Environmental Assessment

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service October 2012 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration Apalachicola and Wakulla Ranger Districts, Apalachicola National Forest Liberty, Leon, Franklin, and Wakulla Counties For Information Contact: Jana Mott P.O Box 579 Bristol, FL

2

3 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

4

5 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration Table of Contents Summary... i 1. Introduction... ii Document Structure... 1 Background... 1 Purpose and Need for Action... 2 Proposed Action... 3 Decision Framework... 4 Public Involvement Issues and Alternatives... 5 Issues... 5 Alternatives... 6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study... 6 Implementation Measures Environmental Consequences... 8 Physical Environment... 9 Biological Environment Socio-Economic Environment Consultation and Coordination References Appendix A, Public Involvement Appendix B, Figures Appendix C, Pesticide Use Proposal Appendix D, Pesticide Emergency Spill Plan... 38

6

7 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration SUMMARY The Apalachicola National Forest proposes restoration activities to improve breeding habitat for the frosted flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) and striped newt (Notophthalmus perstriatus). These actions respond to the goals and objectives outlined in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in Florida (USDA-FS 1999, p. 2-3, 2-4), and help move the project area towards the desired conditions described in that plan. Restoration activities would occur in isolated wetlands (also known as seasonal ponds or ephemeral ponds) across the Apalachicola National Forest; located in Leon, Liberty, Franklin, and Wakulla Counties, FL. There are currently 686 potential flatwoods salamander and 112 potential striped newt breeding ponds identified across the forest (Figure 1). These ponds range in size from 0.1 acre to over 10 acres with an average of about 1 acre per pond. Only a small subset of ponds would be treated at any given time, based on their condition and funding availability. The proposed action includes cutting understory and mid-story hardwood vegetation with hand tools, chainsaws, and brush-cutters. Stumps and additional hardwood vegetation would be treated with herbicide to reduce re-sprouting. The removed woody material would be scattered or placed in small piles in the uplands surrounding each wetland, potentially affecting a radius of roughly 300 feet from the edge of the pond. The ponds selected for these proposed treatments are either currently known breeding habitat or have a high potential of becoming habitat following restoration. The Forest Service evaluated the following alternatives: No Action (Alternative 1) in which on-going forest management activities would continue Proposed Action (Alternative 2) summarized above Actions without Herbicide (Alternative 3) in which herbicide would not be used to treat stumps or vegetation. The cutting and scattering or piling of woody vegetation would still occur. The effects of each of these alternatives are analyzed and presented in Chapter 3 of this document, and form the basis of the decision made by the responsible official. i

8 Isolated Wetlands Restoration Environmental Assessment Figure 1: Seasonal Ponds on the Apalachicola National Forest ii

9 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration 1. INTRODUCTION Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four parts: Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on comments from the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures. Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by environmental component. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow. Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Apalachicola Ranger District Office in Bristol, FL. Background The frosted flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) is currently listed as a Threatened Species by US Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), with habitat loss and degradation identified as a significant factor causing its decline (Palis, 1992; USFWS, 2009). The Apalachicola National Forest (ANF) has the largest remaining concentration of known populations, containing 21 of the 37 known populations whose presence has been verified since ,820 acres of Critical Habitat have been designated on the Apalachicola National Forest by US Fish and Wildlife service, also under the ESA. Critical Habitat and surrounding areas must be managed to maintain or improve habitat quality for frosted flatwoods salamanders. While much of this area is in good condition, portions have become degraded over time due to several factors, including fire 1

10 Isolated Wetlands Restoration Environmental Assessment suppression. It is imperative to the survival of the species that degraded habitat on the ANF be restored. The striped newt (Notophthalmus perstriatus) is currently being reviewed by US Fish and Wildlife Service as a candidate for federal listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Like the frosted flatwoods salamander, habitat loss and degradation is thought to be a significant factor causing the decline of the species (USFWS 2010). One of the largest groups of breeding ponds used by striped newts throughout its range is found on the Apalachicola National Forest, and improving the degraded breeding habitat on the ANF will be critical for the recovery of the species (Means et.al., 1994). Both species use isolated wetlands, or seasonal ponds, as breeding habitat primarily during the winter months. They lay eggs in the water that hatch into aquatic larvae. Eventually they metamorphose into adults, which are capable of living in the uplands surrounding the ponds. The ponds are termed seasonal due to a recurrent nature of drying and re-filling. The amount of time the ponds hold water is the hydroperiod, which varies according to many geologic, ecological, and climatic factors. Frosted flatwoods salamanders and striped newts lay eggs just before or during the time of year the ponds hold water. If the hydroperiod is long enough, the larvae will have time to develop into adults. However, if the pond does not dry at all, it can become habitat for fish species which prey on the larvae of these salamanders. Purpose and Need for Action Breeding ponds for both the frosted flatwoods salamander and the striped newt are ideally characterized by relatively open overstory and mid-story vegetation, with emergent grassy and herbaceous groundcover that the larvae use as cover. Frosted flatwoods salamanders use ponds primarily within the longleaf pine flatwoods and savanna ecosystem. Striped newts on the Apalachicola National Forest use ponds that are part of the drier longleaf pine sandhill ecosystem. In both systems, these seasonal ponds dry out during the spring and become available fuel during wildland fire (Ripley and Printiss, 2005; Means, 2008). The structure of these pond habitats were historically maintained by fire, which suppresses fast growing woody vegetation and stimulates the herbaceous groundcover that these salamander species use during the aquatic portion of their lifecycle. However, due to limitations on the frequency of prescribed fire and the presence of water in these ponds during prescribed fire operations, many of these ponds have not successfully burned in many years even though the surrounding uplands may burn regularly. The result is the shading and disappearance of groundcover and encroachment of woody species in the pond basin and ecotone, or the transition zone between the wetland and upland habitat. The increased number and size of woody shrubs require more water, further reducing the amount of time is the ponds hold sufficient water for larvae to transform into adults and move into the uplands. Focusing on prescribed fire in seasonal pond basins may not be enough on its own to quickly achieve the desired future condition and restore these areas into the best possible habitat for these species of concern. Severely encroached ponds may require extremely dry conditions for the woody vegetation to be consumed by fire. Extreme conditions and large amounts of 2

11 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration woody vegetation could make fire more difficult to control. Burning under these conditions may not be safe or allowed for under Forest Service regulations. In some cases, other methods of controlling woody vegetation may be needed. Once the encroaching vegetation is removed, fire can then be more easily and safely used to maintain these ponds in the desired condition. The purpose of this project is to rapidly restore frosted flatwoods salamander and striped newt breeding habitat to suitable conditions by reducing understory and mid-story hardwood encroachment and increasing herbaceous groundcover abundance. This action is needed because current management is not successful, and many of the ponds have become encroached beyond the point that fire can be safe and effective. After the woody vegetation is removed, the previously approved prescribed fire program should be sufficient to maintain high-quality breeding pond habitat. This action responds to the following goals and objectives outlined in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in Florida (Forest Plan, p. 2-3,2-4), and helps move the project area towards desired conditions described in that plan: #6: Maintain, or where necessary, restore ecosystem composition, structure, and function within the natural range of variability in all ecosystems, with emphasis on longleaf pine-wiregrass, sand pine-oak scrub, pine flatwoods, hardwood/cypress, oak hammock ecosystems, and other imperiled specialized communities. #7: Manage floodplains, groundwater, lakes, riparian areas, springs, streams, and wetlands to protect or enhance their individual values and ecological functions. #8: Conserve and protect important elements of diversity such as endangered and threatened species habitat, declining natural communities, and uncommon biological, ecological, or geological sites. #9: Manage for habitat conditions to recover and sustain viable populations of all native species, with special emphasis on rare species. With regard to the frosted flatwoods salamander, this proposal also addresses Forest Plan standard WL-16, which was revised in the Forest Plan Amendment 8 (USDA-FS 2009) to state within Critical Habitat established by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and within 1500 feet of known and potential salamander breeding ponds...use chemical treatment to control undesirable hardwoods, shrubs, or noxious weeds in cases where fire or mechanical treatments are not effective. Proposed Action The Forest Service proposes to utilize hand tools and herbicide on understory and mid-story hardwoods to improve breeding habitat for both the frosted flatwoods salamander and the striped newt. Understory and mid-story hardwood vegetation would be manually cut with chainsaws, brush cutters, and/or hand tools and removed to the uplands. Herbicide would then be applied selectively to reduce re-sprouting, and to control small diameter woody 3

