Record of decision for the Sandpoint noxious weed control environmental impact statement

24 Pages·1998·4.6 MB·English

Historic, Archive Document
Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

—
Reserve / States Forest Service
aSB612 tmentof Northern Region
.125263 ihture
1998 .
Record of Decision
for the
Sandpoint Noxious Weed Control
Environmental Impact Statement
Idaho Panhandle National Forests
Sandpoint Ranger District
Bonner County, ID
April 1998

Table of Contents
el OCISO L mare eee tt ere ema OTe 8 Mita Mat ah as crete shccedonen!\Fasnatestesveeret ise
IEASODS ROtIVIELIOCISION im ies Bees eos ss5.fennc SMNE 3. taal! oes esteesieniascei ts
BublignvolwementsandsISSUes Meat Bee a oa vn noen--auedic eed eed oe UG TRI ooo AOE IG Give. deals
PEILEIMAVLE S ONSid Credit etre tet METRE, foc. cc osccnesncnnssecsscosanccensedcsvccsccnseseceseceasscoacsdene
Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations.......0........cccscsscssesseesseseesecseeseeseeseeeseenes
Identification of the Environmentally Preferable Altermative................c:cesccsseeseseeeteeeeees
Mi DlemierieatlOuEand 7 Ne aILELOCCU LLCS eerie iertsecctesssceccreotreeeheaant -a-e- etere esteeenr ee e
Table 1. Alternative C Treatment Methods on 46 Sites.............ccccccccccsessccccesssscccesssecceeeeeecs
U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LIBRARY
JUN 2 0 1998
ee
CATALOGING PREF
TT RE ERNER ONEN NCS SARE BAS RC DAO:
cases and to eradicate populations in other cases.
Introduction
Subsequent treatment will rely progressively less
on these methods as larger populations are
This Record of Decision explains my decision
reduced.
and rationale for selecting Alternative C of the
Sandpoint Noxious Weed Control project, which
Initial treatment methods proposed for each of the
is documented in the Sandpoint Noxious Weed .
46 sites are listed in Table 1 (page 9). Subse-
Control Final Environmental Impact Statement
quent treatment efforts may vary over time; initial
(FEIS). The Sandpoint Noxious Weed Control
treatment with herbicides will not preclude
project is located on National Forest lands in the
concurrent or follow-up use of other treatment
Sandpoint Ranger District.
methods.
Herbicide Control The use of herbicides alone
will occur on 31 treatment sites covering
My Decision
approximately 132 acres. Actual treatment” is
anticipated on about 73 acres. Five herbicides
(dicamba, clopyralid, picloram, metsulfuron
I am the Responsible Official for the decisions
outlined in this Record of Decision. The methyl and 2,4-D amine) will be considered for
following are the decisions I have made for this application on various sites. Two of these
project: chemicals were previously approved for use in
the 1989 IPNF Weed Pest Management EIS (2,4-
D and picloram).
e What actions, if any, should be taken to
control weeds on National Forest lands in
The use of each herbicide will depend on the
the Pend Oreille ecosystem
weed species, level of infestation, location, other
e Where treatment should be applied, what
resource concerns, and applicability of the
type of treatment(s) should be used, and
herbicide. See Design Criteria below for
when treatment will occur
chemical use guidelines.
I have selected Alternative C (the Proposed
The application of herbicides will follow the
Action) with the associated Design Criteria
general application guidelines outlined in
(FEIS, pages II-4,5 and II-7-9) because I believe
Appendix D of the FEIS. Application will be
it provides the most comprehensive treatment and
with a backpack sprayer, manual dispersal of
best meets the project’s purpose and need (see
pellets, or with a pumper unit mounted on the
Reasons For Decision below). Project activities
back of a pickup truck or ATV. There will be no
will begin no sooner than five business days from
aerial application of herbicides.
the close of the 45-day appeal period if the
project is not appealed (see page 7 of this
Herbicide and Biological Controls This
document). Details of this alternative as
combination of control methods will be used on 7
described in the FEIS are repeated here:
treatment sites involving approximately 572
acres. Actual treatment will total almost 540 acres
Details of Alternative C
(47 acres with herbicides and 493 acres with
biocontrol agents). Herbicides will be used in
Alternative C uses mechanical, cultural, areas within a site with a low to heavy concentra-
biological and chemical treatment methods. This tion of weeds that can be feasibly treated with
fully integrated approach will initially rely more either a backpack sprayer or pumper unit (1.e., on
heavily on biological control and herbicides to or near roads and trails). Biological agents will
significantly reduce weed populations in some be used within areas where herbicide application
*Weed infestations often consist of scattered clumps of plants. Treatment will focus on the clumps rather than the entire
acreage that contains the infestation.
