Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/Invasive Plants

Transcription

1 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/Invasive Plants USDA Forest Service Kiowa-Rita Blanca National Grasslands, Magdalena Ranger District, Mount Taylor Ranger District, Mountainair Ranger District Cibola National Forest Catron, Cibola, Colfax, Harding, Lincoln, McKinley, Mora, Sandoval, Sierra, Socorro, Torrance, Union, and Valencia Counties in New Mexico; Cimarron County in Oklahoma; Dallam County in Texas Background Noxious weeds are non-native plants designated as noxious by state law because of highly invasive characteristics and high potential for negative environmental and economic impacts. Other species included under the term invasive plants also have highly invasive characteristics and potential to cause negative ecosystem change and economic impact but are not designated as noxious by the state. Many of the invasive plant species currently known to occur on the Forest are also listed as noxious or invasive species by the New Mexico Department of Agriculture, Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, or Texas Department of Agriculture. Forest personnel have noticed an increase in the number and extent of invasive plant occurrences on the forest. The Forest started invasive plant surveys in 1998 and continues to periodically update the information, primarily when range management specialists inspect range allotment conditions. Based on these surveys, there are about 23,450 acres of invasive plant infestations scattered broadly across the districts included in this project. Infestation size varies from less than one acre to several hundred acres. Most infestations (estimated at more than 75 percent) are less than an acre in size. Although the mapping does not indicate the density and distribution of invasive plants within each infestation, most of the mapped sites include patches without invasive plants that do not require treatment. The Kiowa/Rita Blanca Grassland, Mountainair, Magdalena, and Mt. Taylor Ranger Districts are the districts where treatments are planned. These lands have been affected by the spread of noxious/invasive plants for some time. The Environmental Assessment (EA) for Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/Invasive Plants describes the purpose and need for this project to eradicate, control, or contain invasive plants that are scattered throughout the four ranger districts and to reduce impacts from invasive species on soil properties, water quality, wildlife habitat, and other natural resource values. The EA documents the analysis of three alternatives to meet this need. Decision and Reasons for the Decision Based upon my review of the alternatives, the analysis in the Environmental Assessment, and the comments I received on the proposal, I have decided to implement Alternative B, which provides

2 for the treatment of noxious and invasive plants on the districts through an integrated pest management approach or combination of methods that have been successfully used in similar situations on public lands throughout the United States. This approach recognizes that using only one method is not likely to be effective, and flexibility is needed to address differences in sitespecific conditions. The integrated pest management approach involves applying one or more methods to each site in order to eradicate, control, or contain invasive plants where they occur. The selection of the methods to apply to each invasive plant species and site depends on the known effectiveness of various methods in eradicating, controlling, or containing each species, along with the size of the infestation, terrain features, sensitive resources at the treatment site, and other factors. The methods that would be used include: Manual: digging, clipping, pulling, or cutting with hand tools (shovels, chainsaws, hoes, or similar tools) Mechanical: mowing or other methods using heavy machinery Herbicide: manual or ground-based application (no aerial spraying under this decision) of herbicides onto target plants Controlled grazing: using sheep, goats, or cattle grazing to consume the tops of target plants thereby reducing their ability to disperse seeds and spread to other areas Prescribed burning: torching or burning target plants Cultural: planting or seeding, often immediately after treatments that expose bare soil, where there is a lack of native seed sources to re-establish desired plants. Implementation of the invasive plant control program would involve the following steps: 1. Continue to take inventory by searching places with a high likelihood for finding new invasive populations, and enter new locations in the Geographic Information System database. 2. Prioritize and select appropriate treatment methods based on criteria in the EA including applicable mitigation measures based on site conditions. 3. Develop an implementation plan, and if needed, submit a pesticide use proposal form (FS ) according to Forest Service policy (Forest Service Manual 2100) 1. This operational plan would include a list of each site to be treated, methods to be used, herbicide and rate of application if applicable, map of the site, as well as acres to be treated. It would be reviewed by resource specialists and a line officer to ensure that effects are within the scope of the analysis and that site-specific mitigation measures are clearly identified. The Forest Pesticide Coordinator would review the plan if herbicides are to be used. 4. Notify the public, including pueblos and tribes, about the annual treatment schedule. 5. Implement invasive plant control treatments. 6. Monitor for: treatment effectiveness in meeting control objectives; effects on other resources relative to those predicted in the EA; and implementation and effectiveness of mitigation measures used to minimize adverse impacts. 1 A herbicide is one type of pesticide - the Forest Service Manual direction applies to all pesticide applications. 2 DN/FONSI Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/Invasive Plants