12 Isolated Wetlands Restoration Environmental Assessment vegetation. Only direct application methods would be used. There are currently 685 seasonal ponds identified as existing or potential frosted flatwoods salamander habitat, and 112 identified as existing or potential striped newt habitat (Figure 1). These ponds range in size from 0.1 acre to over 10 acres with an average of about 1 acre per pond. Not all ponds identified as habitat need treatment. Some offer appropriate habitat already as a result of effective prescribed burning. Small subsets would be identified for hand tool and herbicide treatment as the project progresses over time and funding becomes available. Once the treatment has achieved the desired condition, prescribed fire would be used for maintenance and further improvement. Priority areas to be treated would be known breeding ponds, those nearby which are degraded, and ponds that have a high potential to become breeding habitat if the hardwood encroachment is reduced and the additional sunlight reaching the ground along with prescribed fire encourages herbaceous groundcover. Priority will also be given to areas that have complementary projects planned in the near term, such as upcoming previously approved prescribed fire operations. All identified priority ponds would be mapped before treatment. The kind of herbicide to be used would be determined and a pesticide use proposal will be completed for each area. Herbicides being considered for analysis and use include glyphosate, imazapyr, and triclopyr, all of which have formulations approved for use in wetland areas. Any circumstances that require special considerations, including but not limited to the proximity of private land and the presence of other threatened or endangered species, would be recorded and mitigation implemented. Herbicide would not be applied within 100 feet of private land. Decision Framework Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action and the other alternatives in order to make the following decisions: 1. Which alternative best meets the purpose and need of the proposal. 2. How each alternative addresses the issues developed by the interdisciplinary team and through public involvement. 3. What management requirements, mitigation measures and monitoring are necessary to protect other resources and achieve other resource objectives. 4. Which alternative to implement, or that there are significant effects that require further analysis in an Environmental Impact Statement. Public Involvement The proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on June 26, The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping May 8-May 22, Comments were received from 5 individuals and are summarized in Appendix A. 4

13 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration 2. ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES Issues As part of the scoping process, the Forest Service identifies individual points from public comments, responds to the comments and determines their relevance to the proposed action (see Appendix A). Specific comments are first categorized as issues or non-issues. Non-issues include questions, requests for information, general statements and expressions of opinion that do not indicate a specific disagreement with the proposed action related to potential effects. Issue statements are formulated from public comments that present cause and effect relationships between the proposed action and anticipated environmental consequences. After issues are identified, the Forest Service determines their relevance to the proposed action and analysis of environmental effects. Issues that are outside the scope of the proposed action, are already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision, are irrelevant to the decision being made, or are conjectural and not supported by evidence are considered not relevant to the decision being made. Therefore, they are usually not used to formulate alternative actions or modify the proposed action. Issues that are relevant to the proposed action may be used to identify unintended consequences of the proposed action, develop alternative actions, reduce potential effects through mitigation measures or focus analysis on the relationship between the alternatives and specific resource concerns. Three issues were identified from the public scoping of this proposed action: 1. The proposed application of herbicides could have undesirable consequences on rare plants and unknown but potentially harmful effects on the frosted flatwoods salamander and striped newt. 2. The efficacy of herbicides is unproven in these systems and, therefore, the proposed actions may not address the problem of woody encroachment in the ponds. 3. The proposed application of herbicides would be expensive, which could reduce resources available for higher priority activities. These issues were used to develop an alternative to the proposed action and to focus the analysis on specific resource concerns to better compare the effects of the alternatives. 5

14 Isolated Wetlands Restoration Environmental Assessment Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action The No Action Alternative is required by NEPA and defined as a continuation of current management activities in the project area. Actions approved under other existing environmental documents would continue to be implemented. Alternative 2 The Proposed Action This alternative would implement the proposed action as described on pages 3-4 of this document. Alternative 3 No Herbicide Alternative This alternative would implement part of the Proposed Action Alternative, in which the Forest Service would treat existing and potential breeding ponds for the striped newt and frosted flatwoods salamander with manual removal of woody vegetation. However, this alternative would exclude the use of herbicides. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Burning stumps with Propane/Butane torches One public comment suggested the use of propane or butane torches to burn stumps after cutting. This alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed study. The Forest Service is required to follow the directives in the Forest Service Manual section 5100 for all fire activities. This activity would fall under FSM 5140, which deals specifically with prescribed fire, and would be subject to NEPA. It would require the presence of a Burn Boss, qualified fire personnel, equipment, and a permit obtained from the Florida Forest Service. Propane or butane torches may not meet Forest Service safety requirements. Additionally, research suggests that burning stumps is not more effective than herbicide at reducing stump sprouting (Nagel et.al, 2008; Ward et.al, 2009). For these reasons, this alternative is not being evaluated as an alternative to herbicide use. 6

15 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration Coordination Measures In response to public comments on the proposal, coordination measures were developed or clarified from other documents to reduce the likelihood of potential adverse impacts of the proposed action on the following resources: Vegetation, including PETS: Use the herbicide in accordance with the registration label. No aerial or broadcast spraying will occur. No herbicide would be applied within 60 feet of known threatened or endangered plants. Wildlife, including PETS: Use the herbicide in accordance with the registration label. No cut material would be deposited within 200 of a known red-cockaded woodpecker tree. No cut material would be deposited within 25 of a gopher tortoise burrow entrance. No aerial or broadcast spraying would occur. Treatment would not occur during frosted flatwoods salamander breeding season, identified as October through May or when ponds dry completely in the spring. Soil/Water: Use only Forest Service approved herbicides that are labeled for use in and around wetland areas of this type. Any gross applications (spills) would be handled according to the Pesticide Emergency Spill Plan (Appendix D). Public Health and Safety: Use herbicides in accordance with registration label. Place herbicide notice signs at treatment sites. Herbicide notice signs (FSH ) would be clearly posted, and would include the application date, the herbicide used, and safe reentry date. Private lands would not be treated. No herbicide would be applied within 100 feet of private land. No herbicide would be applied within 100 feet of any public or domestic water source. The Pesticide Use Handbook (FSH ) and the Health and Safety Code Handbook (FSH ) would be used as guidance for workers. Workers who apply herbicides would be trained to ensure minimum impacts and maximum effectiveness. Only those methods that assure proper application of herbicides would be used. Herbicide application by contract and/or in-house personnel would be performed by or directly supervised by the holder of a current Federal Pesticide Applicator s license following all current legal application procedures administered by the USDA Forest Service and the label on the herbicide container. Additionally, implementation would follow mitigation measures from Appendix A of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Vegetation Management Final EIS for the Coastal Plain/Piedmont (VM FEIS CP/P), 1989; Best Management Practices (BMP) for the State of Florida 2004 revision, and the applicable standards in the Forest Plan. Previous experience with the activities included in the proposed action suggests that these implementation 7

16 Isolated Wetlands Restoration Environmental Assessment measures will effectively reduce potential negative effects of herbicide on natural resources and human health and safety. Monitoring and determination of what measures would be needed is done through sitespecific analyses with a Pesticide Use Proposal (Appendix C), onsite inspections, and posttreatment evaluations. Relevant standards and guidelines that are in addition to measures in the ROD, BMPs, and Forest Plan would also be followed. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in Table 1 below. Table 1: Comparison of Environmental Effect by Alternative Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Proposed Action Alternative 3 No Herbicide Application Soil Productivity No change from current conditions No measureable change from current conditions No measurable change from current conditions Water Quality No change from current conditions Hydroperiod of isolated wetlands could increase. Hydroperiod of isolated wetlands could increase, but re-sprouting hardwood vegetation would make this effect short-term. Air Quality No change from current conditions No measureable change from current conditions No measureable change from current conditions Vegetation Without treatment, encroachment would likely increase, shading out herbaceous species. Woody vegetation would be reduced. Some herbaceous individuals would be injured or killed, but overall light dependant herbaceous species would increase in abundance. Woody vegetation would be top-killed, but would likely resprout heavily. Some herbaceous individuals would be injured or killed. Re-sprouting woody vegetation would negatively impact herbaceous vegetation. 8