Sandpoint Noxious Weed Control Record of Decision - 1
will be costly, time consuming and/or ineffective (see the FEIS, Appendix G for a flow chart which
(an example will be where weeds have moved off illustrates the decision process to be followed in
the road or trail and are widespread in the general applying the adaptive strategy). Infestations
forest). known to occur in the project area but not
previously quantified will also be inventoried, and
Herbicide and Mechanical Control This site-specific recommendations for treatment will
combination of noxious weed control will be used be made. Priorities for treatment will be
on two treatment sites encompassing 1.25 acres. established based on weed species present,
A total of 0.40 acres of noxious weeds will be infestation size and vulnerability of recreational,
treated (0.25 acre with herbicides and 0.15 acre wildlife, aquatic and special vegetation resources
by mechanical methods). Mechanical control will to the infestation.
be used on individuals or small infestations where
there is confidence that the species can be Treatment methods for each site will be selected
eradicated. Herbicide use on the same sites will based on weed species ecology, cost-effectiveness
target weed species with larger infestations, or of the treatments and the management objective
where mechanical control will not be effective. for the site (e.g. eradication or reduction of seed
production). Proposed treatments will be
Mechanical Control This single treatment will evaluated to determine if they fit within the scope
be used on two sites covering 10.05 acre, with of the FEIS relative to the issues analyzed.
10.05.acres of actual treatment.
All design criteria pertinent to Alternative C will
Biological Control Biological control alone is apply to new treatment sites as well as to follow-
proposed on two sites, comprising a total of 450 up treatments on the identified 46 sites. In
acres. Follow-up monitoring, and additional addition, any herbicide use proposed on new
release of biological agents as needed, will be treatment sites, or as follow-up treatments on the
conducted to ensure the biological agents above 46 sites, must meet the requirements of
establish over the entire infestation. parameters established by the project aquatics
specialist. The parameters require that the
combined treatments in any drainage result in a
Cultural Control Cultural control alone is
proposed for two sites; at one site of ap- concentration of herbicide in surface water lower
proximately five acres, weed species are than the no-observable-effect level (NOEL) rate
colonizing an insufficiently-revegetated closed for each given treatment year. Where the NOEL
road. The site will be planted with conifers, for a specific herbicide is not available, the LC50
seeded and fertilized to help eventually shade out divided by 10 will be used as a standard for
the weeds. The second site encompasses maximum treatment acres (see FEIS Chapter IV,
approximately 100 acres of riparian habitat which Soils and Aquatic Resources). The maximum
was logged in the early 1900s. Efforts to reforest number of acres which could be treated with a
the site initiated in 1993 will continue. given herbicide in each drainage each year is
displayed in the FEIS, Appendix J. The
The following combinations of control methods methodology used in the determination of
maximum treatment acres can be found in the
will not be used on any treatment sites within the
project file.
project area initially, but may be used for
followup treatments:
If any proposed herbicide application will exceed
e Mechanical and Biological Controls
the established parameters, treatment will be
e Biological and Cultural Control
deferred, or an alternate weed control method will
e Mechanical and Cultural Control
be selected. When a combination of herbicides is
proposed for use, the maximum herbicide
Adaptive Strategy Alternative C includes an treatment acres for a given drainage will be those
adaptive strategy for future treatment of for the most restrictive herbicide.
additional sites as new infestations are discovered
Sandpoint Noxious Weed Control Record of Decision - 2
In addition, monitoring of treatment sites will be 9. All weeds which are mechanically controlled
conducted. Assessment of the effectiveness of will be bagged and disposed of to be burned
control efforts will consider the weed manage- at designated sites.
ment objective for each site, as well as the 10. New noxious weed invaders, as identified by
infestation size and percent occupancy of the local and state agencies, will be given high
target weed species following treatment. priority for treatment as funding 1s available.
11. Additional biological control agents may
become available for use. Before such agents
Design Criteria : are released, their effectiveness, and any
impacts to other resources, will be evaluated.