3 7. Evaluate and document monitoring results for use in future treatment prescriptions. During the life of this project, invasive plants will likely be introduced or spread to new locations by vehicles, heavy equipment, livestock, wildlife, recreationists, and all the usual vectors of spread. The Forest would respond to new infestations by completing a site-specific review to determine the appropriate method and priority for treatment. The site-specific treatment actions would be considered to determine if the actions are within the scope of actions and effects analyzed in this EA (in accordance with Forest Service Handbook , section 18). In addition, the treatment process described on pages of the EA would be used to prioritize the invasive and noxious plant treatments. In addition, the following measures will be incorporated into the treatment program to avoid or minimize the risk of adverse project-related impacts to people or natural resources on the Forest: Air, Soil, Water, Riparian, Aquatic and Scenic Resources All prescribed burning must comply with state smoke management requirements (permitting, monitoring, etc.) to maintain levels of these emissions within state and federal air quality standards and risk assessment guidelines. This includes not burning herbicide-treated vegetation immediately after herbicide use. Regulation set forth by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for each herbicide used will be adhered to. Those regulations are listed on the herbicide labels. Mixing and loading of herbicides will not occur within 200 feet of live water. In riparian areas or next to live water bodies containing fish and amphibians, methods used must have been documented to have low risk to aquatic species. Examples include a nonherbicide method that avoids erosion and sedimentation or herbicides registered by the EPA for aquatic environments (e.g. glyphosate, triclopyr, or those that photodegrade). Where treatments result in large amounts of dead vegetation that is easily viewed from recreation sites, trails or roads, and detracting from scenic values, remove that vegetation and replant where needed. This is to limit degrading scenic quality. Heritage Resources Adhere to the Standard Consultation Protocol for Noxious Weed Control developed for the treatment of noxious weeds and invasive plants in Region 3 of the U.S. Forest Service 2. The protocol addresses procedural requirements for the phased implementation of projects, defines which treatment activities require further consultation under NHPA, and outlines protective measures to avoid or minimize effects to historic properties. (Protocol is available in the project record). The following projects do not require further consultation: 1. cultural methods using native species to control weeds that do not involve ground or surface disturbance 2 The Standard Consultation Protocol for Noxious Weed Control between the USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region,the New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arizona State Historic Preservation Officers, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to comply with applicable portions of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), including Section 106 and its implementing regulations. DN/FONSI Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/Invasive Plants 3