17 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration Plant PETS Habitat conditions for species preferring open sunlit conditions would continue to decline gradually. Habitat conditions for species preferring open sunlit conditions would improve on treated acres. Habitat conditions for species preferring open sunlit conditions would continue to decline in treated acres because effects would only in the short term. Wildlife PETS This alternative would have no effects on PETS animals with the exception of those that depend on isolated wetland habitat because their habitat would continue to decline. This alternative would have minimal effects to PETS species except for those that depend on isolated wetlands. This alternative would improve habitat for these species. This alternative would have minimal effects on PETS animals with the exception of those that depend on isolated wetland habitat because their habitat would continue to decline. Public Health and Safety No impact to Public Health and Safety No measureable impact to Public Health and Safety No measureable impact to Public Health and Safety Heritage Resources No impact to Heritage Resources No impact to Heritage Resources No impact to Heritage Resources Visual Quality No impact to Visual Quality No measureable impact to Visual Quality No measureable impact to Visual Quality Economics No change from current conditions No impact on local economy. Some cost to Forest Service, though alternate funding opportunities may be available. No impact on local economy. Slightly lower cost to Forest Service than Alternative 2, though alternate funding opportunities may not be as readily available. Civil Rights and Environmental Justice No Effect No Effect No Effect Physical Environment 9

18 Isolated Wetlands Restoration Environmental Assessment Soil Productivity The isolated wetlands proposed for restoration occur on relatively small depressions of poorly drained soils embedded within the majority of soil types present across the Apalachicola National Forest. The surrounding upland drainage ranges from very poorly to excessively drained. Detailed explanations of the soils present across the Forest can be found in Soils and Vegetation of the Apalachicola National Forest, The primary concerns for soil productivity due to forest management are soil compaction, soil movement, and microbial activity. Alternative 1 No Action Some soil movement would occur due to ongoing forest management, which is generally minimal. Ongoing management includes prescribed fire operations. Alternative 2 Proposed Action The only potential direct impacts to soil through equipment use would be vehicles traveling on existing roadways to a work site. Based on specific mitigation measures found in, but not exclusive to Chapter II, Vol. 1 (pp. II-57-65) and Appendix A of the VM-FEIS CP/P ROD and Best Management Practices (BMP'S) for the State of Florida, compaction or rutting is not expected to occur or is expected to be negligible in the treatment area and the travel way. Long-term soil productivity would not be affected by erosion or loss of surface horizons through the use of treatment equipment. The potential effect of herbicides on soils should also be considered. According to Appendix C of the VM-FEIS CP/P, There is a general consensus that herbicide usage at normal forestry rates does not reduce the activity of soil micro-organisms. There is no evidence that the herbicides currently used in forest management in the South produce any adverse effects on site and soil productivity (pp. C-10). Glyphosate This herbicide is not soil active, and not mobile in soil. It is strongly adsorbed to soil particles and organic matter. It is deactivated rapidly by muddy water or water with high calcium content. It decomposes by microbial activity with a moderate half-life of about 60 days. Imazapyr This herbicide is soil active, however soil mobility is relatively low. Imazapyr appears to bind loosely to clay particles and organic matter. Soil activity expresses itself during the period of spring leaf expansion. Applications made from late June through mid- September produce little to no evidence of soil activity. It is moderately persistent, with a half-life reported to be days, though soil residues may persist significantly longer during periods of cold weather. Decomposition is primarily by photolysis. Triclopyr This herbicide is not soil active. It is generally non-mobile in soils, though gross applications (spills) or misapplications may show some mobility. It has a moderately short half-life of days with an average of 30 days. It is degraded both by soil microbes and by photolysis. 10

19 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration No effects from the past, present and future activities were identified that would combine with the effects of the proposed action and result in a measurable cumulative effect for soils resources. Alternative 3 No Herbicide Under this alternative, any potential soil impacts beyond ongoing forest activity would be negligible, as described in the first paragraph of Alternative 2 above. Water Quality The Apalachicola National Forest contains 671 miles of perennial streams and 280,017 acres of wetlands. This treatment will occur throughout the forest, within the six major watersheds: Apalachicola River, Lost Creek, New River, Ochlockonee River, Sopchoppy River, and Wakulla River (Forest Plan FEIS, p. 3-8). The proposed treatment deals specifically with isolated wetlands or seasonal ponds across the forest. As described previously in this document, these wetlands hold water intermittently throughout the year, based on seasonal rainfall patterns. The amount of time water is held (hydroperiod) depends on rainfall, the depth and size of the basin, underlying geology and soils, evapotranspiration, and tree canopy cover. The hydroperiod can vary from year to year. Sediment is one source of impact to water quality, specifically the amount of sediment delivered and stored within a stream channel. Sediment impacts are dependent on the amount of erosion produced by land disturbing activities, intensity and duration of storm events occurring during the activities, proximity of the activities to a stream course, and the amount of sediment actually moving into the stream channels and remaining stored. Alternative 1 No Action The effects on water quality would occur only from existing conditions, natural processes, and previously approved activities. Sediment levels currently being produced from roads, agricultural lands, and wooded tracts would continue. Alternative 2 Proposed Action No ground disturbing activities are proposed, and increased erosion is not likely to occur from this alternative. There would be no cumulative effects of sedimentation on water quality. Sediment levels currently being produced from roads, agricultural lands, and wooded tracts would continue. The cutting and removal of woody vegetation from seasonally dry ponds would reduce the amount of evaporation and transpiration occurring within the pond basin, and increase the hydroperiod. The use of herbicide to decrease the ability of these plants to re-sprout would make this effect long-term. 11

20 Isolated Wetlands Restoration Environmental Assessment Direct effects of herbicide application are the potential chemical contamination of surface waters and ground waters, particularly in striped newt breeding habitat where the surface water is likely directly connected to the ground water and the aquifer. Indirect effects are the potential increases in sediment and water yield. Following herbicide label requirements and mitigation measures would minimize any potential effects of herbicides to the water resource. Glyphosate - The herbicide glyphosate biodegrades into naturally occurring elements with no residual soil activity. It binds tightly to soil so it would not leach or wash to contaminate ground water or off-site vegetation. There are formulations registered for use in and around wetland areas, such as marshes, bogs, and seasonally dry wetlands. The VMEIS CP/P Aquatic Risk Analysis for glyphosate (Rodeo formulation) found no risk to aquatic species from a five gallon drum spill into a pond (VMEIS CP/P, Vol II, page 8-32). The direct, indirect, and cumulative effect on water quality from the use of this herbicide would be minimal. Solubility: Glyphosate dissolves easily in water. Potential for Leaching into Ground-Water: The potential for leaching is low. Glyphosate is strongly adsorbed to soil particles. Tests show that the half-life for glyphosate in water ranges from 35 to 63 days. The surfactant half-life ranges from three to four weeks. It is not soil active, and not mobile in soil. Glyphosate is strongly adsorbed to soil particles and organic matter and deactivated rapidly by muddy water or water with high calcium content. Glyphosate is decomposed by microbial activity with a moderate half-life of about 60 days. Surface Waters: Studies examined glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) residues in surface water after forest application in British Columbia with and without no-spray streamside zones. With a no-spray streamside zone, very low concentrations were sometimes found in water and sediment after the first heavy rain. Where glyphosate was sprayed over the stream, higher peak concentrations in water always occurred following heavy rain, up to three weeks after application. Glyphosate and AMPA residues peaked later in stream sediments, where they persisted for over one year. These residues were not easily released back into the water. Imazapyr - The herbicide imazapyr is soil active; however the soil mobility is relatively low. Imazapyr appears to bind loosely to clay particles and soil organic matter. Application made from late June through mid-september produces little or no evidence of soil activity. Application made after mid-september may result in residual soil activity during the following spring. There are formulations registered for use in and around wetland areas, such as marshes and bogs. The VMEIS CP/P Aquatic Risk Analysis for imazapyr found no risk to aquatic species from a five gallon drum spill into a pond (VMEIS CP/P, Vol II, page 8-35) Solubility: Imazapyr is soluble in water. Potential for Leaching into Ground-Water: Imazapyr has a low potential for leaching into ground-water. It is soil active; however soil mobility is relatively low. Imazapyr appears to bind loosely to clay particles and organic matter. Applications 12