Noxious Weed Prevention and Control
Herbicide Use - General
1. Certified weed-free feed is now required for
use on all National Forest lands in Sandpoint 1. EPA would be consulted annually for new
Ranger District (36 CFR 261.50). information about herbicides proposed for
2. Cleaning of equipment used for forest activities use. Recommendations will be followed to
will be required before operating within all ensure the most safe and effective use.
areas previously treated for noxious weeds or 2. If future development of herbicides results in
within areas currently considered weed-free. products which promise to be more effective,
Provision 2400-3 10.2, C 6.26 or CT 6.26 their use will be evaluated for impacts to
will be included in contracts associated with resources analyzed in the FEIS.
those areas. 3. All herbicide use will comply with applicable
3. To prevent the establishment and spread of laws and guidelines.
noxious weeds, all ground disturbances
resulting from management activities will be Public Safety
revegetated with an appropriate, certified
noxious weed-free seed mix and fertilized as 1. Treatment areas will be signed prior to and
necessary. following herbicide applications within areas
4. Cultural control will be considered for all sites of special concern. In addition, information
following weed treatment. After weeds have on where and when spraying and other
been eradicated or reduced in distribution to treatments will occur will be available to the
acceptable levels, revegetation with more public at the Ranger District office.
desirable species is often necessary to prevent 2. Adjacent landowners will be notified prior to
reinvasion by the weeds. Native and desired treatment of noxious weeds on National
non-native species will be used for revegeta- Forest lands.
tion. 3. Traffic control and signing during weed
5. All noxious weed control activities will comply treatment operations will be used as needed to
with state and local laws and agency ensure safety of workers and motorists.
guidelines. 4. Application of herbicides to treat noxious
6. All gravel pits in Sandpoint Ranger District weeds will be performed by or directly
will be treated for noxious and undesirable supervised by a State licensed applicator.
weeds. 5. Procedures for mixing, loading and disposal of
7. Provisions will be made for the prevention and herbicides as outlined in the FEIS, Appendix
control of weeds within new and existing E will be followed.
special use permits as needed. 6. Procedures for a spill plan for hazardous
8. Weed control will occur at developed materials as outlined in the FEIS, Appendix E
campgrounds, trailheads and high-use, will be followed.
dispersed campsites following the standards 7. The guidelines for safe application for
and guidelines outlined in this document. individual herbicides as outlined on label
requirements and also by State and Federal
Laws will be followed.
Sandpoint Noxious Weed Control Record of Decision - 3
8. All herbicide applications will be ground- patterns such as frequency and intensity of
based; there will be no aerial application of wildfires. Changing these processes can lead to
herbicides. displacement of native plant species, eventually
9. Special use permittees will be notified in impacting wildlife and plant habitat, recreational
advance of treatments on their permit sites opportunities, grazing allotments and scenic
and advised of herbicide label requirements beauty.
regarding use of treated lands.
On National Forest System lands, the Forest Ser-
Resource Protection vice is responsible for promoting healthy ecosys-
tems, while providing for a diversity of plant and
1. Any application of herbicides will adhere to animal communities, long-term natural resource
FSH 2509.22- Soil and Water Conservation sustainability, and future opportunities for public
Practices Handbook, 13.07-13.13. use and continued ecosystem restoration. A re-
2. All weed treatment will be coordinated with view of the 1996 noxious weed surveys for the
the North Zone Botany Coordinator. Site- Sandpoint Ranger District has shown me that
specific treatment guidelines, approved by the weed infestations in this area are becoming a seri-
Forest Botanist, will be developed for ous problem that is detrimental to our ecosystem
infestations within or adjacent to known health and diversity. I believe Alternative C is an
sensitive plant populations. All future aggressive program that will slow the spread of
treatment sites will be evaluated for sensitive large weed infestations, eliminate new invaders,
plant habitat suitability; highly suitable habitat and will prevent or limit the spread of weeds in
will be surveyed as necessary prior to areas where there are few or no infestations.
treatment. Within 50 feet of any known
sensitive plant occurrences, the preferred In some of the comments we received on our
method of weed control will be either project proposal, people were concerned about
mechanical control or hand spray - no the use of herbicides to control weeds and pos-
vehicle-based herbicide application will occur sible effects to people and the environment. I
(FEIS, Appendix D). have thoroughly reviewed the weed treatment
3. For weed treatment within grizzly bear plan (shown below in Table 1), the analysis of po-
recovery areas, administrative use guidelines tential effects in Chapter IV, and the guidelines
will be followed (see project file). for herbicide use outlined in the Design Criteria
listed above and in the Appendices. I feel confi-
dent that the amounts of herbicide prescribed for
Reasons For My Decision
use at each site and the safety measures we will
be taking will keep negative effects at undetect-
I have made my decision based on: able levels.