4 2. herbicide spray projects that will not affect properties of traditional cultural and religious value identified by tribes 3. hand treatments that involve little or no ground or surface disturbance, e.g. flower and seed head removal from annual plants, hand pulling young plants without the use of tools Initiation of noxious weed/invasive plant treatment projects will be contingent upon completion of the identification and protection of historic properties, and compliance with the applicable provisions of NHPA in accordance with the Protocol. Adhere to the mitigations previously listed that minimize adverse impacts to non-target native plants in order to reduce the risk to plants of ethnographic concern. The annual schedule of projects that will employ treatment methods subject to Section 106 consultation per the Protocol, including proposed herbicide treatments, mechanical treatments, grazing, burning, and some manual methods, will be included in the Forest s annual list of projects submitted to the tribes for consultation. No further Section 106 consultation is required for cultural methods, and certain manual methods (hand treatments that involve little or no ground or surface disturbance), per the Protocol. The Forest Archeologist has the discretion to determine which manual methods will require identification and evaluation efforts and which will be exempted from further consultation. Tribes will be notified in writing about pending herbicide application and treatment schedules. This measure will reduce the risk to native plants used for traditional cultural purposes and the risk to herbicide exposure of individuals who gather these plants. Grazing will not be used as an invasive plant control method on heritage resource sites easily damaged by trampling as identified through heritage resource inventories prior to implementation. Human Health and Safety Herbicides will not be used unless they have been registered for use by the EPA and have undergone Forest Service approved risk assessments. All EPA label requirements (including limitations) will be strictly followed and adherence to a chemical spill plan will be ensured. In areas of human habitation or high use such as a recreation site, administrative site, or area where people often collect plants, the treatment method must have been documented to be low risk in areas of human occupation and use. Examples include non-herbicide methods or herbicides rated as having a very low risk of harmful effects to humans. Herbicides may only be applied by a trained applicator under supervision of a licensed applicator, in accordance with Forest Service directives. Herbicide use will comply with the direction in Chapter 2150 of FSM Environmental Management (USDA FS, R3 2004), including the requirement that a Pesticide (Herbicide) Use Proposal (form FS ) be completed for all proposed herbicide uses on national forest system lands. A Pesticide Use Proposal, for use of pesticides (herbicides) in wilderness, will be approved by the Regional Forester as specified in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) a and Section 13. Herbicide applicators will have the chemical spill plan and emergency cleanup kit onsite during treatments. The spill plan identifies methods to avoid accidental spills as well as how to report and clean up spills. The kit will contain appropriate spill cleanup supplies. 4 DN/FONSI Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/Invasive Plants

5 Workers will be required to wear personal protective equipment as required in the FS Safety Handbook A Pesticide (Herbicide) Application Record (PAR) will be completed daily for each project area detailing the herbicide application, treatment area, target species distribution and density, weather conditions, and recommendations for follow-up treatments or rehabilitation. To further notify forest visitors and users, signs regarding herbicide use will be placed at access points to treatment areas prior to herbicide application. Signs will include the herbicide to be used, locations, effective dates, and phone number for acquiring more information. Traffic control and signing during treatment operations will be used as necessary to ensure safety of workers and the public. Recreation sites, roads, trails, or other areas scheduled for treatment may be temporarily closed during treatment activities to ensure public safety. The scheduled herbicide treatment in highway rights-of-ways by New Mexico Department of Transportation, Oklahoma Department of Transportation and Texas Department of Transportation will be coordinated annually with the respective ranger district where the treatment will occur. This coordination should occur in late winter or early spring so that treatment locations can be given to interested parties prior to the treatment. Invasive plant treatments will be coordinated with potentially affected adjacent landowners and range allotment permittees. Cooperative efforts on adjacent lands and range allotments would increase treatment effectiveness and the ability to meet invasive plant control objectives. Native Vegetation and Treatment Effectiveness Vehicles used for treatments will be properly cleaned of any plant or plant parts prior to entering national forest system lands and again before leaving the treated area to avoid further spread of invasives. Where treatments result in exposing bare mineral soil, those sites will be evaluated to determine the need for revegetation (seeding and/or planting), mulching, or other erosion or sediment control measures. The evaluation would consider the potential for subsequent reinvasion by invasive species, potential for erosion, water runoff, and/or stream sedimentation. Where seeding is used, certified weed-free seed will be required. Seed mixes will be based on site-specific conditions and objectives. Herbicide application methods will be limited to localized, ground-based spot, or broadcast spraying. In areas with sensitive vegetation, spot application will be used to treat individual invasive plants to protect native vegetation. After treatment, livestock grazing will be deferred or targeted during specific periods where needed to achieve invasive treatment objectives, based on site-specific conditions. This will be accomplished by coordinating with permittees and adjusting their annual operating instructions as necessary. All invasive plants or parts of plants that are mechanically or hand excavated after flower bud stage will be double bagged and properly disposed of at an approved facility (e.g. covered landfill). Use of prescribed fire must adhere to restrictions contained in the Forest Plan and agency directives, requirements for detailed burn prescriptions, and other requirements intended to avoid unexpected consequences. DN/FONSI Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/Invasive Plants 5