21 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration made from late June through mid-september produce little or no evidence of soil activity. Surface Waters: Imazapyr may move from treated areas in streams. Most movement of imazapyr has been found in runoff from storms. The half-life of imazapyr in water is about four days. It is moderately persistent in soil; half-life has been reported at days. However, soil residues may persist significantly longer during periods of cold weather, low moisture, and low rainfall depending on soil type. Decomposition is primarily by photolysis. Triclopyr - The herbicide triclopyr has a moderate to low solubility in water. Under normal conditions, its potential for leaching is low since it binds to clay and organic matter in soil. Sunlight rapidly breaks down triclopyr in water, with a half-life of less than 24 hours. Solubility: Triclopyr has moderate to low solubility. Potential for Leaching into Ground-Water: The potential for leaching depends on the soil type, acidity, and rainfall conditions. Triclopyr should not be a leaching problem under normal conditions since it binds to clay and organic matter in soil. Triclopyr may leach from light soils if rainfall is very heavy. Triclopyr is not soil active. Generally non-mobile in soils; but misapplications (spills) of Garlon 3A may show some mobility and non-target root uptake and may contaminate ground water. Surface Waters: Sunlight rapidly breaks down Triclopyr in water. The half-life in water is less than 24 hours (10 hr. half-life at 25 C). It has a moderately short halflife of days with an average of 30 days, and is degraded both by soil microbes and by photolysis. The greatest hazards to surface and ground water quality results from a possible accident or mishandling of concentrates during storage, transport, application, mixing and loading, clean up and/or container disposal. Contamination of regional ground water aquifers is not likely even with intensive operational use of silvicultural herbicides. Current herbicide application technology exists to minimize herbicide residue movement into sensitive surface waters. Onsite degradation processes and in-stream dilution and degradation in streams result in quick dissipation of herbicide residues. Short-term water quality effects are minimal, and long term water quality is not adversely affected (VMEIS CP/P Appendix C). Because the direct and indirect effects of this action are not expected to have negative effects on the water resources, it is not expected that there would be any cumulative effects either. All other related impacts to the water resources would continue as usual with no change from or additions to resulting from this alternative. Alternative 3 No Herbicide Effects from this alternative are the same as described in alternative 2, except there would be no potential effects from the use of herbicide. 13

22 Isolated Wetlands Restoration Environmental Assessment Air Quality The Federal Clean Air Act stipulates that Federal agencies have an affirmative responsibility to protect a Forest s air quality from adverse air pollution impacts. The Proposed Action would not have the potential to noticeably change the air quality of the treatment areas or of the Forest as a whole. Any emissions from the use of motorized vehicles would be considered negligible. In addition, none of the proposed activities or alternatives would result in the generation of fugitive dust emissions in the project areas. Biological Environment Vegetation and Management Indicators Through an ecological classification system developed by the Forest Service, the lands on the National Forests in Florida have been assigned to Land Type Associations (LTA). This system uses soils, vegetation, and topography to identify and delineate areas of ecological similarity. The Forest Plan recognizes five LTAs on the Apalachicola NF, (USDA, 1999, D- 4-5). The isolated wetlands proposed for restoration are embedded in several of the LTA s found on the Apalachicola National Forest: Apalachicola Depressions and Uplands, Apalachicola Savannas, Munson Sandhills, and Apalachicola Bays and Flatwoods. All of these LTA s are primarily dominated by the longleaf pine forest type. This forest type has a longleaf pine overstory with an herbaceous understory, often with a significant wiregrass component. These systems are adapted to and maintained by frequent fire through the landscape, which includes the embedded isolated wetlands. Vegetative management indicators of the health of these systems are described by community type. Management indicators for the LTA s mentioned above relevant to isolated wetlands include perennial fire-dependent graminoids, titi, woody shrubs and trees, on-site sandhill trees and off-site sandhill trees. Abundance of perennial fire-dependent graminoids (a common component of herbaceous groundcover) indicates effective management. Overabundance of titi and other woody shrubs and trees indicates potential management problems. (USDA-FS 2011). The isolated wetlands on the Apalachicola National Forest range from having an open overstory to having a semi-closed cypress (Taxodium ascendens) or black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) overstory. The mid-story ranges from being open to being fully encroached by undesirable woody shrubs. These species include but are not limited to titi (Cyrilla racemiflora, Cliftonia monophylla), sweet pepperbush (Clethera alniflolia), and myrtle holly (Ilex myrtifolia) on wetter, flatwoods sites; and various oak species on drier, sandhill sites. The groundcover can range from being abundant and dominated by grasses, sedges, and other herbaceous species to being almost entirely bare ground. Often bare ground coincides with a heavily encroached mid-story. (Ripley and Printiss, 2005). 14

23 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration A large prescribed fire program is part of the current forest management, whose goals include maintaining ecological processes across the landscape. To a large extent these LTA s are in fairly good ecological condition and natural processes are occurring. However, in some areas the habitat is degraded. In many areas the upland habitat associated with the LTA s are in very good ecological condition, but the embedded isolated wetlands are degraded. For safety and regulatory reasons, prescribed fires often occur under conditions when the wetlands are too wet to carry fire effectively. When this happens, and fire is unable to maintain the herbaceous groundcover and top-kill the fast growing hardwood vegetation, encroachment occurs. Encroachment of hardwood vegetation has altered the native plant community as well as the fuel loading and potential fire intensity (Ripley and Printiss, 2005). The encroachment and the resulting lack of herbaceous vegetation has reduced the suitability and habitat quality of the areas for frosted flatwoods salamanders, striped newts, and other native species including PETS plants (Ripley and Printiss, 2005; Means 2008). Alternative 1 No Action Woody vegetation would not be cut, and herbicide would not be used. Existing management activities and conditions would continue, and woody encroachment would likely increase. Alternative 2 Proposed Action Under Alternative 2, some or all of the mid-story woody vegetation would be cut. The clearing of the mid-story vegetation would allow more sunlight to reach the ground, which would benefit the herbaceous vegetation in the groundcover layer. Groundcover would respond to the increase in sunlight, moisture, and nutrients. Cut woody vegetation would be removed to the uplands to enable consumption during regular prescribed fire operations, potentially affecting a radius of approximately 300 feet around the wetland basin. Cut material may affect existing vegetation on or near the placement location. A temporary increase in shading or smothering of the vegetation on the ground surface would be likely, and there is a risk of direct mortality to individual plants. A temporary increase in material available for wildland fire (fuel loading) would also occur, possibly increasing fire intensity. These effects would occur in small, localized areas within the radius around the basin. Herbaceous plant species would likely re-populate following fire operations. If the cut material is placed on shrubby vegetation, the increased fire intensity would improve the chances of the shrubs being top-killed during fire operations, further reducing woody encroachment throughout the area. The herbicides imazapyr, triclopyr, or glyphosate would be used to assist in the control of the woody vegetation. The application rates would be consistent with the recommendations outlined in the VM FEIS CP/P and the EPA product registration label. Detailed descriptions of each herbicide s effect on vegetation can be found in the VM FEIS CP/P pages

24 Isolated Wetlands Restoration Environmental Assessment Glyphosate is a growth inhibitor. It is absorbed by foliage and translocated throughout the plant eventually accumulating in the roots. Imazapyr is a plant protein inhibitor. It is absorbed by both roots and foliage, translocated throughout the plant, and accumulates in growing tissues and roots. Triclopyr is a growth regulator. It is readily absorbed by foliage with some stem uptake. It translocates up and down in plants, and accumulates in growing tissues and the root collar. Herbicide application may affect non-target vegetation, particularly when misapplied or spilled. Following mitigation measures outlined previously in this document including the use of direct application methods would minimize these effects. Many of the woody plants in the longleaf pine ecosystem, including those occurring in isolated wetlands and ecotones, are known to land managers throughout the region to sprout from stumps and root collars (Abrahamson 1984; Drewa et. al. 2002). This is a characteristic common among species that create management issues with encroachment, including many oak species and titi, which are impacting the seasonal ponds identified in this proposal. When the stems of these species are cut, the tree will use reserves in the root system to resprout, increasing the stem density. Selective application of herbicide has been shown to be effective in reducing the amount of re-sprouting for many different species (Ansley and Castellano 2006; Knochenderfer et.al. 2004; Burch and Zedaker 2003; Freeman and Jose 2009). This in turn gives herbaceous vegetation a chance to become established. Herbicide application would likely have an overall beneficial effect on desired vegetation. Prescribed fire activities would combine with the effects of the proposed action and further reduce the amount of woody encroachment in isolated wetlands. This is a positive effect which would further meet the relevant goals and objectives outlined in the Forest Plan, as described in the Purpose and Need for Action section of this document. No other effects from past, present and future activities were identified that would combine with the effects of the proposed action and result in a measurable cumulative effect. Alternative 3 No Herbicide The effects associated with cutting woody vegetation and placing it in the uplands surrounding the isolated wetland basin remain the same as in Alternative 2. There would be no effect of herbicide with this alternative. However, without the use of herbicide, the cut stems would re-sprout as described above. The increased stem density would continue to provide shade over the ground and out-compete herbaceous species attempting to establish by removing sunlight, moisture, and nutrients from the system. Cutting stems without herbicide treatment may make the habitat less suitable for frosted flatwoods salamanders and striped newts. 16