1) a review of the FEIS, appendices, project file, We also heard concerns from people about the ef-
and supporting information such as the Forest fectiveness of a weed control program over time.
Plan, We recognize that weed species such as goatweed
2) how well the various alternatives meet the and knapweed will not be eliminated from our
project’s Purpose and Need, and ecosystems. Our goal for these species is to re-
3) public comments we have received. duce the size of large infestations and prevent or
limit their spread to uninfested areas. Our goal
As stated in the FEIS, noxious and undesirable for new invaders such as tansy ragwort and poten-
weeds are spreading on public lands at an tial invaders such as yellow starthistle is to detect
alarming rate. According to the recent scientific and eliminate them before they establish and im-
assessment of the Interior Columbia Basin, pact native ecosystems.
invading weeds can alter ecosystem processes,
including productivity, decomposition, hydrol- I believe that our strategies in Alternative C for
ogy, nutrient cycling, and natural disturbance control, monitoring and treating new infestations
Sandpoint Noxious Weed Control Record of Decision - 4
will allow us to make significant progress toward
preventing the spread of existing weeds and new 2. Economics, effectiveness, and potential
invaders, and will help us reduce the threat of impacts of various weed control methods on
weed spread in our ecosystem now and in the fu- natural resources.
ture.
3. Potential effects on human health from the
I did not select Alternative A because it would application of herbicides.
not protect the natural condition and biodiversity
of the Pend Oreille Sub-basin ecosystem, as The DEIS was released on January 23, 1998. A
indicated by the very limited success of weed notice appeared in the Federal Register on
control efforts in the past few years. I did not February 6, 1998. We received 3 comments on
select Alternative B because, although it would the DEIS during the 45-day review period. There
provide some level of control, it does not provide were no new significant issues raised from public
an aggressive enough approach to controlling comments. Those comments and responses to
weeds and would result in limited success. I them are located in the FEIS, Appendix K.
believe Alternative C provides the most
comprehensive treatment using tools that are Alternatives Considered
practical, effective and safe.
Three alternatives were considered in detail for
Public Involvement And Issues
this project (see FEIS pages II-4 to I-30 for
details):
To inform the public about the Noxious Weed
Control Project, a Notice of Intent was published Alternative A : No Action - This alternative
in the Federal Register on January 31, 1997. On would not result in a change in current noxious
February 19, 1997, a Scoping Notice was mailed weed control activities in Sandpoint Ranger
to 282 individuals, organizations, and agencies. District. Current strategies for noxious weed
A news release was sent to local newspapers and control as outlined in the Idaho Panhandle
radio stations on February 20, 1997. A news National Forest Plan (1987) and the Idaho
report was aired on KPND radio in Sandpoint on Panhandle National Forest Noxious Weed
February 26, 1997. An article appeared in the Environmental Assessment (1989) would still be
Bonner County Daily Bee on February 28, 1997. considered the primary strategy. Noxious weed
We received a total of 34 responses in the form of control would consist mostly of mechanical
letters, phone calls and visits. methods and preventive cultural practices such as
seeding disturbed areas. Release of biological
The public comments and results of the content control agents would occur on a limited basis.
analysis are contained in the project file at Essentially, only administrative sites such as the
Sandpoint Ranger District. Grouse Creek Tree Improvement Area would be
treated using a fully integrated pest management
approach.
Issues
Analysis of public and internal comments resulted Alternative B: Mechanical, Cultural and
in the following list of issues that guided the Biological Treatment - This alternative would
development of alternatives. Refer to the FEIS, use an integrated approach to control noxious and
pages II-1 to II-2 for a more detailed discussion undesirable weeds. Treatments such as hand-
of the issues. pulling, clipping and mowing would be
supplemented with cultural methods such as
1. Current and potential impacts of the spread of seeding, fertilizing and planting. Release of
noxious weeds on the physical, biological and biological agents (parasites, predators or
ecological environment within the Sandpoint pathogens) that have shown promise in reducing
Ranger District. weed infestations would also be used. No
Sandpoint Noxious Weed Control Record of Decision - 5