6 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species and General Wildlife If herbicides are to be sprayed within potential habitat for any T, E, or S plant species, a survey of that habitat will be conducted if possible. If no survey is conducted, the potential habitat will be treated as if occupied by the T, E, or S plant, and the mitigation that follows (for occupied habitats) applies. Within 25 feet of any occupied T, E, or S plant species habitat, only non-herbicide methods with appropriate disturbance controls or invasive plant-specific herbicide spot treatment will be used. Herbicides must be applied by hand to individual invasives (e.g. wand from backpack sprayer, or on gloves, wicks, or rags) and no spraying of herbicides from vehicles will take place. Design ground-disturbing activities (pulling, digging, etc.) to avoid trampling or other direct impacts to T, E, or S plant species. To protect the Alamosa springsnail, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be consulted before implementation of an herbicide program for control of invasive species within 1 mile of Alamosa Warm Spring. In addition, glypohsate (e.g., Rodeo 7), and imazapyr (e.g., Habitat7) will not be used in the watershed flowing into Alamosa Warm Spring (refer to map attachment 1). If herbicide or prescribed fire treatments will be conducted within the reasonable dispersal distance of the Chiricahua leopard frog from a known frog population, which, in this case is 1 mile overland from Alamosa warm springs and Alamosa Creek; and 3 miles along ephemeral drainages that drain to the perennial portion of Alamosa Creek, the Forest Service will consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service prior to herbicide or prescribed fire treatment within that area. The Forest Service will conduct surveys for Chiricahua leopard frog where there is the potential for the frog to occur prior to any herbicide or prescribed fire treatment. If a new location for Chiricahua leopard frog is observed, the Forest Service will consult with the Service prior to herbicide or prescribed fire treatment. Within T & E species wildlife habitat (other than Chiricahua leopard frog and Alamosa springsnail); conduct surveys for the species prior to implementation of treatments exceeding one acre in size, if feasible. If surveys are not feasible prior to implementation, that area will be treated as if occupied. Within occupied T & E species habitats, avoid loud, persistent noise disturbance or modifications of breeding habitat features. If a potentially adverse effect cannot be avoided, or if repeated herbicide treatments are necessary within a given year, develop a supplemental biological assessment and consult with USFWS to determine the appropriate mitigation measures. For occupied or unsurveyed Mexican spotted owl, peregrine falcon, yellow-billed cuckoo, lesser prairie-chicken, and Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat, implement applicable breeding season restrictions as specified in Forest Plans and Recovery Plans for those species. In addition, herbicides rated as Class 2 in the Avian Predator Toxicity Group (e.g. Dicamba) will not be used in occupied or unsurveyed habitat of these species. For occupied Prairie dog towns spot applications should occur in place of broadcast spraying so that treatment scale and harm to habitat is reduced. In addition, herbicides should only be applied once per year in these areas. 6 DN/FONSI Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/Invasive Plants