25 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration Plant PETS A biological assessment (BA) and a biological evaluation (BE) were prepared to determine the effects of the isolated wetlands restoration project alternatives on Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Plants (PETS) plants and/or their habitat. The table below summarizes the determinations for the PETS plants. The full BE will be available in the project record. Table 2: Summary of determination of effects - Plants SPECIES or ASSEMBLAGES ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 *Harper s Beauty Likely to adversely affect Not likely to adversely affect Likely to adversely affect *White s Birds-in-a- Nest Likely to adversely affect Not likely to adversely affect Likely to adversely affect *Florida Skullcap Likely to adversely affect Not likely to adversely affect Likely to adversely affect *Godfrey s Butterwort Likely to adversely affect Not likely to adversely affect Likely to adversely affect Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would have no direct effects on PETS species but would have negative indirect effects. The PETS species considered are found mainly in the transition zone between flatwoods and wetlands, including seasonal ponds. Although there is active fire management in the uplands, the historic inability of prescribed fire to affect seasonal ponds has led to woody vegetation encroachment. The no action alternative would allow hardwoods to continue to expand into the transition zone decreasing the amount of habitat available to these species. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would have minimal if any direct effects on PETS species. Herbicide application is not likely to affect these species because chemical would be applied directly to target vegetation. Two of the three herbicides proposed for use in this project, triclopyr and glyphosate, are not soil active (mobile in soil) so is not likely that these species would absorb 17

26 Isolated Wetlands Restoration Environmental Assessment herbicide through the soil. Imazapyr is moderately soil active, but mobility is relatively low. The PETS plant species analyzed for this project need full sun to thrive and are not likely to be within herbicide treatment areas or immediately adjacent to treatment areas. Habitat quality in these areas is poor, reducing the possibility of imazapyr absorption through the soil. Since it is unlikely that they would come in contact with herbicide, they are not likely to be directly affected by herbicide application. Debris piling is not likely to directly affect PET species because populations are well documented across the forest. If work is to take place near a documented population, the area would be flagged and workers notified to avoid the area to protect the population. Some sensitive species individuals could be damaged by piling but it is not likely to impact populations and habitat would improve by implementation of this alternative allowing for population expansion. Alternative 2 would have beneficial indirect effects to PETS species. Herbicide application and debris removal would kill mid-story vegetation allowing more sunlight to reach the understory. This would increase the amount of quality habitat available to PETS species and allow for natural expansion into the enlarged transition zone. Cumulative effects are expected to be beneficial for PETS species. This alternative would remove mid-story vegetation and prescribed burning would maintain an open mid-story. Also prescribed burning would remove the leaf litter from the understory allowing for herbaceous vegetation to expand into the isolated wetlands. Alternative 3 Direct effects would be the same as alternative 2 except there would be no effects from herbicide application. Indirect effects would differ. Manual removal of vegetation would temporarily improve habitat, but woody vegetation is likely to re-sprout soon after manual removal is completed. Even though the manual removal would improve habitat temporarily, it is not likely to have beneficial effects on PETS species because woody vegetation would re-sprout quickly and become more dense not giving PETs species an opportunity to utilize the area treated. When combined with prescribed fire, this alternative could be beneficial for PETS species in the short term. However, prescribed burning would have to be timed precisely to coincide with hardwood removal, and it is not feasible to time the majority of prescribed burns to correspond with this alternative. If treated sites are not burned within a short time interval after hardwood removal, it is likely that prescribed fire would not be able to penetrate into the ponds due to the presence of dense woody vegetation caused from re-sprouting and the absence of fine fuels. Many of the species to be removed from the ecotone are somewhat fire resistant. Normal prescribed burning operations only top kill this vegetation so the cumulative effects of vegetation removal and prescribed fire are expected to be short-lived. Because these effects would be short term and stem density is expected to increase which decreases habitat quality, this alternative would have long term negative effects on PETS plants. Wildlife Management Indicators 18

27 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration The general wildlife community that occurs in these compartments is typical of the southern Coastal Plain. Because it would not be feasible to monitor the effects of management on all wildlife species, certain species were chosen to be management indicator species. Management indicator species (MIS) are selected to monitor the effectiveness of the Forest Plan direction in meeting the desired habitat conditions and plant/animal outcomes. Population changes in these selected species are believed to indicate the effects of management. Trends in MIS are measured at the forest level and they will not be monitored for this specific project. The Forest Plan (Amendment 10) identifies red-cockaded woodpecker and Bachman s sparrow as indicators for sandhill, scrubby flatwoods, mesic flatwoods, and wet flatwoods community types, where cut material would be deposited under alternatives 2 and 3. The predominant communities in this project are isolated wetlands and adjacent uplands (flatwoods and sandhill). There are no animal MIS for isolated wetland community types. Analysis for species in these communities can be found in the PETS plant and animal sections of this document and in the Biological Evaluation. Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) The red cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is listed as a federally endangered species and was also chosen by the National Forests in Florida as a MIS. There are currently 530 active and 147 inactive clusters on the Apalachicola Ranger District, and 147 active and 205 inactive clusters on the Wakulla Ranger District. A random sample of clusters has been monitored since From this monitoring, juvenile birds for the regional translocation program are identified and information on population health and trends is collected. This sample, along with other forms of monitoring, indicates that the RCW population on the Apalachicola District is stable and that the population on the Wakulla District has shown a 4% increase over the last 5 years of monitoring. There are nineteen active and three inactive clusters located within the project area. An additional cluster was identified in October 2009 during surveys conducted as part of the project review. Nine additional clusters may have part of their foraging habitat located within the project boundaries (see Biological Evaluation). Based on RCW foraging habitat guidelines the area exceeds the maximum number of clusters for the habitat available. Alternative 1 The no-action alternative would not have effects on RCWs. This species mainly utilizes the habitat adjacent to isolated wetlands and this alternative would not affect this habitat. Alternative 2 This alternative would have minor if any effects to RCWs. Herbicide application is not likely to directly or indirectly affect RCWs because herbicide would be applied directly to target vegetation and would not damage RCW cavity trees or potential cavity trees. Potential RCW cavity trees are more likely to be in the surrounding uplands because this species prefers an open mid-story which is not provided in the treatment area. Debris piling would have no 19

28 Isolated Wetlands Restoration Environmental Assessment effect on RCWs because debris piles would be at least 200 feet from all RCW trees to reduce the potential of tree scorch during a prescribed burn. If work is scheduled to take place during RCW breeding season and a cluster is within 200 feet of the seasonal pond to be treated, then a biologist would survey the cluster and evaluate whether work needs to be modified to accommodate the RCW cluster. Alternative 3 Effects would be similar to alternative 2. Bachman s Sparrow Bachman's sparrows are found in the southeastern United States. Most of the populations live in Florida and along the Gulf Coast. They are also found as far north as the Indiana-Michigan border and as far west as the Arkansas-Oklahoma border. In the winter, Bachman's sparrows are especially secretive and little is known of their winter habits. Their winter range seems to be compressed into the coastal southeastern U.S.: Florida, the Gulf states, and eastern Texas. This species is mostly found in open oak and pine forests with abundant grasses. They are most often found in forests with wiregrass (Aristida) or broomsedge (Andropogon). Populations are highest in areas where forest fires are regular, eliminating hardwood understory shrubs. Bachman's sparrow populations disappear 4 to 5 years after a burn. Much of their original habitat, open pine forests, has been logged throughout their range. This has forced them into marginal habitats, such as forest edges and utility rights-of-way, where hardwood understory shrubs are discouraged by poor soils, fires, or human management. (Dewey, T. and N. Darin 2007) Alternative 1 The no-action alternative would not have effects on Bachman s sparrows. This species mainly utilizes the habitat adjacent to isolated wetlands and this alternative would not affect this habitat. Alternative 2 This alternative would have minor if any effects to Bachman s sparrows. Herbicide application is not likely to directly or indirectly affect this because herbicide would be applied directly to target vegetation reducing the possibility of forage contamination (grass seeds and insects). This species is a ground nester and it is not likely to be present in herbicide application areas because these areas would not provide suitable nesting habitat. Debris piling is not likely to have substantial impacts of Bachman s sparrow. Individuals may use piles to escape predators but plenty of other cover is provided throughout its habitat, and Bachman s sparrow is not likely to become dependent on these piles as escape cover. Alternative 3 20

