize the annual treatments of 2,000 
acres per

[[Page 33944]]

year to a projected high of 10,000 acres per year scattered throughout 
the three national forests, depending on budget. The majority of 
treatments will be found along major travel corridors (e.g. railroads, 
interstates, and state highways as well as Level 3 or 4 roads on the 
Forests) and within the ponderosa pine vegetation zone in the Verde and 
Little Colorado watersheds. If approved, project operations will begin 
in the spring or summer of 2002, and would continue for the next five-
to-ten years, barring any significant, environmental changes. Efforts 
will be made to coordinate annual programs with treatments undertaken 
by other federal and state agencies and private individuals. To allow 
flexibility in the treatment of noxious weeds, another component of the 
proposed action is the inclusion of adaptive management practices, 
which include the following:
    1. Treatment of infestations of noxious weeds that may become 
established but which are not currently identified on the species list 
or known to occur on the forests;
    2. Utilization of an Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) 
approach, which incorporates a variety of methods for prevention, 
containment, and control of site-specific weed infestations;
    3. The use of approved herbicides that may not be exclusively 
listed in the proposed action;
    4. The application of new research on the use of biological 
control, suitable herbicides, and vegetation competition, and ecosystem 
information on the vulnerability to invasion, and;
    5. If prescribed management fails to result in the desired outcome, 
alternative strategies will be developed, and management will be 
adapted until the desired conditions are achieved, which could involve 
an increase in the estimated annual acreage of treatment.
    The various methods that may be analyzed under an IVM approach 
include: (a) Manual: Hand-grubbing, hand-pulling, and hand-rogueing; 
(b) mechanical: clipping, mowing, tilling and burning; (c) cultural: 
grazing by livestock, tilling, fertilization, seeding of competitive 
plants, and the use of weed seed-free seed mixes and mulches; (d) 
biological: use of approved insects and pathogens; and (e) herbicidal: 
spot treatments, backpack, and ground-based broadcast applications. It 
is expected that a combination of methods would be used for most 
treatment programs and the following criteria would be applied: (1) 
Health and human safety, (2) effectiveness, (3) economic efficiency, 
and (4) environmental acceptability and compatibility. The annual 
combination of methods to be used is expected to vary depending on 
specific conditions. There will be no aerial application of chemicals 
by either fixed wing or rotary aircraft.
    Sites range in size from single plants to populations covering 
several thousand acres. In most cases, the weed infestations do not 
involve 100 percent of the ground, so actual control efforts for 
noxious weeds may be confined to a smaller area than that reflected in 
the total affected areas.
    All treatment methods, supported by research and experience, will 
be evaluated for the various weed species. At the low end of 
anticipated treatment acres, roughly 1,500 acres would be a combination 
of mechanical/herbicidal, 300 acres manual/mechanical, and the 
remaining 200 acres biological. Conversely, at the high end of the 
anticipated treatment acres the breakdown would be roughly 7,500 acres 
mechanical/herbicidal, 1,500 acres manual/mechanical, and 1,000 acres 
biological. Based on the above-referenced range, it is estimated that, 
over the planning period, approximately one-to-three percent of the 
Forests would be treated. Repeated treatments would be necessary for 
most weed species because seeds in the soil can be viable for five or 
even ten years. Therefore, recurring treatments would be authorized 
until the desired control objective is reached.
    There are at least five species that have been found adjacent to 
the forests or within the state although not yet on National Forest 
System lands. Prevention measures will be considered to keep these 
species from spreading onto the national forests. However, if these 
species are eventually found on the Forests, an eradication objective 
will be considered.
    The twenty-one herbicides and four carriers (or additives) that 
have been approved and documented in the Risk Assessment for Herbicide 
Use for Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10 and on Bonneville Power 
Administration Sites (1992) will be considered for use. The following 
herbicides, however, are the primary materials that will be evaluated 
based on historical usage for noxious weed control programs: 
chlorsulfuron, clopyralid, 2, 4-D, dicamba, glyhosate, imazapyr, 
metsulfuron methyl, picloram, sultometuron, sultometuron methyl, and 
triclopyr. In addition, an analysis of the herbicide, Plateau, for 
leafy spurge will be made, although a risk assessment for this 
herbicide is not yet completed.

DATES: The draft environment impact statement is scheduled for 
publication in November 2001 with the final environmental impact 
statement with Record of Decision published in March 2002. A project 
update letter was sent to all interested stakeholders in May 2001.

ADDRESSES: The responsible officials include Eleanor S. Towns, Regional 
Forester of the Southwestern Region, 333 Broadway SE, Albuquerque, NM 
87102 on any decision related to herbicide use in existing or proposed 
wilderness zones as well as Research Natural Areas, James W. Golden, 
Forest Supervisor, Coconino National Forest, 2323 E. Greenlaw Lane, 
Flagstaff, AZ 86004-1810, Corey P. Wong, Acting Forest Supervisor, 
Kaibab National Forest, 800 South Sixth Street, Williams, AZ 86046, and 
Michael R. King, Forest Supervisor, Prescott National Forest for 
treatments outside of Wilderness and Research Natural Areas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Brewer, Interdisciplinary Team 
Leader at Kaibab National Forest Supervisor's Office, 800 South 6th 
Street, Williams, AZ 86046-2899 or phone (520) 635-8221 or e-mail to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#afc2cec6c3ddc0c0c2f0dd9cf0c4cec6cdcecdefc9dc81c9cacb81dadc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ff929e96938d909092a08dcca0949e969d9e9dbf998cd1999a9bd18a8c">[email protected]</span></a>. Send written comments to the team leader 
above. The respective staffs will review specific comments targeted to 
individual Forests. Additional information will be posted on the Kaibab 
National Forest web page at www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each scoping began on August 31, 1998, when 
a proposed action to control noxious weeds on road corridors through 
herbicidal means was mailed to concerned citizens, federal and state 
agencies, as well as environmental organizations identified on the 
Forests' NEPA mailing lists. Preliminary issues identified by both 
agency personnel and the analysis of public comments include: (a) 
Impacts on the health and safety of individuals traveling in zones 
which have been treated with herbicides, (b) impacts to various 
management indicator plants and animals as well as threatened, 
endangered, and sensitive species, (c) the original proposed action, 
which called for treatments of populations only within major 
transportation and utility corridors, was too narrow in scope because 
it did not include known and potential populations outside these zones 
and new species could not be evaluated or treated, and (d) execution of 
the proposed action may impact groundwater as well as other municipal 
supplies, resulting in a decline in water quality.
    Based on the preliminary issues, it was apparent that the original 
proposed

[[Page 33945]]

action, which focused strictly on right-of-way corridors, was not going 
to effectively reduce the spread of noxious weeds. In addition, the 
health and safety issues related to spraying within major travel zones 
influenced the agency to develop the current proposal and send it out 
for additional scoping.
    The project area is located throughout the Coconino, Kaibab, and 
Prescott National Forests. The scope of the proposed action is limited 
to specific control measures on known as well as projected populations 
within the three national forests.
    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 on or about June 15, 
2001.
    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 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 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 comment period so that substantive comments and 
objections are made available to the Forest Service at the 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 of Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing 
the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 
40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
    The responsible officials will make the decision on the proposal 
after considering comments and responses, environmental consequences 
discussed in the final environmental impact statement, and applicable 
laws, regulations, and policies.

    Dated: June 7, 2001.
Keith A. Menasco,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Kaibab National Forest.
[FR Doc. 01-15941 Filed 6-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>