7 For occupied sensitive wildlife species habitat where individuals in the population may be negatively impacted, consult with the Forest biologist on methods that have been documented to have low risk to wildlife species. Apply mitigation measures that minimize those negative impacts to individuals while continuing to maintain population viability and avoid a trend toward Federal listing. Herbicide applications will be limited to those herbicides and application rates documented to have a low risk to wildlife species. In areas with bighorn sheep populations controlled grazing with sheep or goats will be prohibited. Monitoring Invasive plant inventories and mapping will be conducted annually, and treatment of newly found populations will be identified and prioritized based on criteria in the EA. Treated sites will be monitored and results evaluated (documented) per Forest Service Regional Supplement to FSM , to determine: - Effectiveness of the method(s) used in meeting the objective; - Whether impacts to resources or people were within the scope of EA predictions; and - Implementation and effectiveness of mitigation measures, and whether mitigations should be modified or added to enhance effectiveness. Changes in treatment prescriptions made as a result of monitoring and evaluation, and treatments prescribed for newly found invasive plant populations must adhere to all mitigation and monitoring requirements in the EA, and the actions and effects must be within the scope of those considered in the EA. New information will be considered in accordance with Forest Service Handbook (FSH) , Sec. 18, to determine the need for additional environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The evaluation and decision by the Responsible Official regarding consistency with the EA will be documented in the project record. If this analysis does not cover the effects resulting from new information, the Responsible Official will commence a new analysis. Reasons for the Decision I have selected Alternative B, the Integrated Strategy, because it offers the most effective treatment of invasive plants by using the full range of treatment options to eradicate, control, or contain invasive plants where they occur. The combination of treatment methods, including manual, mechanical, biological, controlled grazing, prescribed burning, cultural, and herbicidal methods will be tailored to fit each site-specific situation and each type of invasive plant. By proposing several methods for invasive plant control, this approach recognizes that using only one management method is unlikely to be effective in all situations. Alternative C, the treatment alternative that would not provide for herbicide use, would not be as effective in controlling noxious and invasive plant infestations. Many of the plants that have DN/FONSI Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/Invasive Plants 7

8 become established on the forest, or have the potential to become established, have characteristics that make them resistant to manual, mechanical and cultural control methods. Alternative A, No Action, would provide for no new options to treat invasive plants. The current trends of increasing invasive plant infestation would continue, which is unacceptable. Alternative B includes an adaptive management strategy to allow treating newly discovered plant infestations that are likely to occur as well as to modify treatment methods in the future based on monitoring results. The adaptive strategy involves evaluating new infestation treatment prescriptions or modified treatment methods against the scope of the actions and effects analyzed in the EA to ensure consistency with the environmental analysis. New or modified treatments would incorporate applicable mitigation measures described in this decision to avoid adverse impacts. An adaptive strategy is common to invasive plant control projects because failure to deal immediately with new infestations is likely to lead to much larger-scale and more intensive treatments in the future. Due to the enactment of mitigation measures listed above, there would be a low risk to ecological attributes and social factors. There will be low risk of herbicide or other treatment impacts to wildlife based on each herbicide s EPA ratings, risk assessment, and mitigation measures. Although some short-term reduction in some non-target plants may occur, native wildlife habitat quality will eventually improve as invasive plants are eradicated and controlled and improvement in abundance and diversity of native plant communities occurs over the longterm. There is a low risk of health impacts from using herbicides, to workers or general public based on EPA ratings, risk assessments, and other mitigation measures. Public notification of treated areas, closures, and letters to those interested in treatment information will allow for avoidance of treated areas. Furthermore, with this integrated strategy, the agency is more likely to be able to enter into cooperative invasive plant management agreements, implement effective management strategies, and prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species as required by federal, state, and local laws. This decision to implement an integrated management strategy is consistent with the intent of the Cibola National Forest and Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan's long term goals and objectives. This project was developed considering the best available science. Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the selected alternative, I considered two other alternatives in detail as described on pages of the EA. A summary comparison of these alternatives can be found in the EA on pages Alternative A No Action Under the No Action Alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. Proposed invasive species control actions would not occur on the districts, except those approved under other environmental analysis documents and those being implemented by other jurisdictions within the forest and grassland boundaries such as those along federal, state, and county roads. 8 DN/FONSI Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/Invasive Plants