29 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration Effects would be similar to alternative 2. Wildlife PETS Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive (PETS) Wildlife A biological assessment (BA) and a biological evaluation (BE) were prepared to determine the likely effects of the alternatives on PETS animals and/or their habitat. The table below summarizes the determination of effects. The full BE will be available in the project record. Table 3: Summary of determination of effects - Wildlife SPECIES Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Proposed Action) Alternative C (No Herbicide) *RCW Not Likely Not Likely Not Likely *Frosted Flatwoods Salamander Likely to Adversely Affect Not Likely Likely to Adversely Affect *Indigo Snake Not Likely Not Likely Not Likely Striped Newt Likely to Jeopardize Not Likely Likely to Jeopardize Gopher Tortoise Not likely to Jeopardize Not likely to Jeopardize Not likely to Jeopardize Sensitive Animals May Affect May Affect May Affect Alternative 1 The No-Action Alternative would either have no effect, is not likely to adversely affect, or not likely to jeopardize proposed species or adversely modify proposed critical habitat determination on most species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for the ANF with the exception of the frosted flatwoods salamander and striped newt. The No-Action Alternative is likely to adversely affect the frosted flatwoods salamander and likely to jeopardize proposed species or adversely modify proposed critical habitat striped newt. Alternative A would have no direct effects and negative indirect effects on these species. Since alternative A is the no action alternative, no direct effects would take place. However, the absence of work would have negative indirect effects. These species depend on the herbaceous ecotone between the uplands and the seasonal pond center to lay eggs, provide cover, and provide forage for larvae after they have hatched. Abundant woody 21

30 Isolated Wetlands Restoration Environmental Assessment vegetation out competes herbaceous vegetation for sunlight. While there is active fire management in the uplands, the historic inability of prescribed fire to affect seasonal ponds has led to woody vegetation encroachment in the transition zone. The no action alternative would allow hardwoods to continue to expand into the transition zone decreasing the amount of breeding, foraging, and cover habitat available to frosted flatwoods salamanders and striped newts. Alternative 2 This project, in conjunction with the ongoing prescribed burning program, is expected to enhance the isolated wetlands. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would either have a no effect, not likely to adversely affect, or not likely to jeopardize proposed species or adversely modify proposed critical habitat determination for species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service including frosted flatwoods salamanders and striped newts on the ANF. The project would likely have no impact, may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability, or may be beneficial to species listed as Sensitive by the Regional Forester (Table 3). Since public comments showed concern about the proposed action (alternative 2) and PETS amphibians, effects to frosted flatwoods salamanders and striped newts will be discussed in more detail. Alternative B is likely to have no direct effects on frosted flatwoods salamanders and minimal effects of striped newts. Work would take place outside of flatwoods salamander breeding season, the only period when salamanders and their larvae are present at the ponds, so no direct effects are expected. Alternative 2 is likely to have minimal direct effects on striped newts. Manual vegetation removal could injure or cause individual mortality if newts are present in the immediate vicinity of falling trees. However, larval forms of stripped newts have not been found on the ANF in 10 years and adults have not been seen since 2006 (Means 2008), so it is not likely that individuals would be present in proposed treatment areas. While there is some hardwood encroachment into the ponds, the majority of area to be treated would on the outer rim of the pond basin. Since the majority of the work would be outside the pond basin, this alternative would have minimal if any direct effects on striped newts in their aquatic form. Herbicide is expected to have minimal indirect effects for frosted flatwoods salamanders and striped newts. Acute toxicity is the adverse effects of pesticides that result either from a single exposure or from multiple exposures in a short period of time. Acute toxicity studies which include amphibians have shown triclopyr and imazapyr to be practically non-toxic to aquatic organisms using the EPA s toxicity categories, with the exception of one formulation which is not labeled for use in the project area (SERA 2011; Trumbo and Waligora 2009). These herbicides also fall below the risk quotient value designated by the EPA for federally listed species (Trumbo and Waligora 2009). Studies have also shown glyphosate to vary from practically non-toxic to slightly toxic depending on aquatic species. The more conservative toxicology rates for fish were used to conduct these studies (SERA 2011; Carey et.al. 2008). Little is known about the long term effects of herbicide on amphibians and the majority of those studies focus on broadcast agricultural applications, which allow for higher amounts of herbicide, drift, and potential runoff than proposed under alternative 2. All of the methods 22

31 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration considered in this alternative apply herbicide directly to target vegetation reducing the possibility of runoff into water and accidental application to non-target vegetation. All Forest Service and herbicide label requirements would be followed regarding water and wetland use. Indirect effects from herbicide combined with manual hardwood removal are expected to be beneficial. Seasonal ponds proposed for treatment would be ponds that have hardwood encroachment and where natural fire processes are no longer maintaining the habitat. Removal of mid-story vegetation along with herbicide treatment would open up the canopy allowing herbaceous vegetation to expand further into the seasonal ponds. This provides more potential foraging and cover habitat for salamander larvae. Piling of woody debris is not likely to have any effects on these species. Both species are fossorial, spending the majority of their lives underground outside of the breeding season. They are not likely to utilize debris piles, therefore eliminating possible effects from this action. Cumulative effects for this alternative are expected to be beneficial. This alternative combined with previously approved prescribed burning is likely to improve breeding habitat for both species. As stated in the purpose and need, current prescribed burning operations are not maintaining breeding habitat for frosted flatwoods salamanders or striped newts. Fire does not burn through the ponds due to the absence of fine fuels. Fine fuels such as grasses and pine needles dry out quickly and are more likely to catch on fire than woody vegetation because they do not hold as much moisture. Ponds proposed to be treated are heavily encroached with woody vegetation. Fires can only burn through these areas in extreme conditions, when prescribed fire becomes difficult to control. The removal of woody vegetation from the ponds would allow light to enter the ponds which would increase the abundance of herbaceous vegetation and allow detritus that is not under water at that time to dry. Fires are then more likely to burn through the seasonal ponds and maintain the herbaceous groundcover needed for breeding habitat. Alternative 3 The difference between this alternative and alternative 2 would be that no herbicide would be applied for hardwood control. Without the use of herbicide, vegetation is likely to re-sprout reducing beneficial long term effects from vegetation removal. Alternative 3 would either have no effect, is not likely to adversely affect, or not likely to jeopardize proposed species or adversely modify proposed critical habitat determination on most species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service on the ANF except for frosted flatwoods salamander and striped newt. While alternative 3 would remove hardwood vegetation, benefits caused by this action are not expected to last. Without the use of herbicides, target vegetation is likely to re-sprout and stem density would increase. This alternative when combined with prescribed fire would only have short term beneficial effects. Fire only tops kills most of the target vegetation and unless prescribed fire is timed to coincide with implementation of this alternative, fire is not likely to be able to penetrate into isolated wetlands due to increased stem density and lack of fine fuels. Because these effects would be short term and stem density is expected to 23

32 Isolated Wetlands Restoration Environmental Assessment increase, this alternative is likely to adversely affect frosted flatwoods salamanders and likely to jeopardize proposed species or adversely modify proposed critical habitat of striped newts because habitat would be lost. This alternative would likely have no impact, may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability to species listed as Sensitive by the Regional Forester (Table 3). Socio-Economic Environment Public Health and Safety The use of herbicide is often a concern to forest users, workers, and the general public regarding human health and safety. Alternative 1 No Action No herbicide use is proposed with this alternative. There would be no potential for effects to human health from herbicide use under this alternative. Alternative 2 Proposed Action This alternative proposes the use of herbicides for woody plant control. The herbicides used would be based on the evaluation form prepared from the site visit. Herbicides available to choose from are glyphosate, imazapyr, and triclopyr. Use of any of the proposed herbicides is expected to be on small localized and widely separated areas. Due to the short half-lives and fast biodegradability of the proposed products, there is a very low probability of prolonged exposure and risk. The herbicides considered for this project were selected largely for their low toxicity to humans and the environment. There is little risk that the public may unknowingly come into direct contact with treated vegetation as areas will be posted with signs or access otherwise prevented. With the mitigation measures described previously in this document, there is low probability of drift or off-site movement. The label directions place restrictions on wind speed at the time of spraying. Applications will be made close to the ground surface with equipment that produces large size droplets that do not carry far. Herbicide labeling, which governs the types of uses, disposal, precautions for use, etc., is regulated by the EPA in accordance with FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947, with numerous additions). Based on tolerances, residue data, and environmental fate, label-use restrictions may be placed on an herbicide label. Herbicides approved by the EPA would be used. All label requirements would be followed, as required by the EPA. Following the label ensures that the public will not come in contact with herbicide concentrations that may cause harmful effects. 24