9 Alternative C Non-Herbicide Control Methods This alternative was developed to respond to public comments related to herbicide use, specifically concerns regarding human health and safety and impacts to wildlife and fish. Invasive plant treatments would use all the integrated methods except herbicides. This alternative requires the same mitigation measures, adaptive management strategy, treatment selection criteria and other factors described for Alternative B. Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Study In addition to the three alternatives discussed in detail in the EA, the Forest received suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these methods were determined to be outside the scope of this project and not consistent with the purpose and need in that they would not adequately eradicate, contain, control, or prevent invasive species within the Forest. The following briefly describes alternatives that were considered but eliminated from detailed study, along with the reasons for eliminating them. Aerial Herbicide Application Treating invasive plant populations with aerial spraying from an airplane or helicopter was considered. Although aerial application can be an effective means of controlling or eradicating very large infestations, most invasive plant occurrences on the Forest are relatively small and along existing roads or trails. Aerial herbicide application was eliminated from detailed study since such a broad, landscape level approach would not be necessary to achieve the purpose and need of this project. Invasive Plant Prevention An alternative to use invasive plant prevention rather than herbicides or other treatments was suggested by the public during project scoping. The intent would be to restrict human activities that promote the spread of invasives. Invasive plant prevention is already being used on the Forest and is often integrated as a mitigation measure during planning for ground-disturbing projects, such as the requirement to wash vehicles prior to use on the Forest. While prevention is a very important part of any invasive species management program, it will not reduce or control existing populations on the Forest. Thus, prevention methods alone would not meet the purpose and need for this project proposal. Prevention actions typically do not require NEPA documentation for implementation. Organic Treatment Methods Another alternative using methods common in organic gardens, nurseries, and other public places was eliminated. These methods include covering invasive plants with newspaper and dirt, rubber mats, and other means without disturbing the ground. There is limited experience and little study to show that using these methods would be effective to meet the purpose and need on a forest-wide scale. In addition, these methods are not practical to use in this situation where invasives are scattered and isolated. Organic or non-herbicide treatment methods could, however, be used on sites where those methods are likely to be effective. Another treatment method, steaming, was proposed as an alternative to herbicide treatment. Steaming would be impractical and ineffective for the areas and species on the Forest requiring treatment. DN/FONSI Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/Invasive Plants 9

10 Hand-Pulling and Limited Herbicide Use An alternative using manual methods such as hand-pulling and herbicide use limited to only two herbicides, aminopyralid and metsulfuron, was suggested in a response to scoping. This alternative is a reduced level of the integrated methods contained in the proposed action. Handpulling and limited herbicide use would not meet the purpose and need for this project. Many of the invasive species such as knapweed and salt cedar are deep rooted species that would not be effectively controlled by top growth removal. The limitation on herbicide use would not provide effective control for all species being considered for treatment. Public Involvement The Cibola National Forest has invited public comment on the treatment of invasive plants since developing an initial proposal in From 1999 through 2005 the forest provided the opportunity to comment on three occasions. In April and May, 2009, the District Rangers for the four units included in this proposal invited public comments on the scope of this proposal. In addition, the project was listed on the forest s Schedule of Proposed Actions beginning with the 3rd Quarter of 2009 report, which was published in April The responses received as the result of all the previous and current scoping were used to identify issues and develop alternatives for the project. Some comments supported the proposal including the integrated approach that involves the use of herbicides, as long as appropriate oversight is given and efforts are coordinated with adjacent land jurisdictions. Other comments expressed concern over the use of herbicides, and favored having an alternative that did not include herbicides. The interdisciplinary team identified an unresolved conflict regarding effects of herbicides on (1) human health and safety; (2) wildlife and fish; and (3) native plants including rare and sensitive plant species. The no herbicide alternative was developed to address this unresolved conflict. On July 22, 2010 the Cibola National Forest sent a letter signed by Forest Supervisor Nancy Rose to interested and affected individuals, agencies and organizations notifying them of the opportunity to comment on the proposed action for Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/Invasive Plants, as required by the Forest Service notice, comment, and appeal regulations at 36 CFR 215. Those who had commented on the proposal during scoping received a copy of the EA to facilitate commenting. Those who had not commented on the project previously received a letter with a link to the WWW-site where the EA could be either viewed or downloaded. The letter notified the recipients that the publication date for the legal notice required by the notice, comment and appeal regulation was projected to be July 28. Legal notices for the 30-day comment period were published in the following newspapers: Albuquerque Journal 7/28/2010 Boise City News 7/29/2010 Dalhart Texan 7/28/2010 Union County Leader 7/28/ DN/FONSI Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/Invasive Plants