33 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration Herbicide applications would be supervised by a Forest Service Certified Pesticide Applicator. This employee would ensure compliance with labeling instructions and safety methods to reduce the risk of accidents. Risk to public health from herbicide applications has been addressed in a Risk Assessment as part of the VMEIS CP/P (Vol II, Appendix A) and supplemented by the analyses done by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA 2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2004, 2005, 2011) They document the probable effects on human health (and wildlife) resulting from typical and maximum applications, and accidental spills of herbicide. They analyze the potential for these herbicides to cause toxic effects, cancer, mutations, and birth defects. Based on the Risk Assessment in the VMEIS CP/P, the Regional Forester concluded in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the VMEIS CP/P (p. 12) that application of these herbicides, when applied under the guidelines described, provided greater health protection to workers, the public, and wildlife, than is required by published health and safety standards. Applied under the guidelines, these herbicides do not pose a significant risk to human health. These guidelines are found in Appendix A of the ROD for the VMEIS CP/P. If label directions are not followed properly, these herbicides could cause eye and skin irritations to workers. The Apalachicola NF uses the lowest rate possible to meet its goals. For a typical application, the use of these chemicals poses a low risk to safety. Under the conditions of typical public exposure to glyphosate, triclopyr, and imazapyr, no member of the public would be affected (VMEIS CP/P, Vol I, p. IV-14). Glyphosate, triclopyr, and imazapyr herbicides are soluble and do not accumulate in human or animal tissue. Human and animal exposure and risk studies conducted for, or cited in, the VMEIS CP/P indicate that cumulative build up effects on human health do not occur when used at prescribed rate with appropriate application methods. In summary, risks to public health and safety under the Proposed Action are negligible. Alternative 3 No Herbicide Alternative No herbicide use is proposed with this alternative. There would be no potential for effects to human health from herbicide use under this alternative. Heritage Resources This project has been designed to have no effects on heritage resources and follows Forest Plan guidance. HE-13 Minimize or avoid management activity impact on the site. For example, chemical site preparation might be used as a silvicultural alternative to mechanical site preparation (Forest Plan pp. 3-6). The Apalachicola National Forest archeologist determined the project would likely have no effects on historic resources. 25

34 Isolated Wetlands Restoration Environmental Assessment Visual Quality Alternative 1 No Action Hardwood encroachment would continue and further degrade the form and function of these seasonal ponds. Alternative 2 Proposed Action The visual effects of the proposed treatment would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the isolated wetland, many of which are in the interior of compartments and away from major travel ways. The treatment areas are small and wide spread, and would not be the dominant feature of the landscape. The primary potential visual effect would be the clearing of mid-story woody vegetation. Overstory trees such as cypress and large blackgum trees would be retained, minimizing the effect. Another potential visual effect may be browning caused by herbicide and browning of the cut and piled vegetation. Although there would be browning, it would not be a feature that dominates the landscape. The dead material would gradually be replaced by more desirable plants. Apalachicola NF vegetation is frequently brown as a result of the prescribed fire program so this proposal would not cause any significant or unusual visual quality changes. The piled vegetation in the uplands would be consumed in subsequent prescribed fires, so this effect would also be temporary. All cleared material near major roadways or trails would be deposited following Forest-wide standard VG-15 which states that debris (will) be piled no more than 2 feet high within 100 feet of levels A and B roads and designated trails. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on visual resources would be minimal and temporary. Alternative 3 No Herbicide The visual effects of this alternative are the same as described in Alternative 2, with the exception of browning due to herbicide use. Forest standard VG-15 would be followed. Economics No alternatives listed would bring money in to the US Treasury, and the action alternatives would have some cost associated. Excessive hardwood encroachment can cause serious impacts on ecosystem and other associated intrinsic values including species biodiversity; ecosystem goods for human consumption (forest products, fish, game, and pharmaceuticals); aesthetics (wildlife viewing, natural scenery, and spiritual values); watershed protection; nutrient cycling; and soil 26

35 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration formation. Economic impacts of environmental damage to ecosystems are poorly documented because of the difficulty in placing monetary costs to ecosystem value. Alternative 1 No Action In the short term, there would be negligible to no costs associated with this alternative. Costs for woody vegetation control and habitat restoration would increase the longer management is postponed. Losses to ecosystem values, including listed species habitat, which do not have a monetary figure attached, would be great. Alternative 2 Proposed Action Cost associated with the proposed action would include funding to contractors to perform the desired treatment, as well as the cost of herbicide. This cost has been estimated at $1700/pond, though dollar values may vary based on contract bid prices, pond size, and type of herbicide used. There are many funding opportunities through grants and partnerships with other agencies to restore rare species habitat, which would be utilized, minimizing the burden on the Forest Service. Local employment opportunities would be similar to the current situation but with a few additional temporary jobs created to complete treatment. This project would not have a measurable impact on the local economy. The proposed action alternative would result in public benefits such as: increased native biodiversity, ecosystem health, and other associated intrinsic values. These benefits cannot be assigned a dollar value. Alternative 3 No Herbicide Cost associated with this alternative would include funding to contractors to cut vegetation, less the cost of herbicide. This cost has been estimated at $50-$100 less per pond than the cost in Alternative 2, though values may vary based on contract bid prices, pond size, and type of herbicide used. Funding opportunities through partnerships and grants may be less likely without the availability of herbicide use as a management tool. Local employment opportunities would be the same as in Alternative 2. As described in the Vegetation Effects section of this document, cutting woody vegetation without herbicide treatment may reduce effectiveness of restoration activities. Though dollar cost is less for a single treatment, the woody vegetation would not be killed, increasing costs over the long term. 27

36 Isolated Wetlands Restoration Environmental Assessment Environmental Justice and Civil Rights All alternatives rate the same for this subject area. None of the actions proposed by any of the alternatives should have any negative effects on the Civil Rights of the citizens of Leon, Liberty, Franklin, or Wakulla Counties or the surrounding area. No minorities would be discriminated against because of the proposed actions in these alternatives. No groups of people would be disproportionably affected as a consequence of the proposed action. All labor contracts generated from the proposed action would have clauses which prohibit discrimination for any reason. There are no foreseeable changes in the management of the forest or surrounding private lands that would adversely affect the Civil Rights of people in the future. 4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non-forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment: ID TEAM MEMBERS: Jana Mott, The Nature Conservancy Gary Hegg, Silviculturalist Chandra Roberts, Forester, NEPA Mary Owen, Fire Planner Brittany Phillips, Wildlife Biologist Contributors to the Analysis: Allen Smith, Deputy District Ranger Steve Parrish, Fire Management Officer (FMO) Eugene Watkins, Fire Sonja Durrwachter, Timber Management Andrea Repp, Archaeologist FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: US Fish and Wildlife Service Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission The Nature Conservancy OTHERS: Apalachicola National Forest Concerned Citizens 28

37 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration REFERENCES Abrahamson, W.G Post fire recovery of Florida Lake Wales Ridge vegetation. American Journal of Botany (71)1:9-21. Ansley, J.R. and M.J. Castellano Strategies for savanna restoration in the southern Great Plains: effects of fire and herbicides. Restoration Ecology 14(3): Burch, P.L. and S.M. Zedaker Removing the invasive tree Ailanthus altissima and restoring natural cover. Journal of Arboriculture 29(1): Coladonato, Milo Cyrilla racemiflora. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: [2012, July 19]. Drewa, Paul B., William J. Platt, and E. Barry Moser Fire effects on resprouting of shrubs in headwaters of southeastern longleaf pine savannas. Ecology 83: Florida Division of Forestry. Silviculture Best Management Practices Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Tallahassee, FL. Freeman, J.E. and S. Jose The role of herbicide in savanna restoration: effects of shrub reduction treatments on the understory and overstory of a longleaf pine flatwoods. Forest Ecology and Management 257(3): Gorman, T.A., C.A. Haas, D.C. Bishop Factors related to occupancy of breeding wetlands by flatwoods salamander larvae. Wetlands 29(1): Knochenderfer, J.D., J.N. Knochenderfer, D.A. Warner and C.W. Miller Preharvest manual herbicide treatments for controlling American beech in central West Virginia. NJAF 21(1): Langeland, Ken, ed Exotic Woody Plant Control. IFAS Circular 868. University of Florida, Gainesville. Means, D.B., Ostertag, T.E. and D. Printiss Distribution, habitat ecology, and management of the striped newt (Notophthalmus perstriatus) in the Apalachicola National Forest, Florida: report to the U.S. Forest Service, National Forests in Florida. Coastal Plains Institute, Tallahassee, Florida. Means, Rebecca Management strategies for Florida s ephemeral ponds and pondbreeding amphibians. Final Report to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Coastal Plains Institute, Tallahassee Florida. 29