11 Based on the latest publication date of the legal notice, the comment period began July 30 and the last day for comments was August 30, The forest received 3 responses; none of the responses were postmarked or received between the date of publication of the legal notice and the last day for comment on the proposed action. All of the comments were submitted electronically, one on July 27, 2010 and two on August 31, Finding of No Significant Impact After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, I have determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR ). Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. I base my finding on the following: 1. My finding of no significant environmenal effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action. 2. There will be no significant effects on public health and safety. The primary concern expressed by the public related to the safety of herbicides. Alternative B provides measures to protect the workers and the public from uninteded exposures to herbicides. The effects analysis in the EA (see EA, pages 88-95) and the risk assessments summarized in Appendix A of the EA (pages ) provide analysis and evidence that the herbicides to be used present a low risk of adverse effects on human health and safety at the levels proposed for use. 3. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area. No prime farmlands or parklands exist in the project area. The risks to historic and cultural resources would be low (EA, pages 70-77). Given the low likelihood of impacts from treatments, implementation of this alternative would have little effect on designated critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl (EA, page 159). Implementing the Alternative would have a very low risk of adversely impacting water quality. This low risk of adverse impacts applies to all surface water, wetlands and flood plains, including stream reaches identified as impaired in the State s 303(d) report (EA, pages 45-48). 4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. While the use of herbicides may be controversial as a matter of policy, the risk assessments summarized in the EA (EA, pages and ) are supported by the preponderance of scientific evidence. The risk assessments provide sound determinations that at the use levels proposed in this project, herbicides present a low risk for adverse effects on humans, and physical and biological components of the environment. 5. We have considerable experience with the types of activities to be implemented. The effects analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk (see EA, pages ). DN/FONSI Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/Invasive Plants 11

12 6. The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects. The treatments provide for treatment of invasive and noxious plants and restoration of native plant communities (see EA, pages 36-42). 7. The cumulative impacts are not significant (see EA, pages 41-42, 49-50, 56-57, 59, 61, 67, 69, 74, 77, 80-81, 84, 86, 88, and 95). 8. The action will have no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, because it will adhere to the Standard Consultation Protocol for Noxious Weed Control developed by the Forest Service s Region 3, the Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (see EA, pages 73-74). The initiation of invasive plant control projects will be contingent upon completion of the identification and protection of historic properties and compliance with the Standard Consultation Protocol for Noxious Weed Control. (see EA pages , Standard Consultation Protocol for Noxious Weed Control) 9. The action will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species act of The Biological Assessment (BA) prepared for this project determined that the treatment of noxious and invasive plant species may affect, is not likely to adversely affect the Mexican spotted owl (MSO), MSO critical habitat, northern aplomado falcon, southwestern willow flycatcher, Chiricahua leopard frog, Zuni fleabane, and Alamosa springsnail (see BA in project record). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with these findings on September 28, The measures identified by the USFWS have been incorporated into the mitigations described in the Decision Notice. 10. The action will not violate Federal, State, and local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA. The action is consistent with the Cibola National Forest and Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan (see EA pages 50, 57, 59, 81, 84, 95, 88). Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations This decision to treat noxious and invasive plants on the districts through an integrated management approach is consistent with the intent of the management direction on pages 33 to 34 of the Cibola National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended. The project was designed in conformance with land and resource management plan standards and incorporates appropriate land and resource management plan guidelines for the management areas where treatments may be taken under this decision (Cibola National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, pages and ). 12 DN/FONSI Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/Invasive Plants

13

14 Pesticide Precautionary Statement This publication provides information about the characteristics and effects of herbicides that may be used for this project. It does not contain recommendations for their use, nor does it imply that the uses discussed here have been registered. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers. The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service 14 DN/FONSI Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/Invasive Plants

15