38 Isolated Wetlands Restoration Environmental Assessment Nagel, L.M., Corace R.E. III and A.J. Storer An experimental approach to testing the efficacy of management treatments for glossy buckthorn at Seney National Wildlife Refuge, upper Michigan. Ecological Restoration 26(2): Palis, J. G Distribution of the flatwoods salamander, Ambystoma cingulatum, on the Apalachicola and Osceola National Forests, Florida. Report to the US Forest Service. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida. Ripley, R. and D. Printiss Management plan for flatwoods salamander populations on National Forests in Florida. Final Report to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The Nature Conservancy Northwest Florida Program, Bristol, Florida. SERA, Syracuse Environmental Research Associates Neurotoxicity Immunotoxicity, and Endocrine Disruption with Specific Commentary on Glyphosate, Triclopyr, and Hexazinone: Final Report. Submitted to USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Riverdale, MD. SERA, Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011a. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for Glyphosate (Accord, Rodeo, Roundup, and Roundup Pro) Final Report. PO # , Task #9, Submitted to: Forest Service March 1, SERA, Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011b. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for Triclopyr: Final Report. PO # , Task #13, Submitted to: Forest Service on March 15, SERA, Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011c. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for Imazapyr (Arsenal, Chopper, and Stalker Formulations) Final Report, PO # , Task # 17, Submitted to: Forest Service on December 18, USDA Forest Service Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in Florida, Management Bulletin R8-MB-83A; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tallahassee, FL. USDA Forest Service Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in Florida. Management Bulletin R8-MB-83B. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tallahassee, FL. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region. 1989a. Record Of Decision, Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont. Atlanta, GA. 30

39 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration USDA Forest Service, Southern Region. 1989b. Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont. Volumes 1 and 2. Atlanta, GA. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region Record Of Decision, Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont. Volumes 1 and 2. Atlanta, GA. USDA Forest Service, National Forests in Florida Decision Notice: Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment Updating Gopher Tortoise, Bald Eagle, Flatwoods Salamander and Florida Scrub-jay Direction. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tallahassee, FL. USDA Forest Service, National Forests in Florida Decision Notice: Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment #10 Management Indicator Species (MIS). US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tallahassee, FL. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Determination of Endangered Status for Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander; Designation of Critical Habitat for Frosted Flatwoods Salamander and Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander; Final Rule. Federal Register. 74(26): USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90 day finding on a petition to list the Striped Newt as Threatened. Federal Register. 75(55): Ward, J.S., Worthley, T.E. and S.C. Williams Controlling Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii DC) in southern new england, usa. Forest Ecology and Management 257(2):

40 Isolated Wetlands Restoration Environmental Assessment Appendix A Scoping Comment Summary Isolated Wetlands Restoration Listed below are the comments received from the initial public scoping and the Forest Service response, including how they were addressed in the Environmental Assessment. Date Rec. Standing? Who Commented Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities Forest Service response 5/14/12 W.V. (Mac) McConnell Forester/Land Mgmt. Planner (via ) 1. This project has no economic benefits and limited, narrowly focused environmental benefits. 2. I request that the FS put this project on the shelf for another day when the nation s budget is balanced and the national debt is only an unpleasant memory. The economic effects of the alternatives are evaluated in the Environmental Assessment, and the no action alternative addresses this suggestion. 5/15/2012 D. Bruce Means, PhD President/Director Coastal Plains Institute and Land Conservancy (via ) 1. Repeated prescribed fires on a natural return interval are ecologically and economically the best management treatment for restoring upland flatwoods habitat to the most natural condition that these salamanders are best adapted for. 2. Prescribed fires on a greater return interval than has been applied in the past would be the cheapest and best remedy for littoral zone woody plants. (in reference to striped newt habitat) 3. I fervently urge the ANF to consider a plan for increased prescribed burns 4. Keeping or restoring the upland habitat to natural conditions is most crucial in the long-term maintenance of viable populations 5. In lieu of herbicide application, send in a crew with butane or propane outdoor blowtorches for suppression of stump sprouts. The labor will create much needed employment. 6. We are loath to accept the application of herbicides to control stump sprouts or other hardwood problems because this is a completely unnatural management action, the ecological consequences of which are not completely known. Comments 1-3: Thank you for your comments. We agree that prescribed fires as described in your documents are an essential management tool, and increasing the amount of prescribed fire in these areas is a strategy we are pursuing. However, the Apalachicola National Forest prescribed fire program is beyond the scope of this document. Comment 4: Thank you for your comment. We agree that upland habitat condition is critical to the populations of these species. However, this proposal is specifically addressing the habitat associated with the aquatic portion of the frosted flatwoods salamander and striped newt life cycle, and as such the management and restoration of uplands is beyond the scope of this document. Comment 5: This suggestion is addressed in the EA under alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study. Comment 6: Thank you for your comment. The potential effects of the proposed herbicide application are analyzed in the Environmental Assessment. Additionally, an alternative proposing only manual vegetation removal has been analyzed. 32

41 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration Date Rec. Standing? Who Commented Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities Forest Service response 5/15/2012 Walter R. Tschinkel R.O. Lawton Distinguished Professor Department of Biological Sciences Florida State University (via ) 1. Manually removing encroaching hardwood vegetation and applying herbicide is a procedure that will incur considerable expense, possible environmental damage, and whose effectiveness is unproven. 2. If the ANF goes ahead with the manual removal program, then at the very least, this should be followed with a vigorous, sustained and effective prescribed fire program. Comment 1: Thank you for your comment. The economic costs, environmental consequences and effectiveness of treatment are considered in the Environmental Assessment. Comment 2: We agree that prescribed fire is an essential management tool in this habitat, and increasing appropriate prescribed fire in these areas is a strategy we are pursuing. However, the Apalachicola National Forest prescribed fire program is beyond the scope of 5/17/2012 David W. Borland Naturalist (via ) 5/19/2012 John Palis (via ) 1. Such treatments would be without any appropriately predictable, long-term assurance for the mandated protections of critical fauna or maximum dependent floral diversity 2. An appropriate management technique for all these wetlands and surrounds should implement an earnestly increased and manual removal combined with a site-specific focus of aggressive (and documented) vegetation management actions to insure the targeted, hot-season application of prescribed fire on a repeated, short return-interval basis. 1. Priority should be given to controlling those species that tend to invade the ecotone under conditions of insufficient fire. Selection of shrubs/trees to cut and kill should be made by an individual very familiar with isolated wetlands on the Apalachicola District. Every effort should be made to maintain woody vegetation diversity within each wetland. 2. To prevent possible detrimental impacts to Frosted Flatwoods Salamanders, I strongly encourage vegetation control efforts be limited to months when the salamanders are not likely to be present this document. Comment 1: All Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive flora and fauna as well as relevant Management Indicator Species are considered in the Environmental Assessment and Biological Evaluation. Comment 2: We agree that prescribed fire is an essential management tool in this habitat, and increasing appropriate prescribed fire in these areas is a strategy we are pursuing. However, the Apalachicola National Forest prescribed fire program is beyond the scope of this document. Manual removal without the use of herbicide is evaluated under Alternative 3 in the Environmental Analysis. Comment 1: Forest Service and Nature Conservancy biologists familiar with the district would be choosing the sites and would ensure proper diversity of vegetation within the wetland. Priorities and species to treat would be evaluated and determined on a project level depending on the condition of the specific wetlands. These are issues of implementation, and as such are beyond the scope of the decision to be made. 3. Vegetation control efforts should be limited to periods when the wetland undergoing treatment is dry. 4. I encourage the use of a wipe-on herbicide applicator instead of a spray applicator. Comment 2: Herbicide treatment would not occur during likely frosted flatwoods salamander breeding season. Comment 3: All applicable 33

42 Isolated Wetlands Restoration Environmental Assessment Date Rec. Standing? Who Commented Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities Forest Service response 5. I encourage the application of prescribed fire during the lightning season when wetlands are dry. regulations and herbicide labeling would be followed. Comment 4: Thank you for your comment. Several methods of direct application would be considered, including the use of a wipe-on applicator. These decisions would be made on a case by case basis during implementation, and are beyond the scope of the decision to be made in this document. Comment 5: Thank you for your comment. We agree that prescribed fire when the wetlands are dry is a valuable management tool; however the Apalachicola National Forest prescribed fire program is beyond the scope of this document. 34

43 Environmental Assessment Isolated Wetlands Restoration Appendix B Figures Figure 1: Encroached flatwoods salamander habitat Figure 2: Encroached flatwoods salamander habitat, pre-treatment (left) and 6 months posttreatment (right), from the same camera location and angle 35