East Aspen Metro District Mosquito Abatement Environmental Assessment

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region March 2015 East Aspen Metro District Mosquito Abatement Environmental Assessment DRAFT DECISION NOTICE Located in portions of: W½ Sec.28, SE¼ Sec.29, N½ Sec.33, T.10S, R.84W, 6th PM White River National Forest Pitkin County, Colorado

2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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 TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC or call (202) (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Printed on recycled paper

3 DRAFT DECISION NOTICE and FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT EAST ASPEN METRO DISTRICT MOSQUITO ABATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region White River National Forest Aspen-Sopris Ranger District Pitkin County, CO March 2015 This Draft Decision Notice documents my decision and rationale for approving the East Aspen Metro District s (EAMD) proposed mosquito abatement project within the White River National Forest (WRNF), located east of Aspen, Colorado. My decision is based on and supported by the March 2015 (Mosquito EA). The Mosquito EA analyzed the proposal from the EAMD. It was designed to improve public safety and recreational experiences in and around the Project Area. The Mosquito EA analyzing and disclosing the environmental effects of the proposed projects was distributed for public review and comment via the Notice of Proposed Action in April and May The accompanying Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) documents and supports the determination that the Selected Alternative is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the human or natural environment. DECISION AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION After thoroughly considering the project purpose and need, issues, alternatives and analyses presented in the EA, as well as the public comments received, I have decided to select and approve the Proposed Action from the EA. My decision meets the project purpose and need (as stated on page 1-3 of the EA) and is consistent with the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2002 Revision, as amended (2002 Forest Plan). My decision includes all components of the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) as described in Chapter 2 of the EA. All project design criteria (PDC) stated in Chapter 2 of the EA, and included as Table 1 of this document, are required to be adhered to by EAMD. Refer to the attached Selected Alternative map for project locations. Specifically, my decision authorizes the EAMD through a Special Use Permit to apply the larvicide Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) a nonchemical byproduct of a strain of bacterium in the beaver wetland complexes and other standing waters DN-1

4 near Difficult Campground and Wildwood School. Application will be limited to periods when larvae are observed by the contractor. The WRNF will issue a Special Use Permit (SUP) to the EAMD for the application of Bti for a period of up to 15 years. RATIONALE FOR MY DECISION This project was proposed in order to reduce the mosquito population near the City of Aspen. Mosquito populations in this area impact public health as well as the local social and recreational experience. The primary goal of this project is to reduce the risk of West Nile virus and encephalitis, dangerous mosquitoborne illnesses, in the region surrounding Aspen. In reducing the local mosquito population, this project hopes to improve the recreational experience in the Project Area, and in the nearby Difficult Campground. In addition, the adjacent Wildwood School would be able to provide a better outdoor education experience and improved student safety with a reduced mosquito population. My decision would permit the application of larvicide (pellet form) to beaver wetland complexes and other standing waters near Difficult Campground and Wildwood School. The active agent in the larvicide is a non-chemical byproduct of a strain of bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti), which is commonly used worldwide. My understanding is that the substance is toxic to a few specific aquatic organisms in their larval phase, such as black flies and mosquitos. While a Forest Service Health and Ecological Risk Assessment has not been completed for Bti, I believe that the available information is sufficient to determine that the application of this larvicide is safe and appropriate. My decision allows application to occur only during specified periods if larvae are observed, generally in the summer months. I acknowledge the fact that this activity has been approved by the Forest Service in the past, but the previous permit has expired. This decision authorizes a longer term permit. In reaching my decision, I relied upon an Interdisciplinary (ID) Team comprised of Forest Service resource specialists to analyze the effects of the two alternatives documented in the EA. I considered the following issues and concerns: anticipated effects to recreation, public health, threatened and endangered and sensitive plant and animal species, and water quality within the Project Area. I also reviewed the proposed PDCs, reviewed the public comments on the EA, and considered how the Selected Alternative would respond to the stated Purpose and Need. In reviewing the qualitative and quantitative effects on the human and biological environment presented in the EA, I find they have been adequately addressed and disclosed. The analysis presented in the EA demonstrates that the project elements listed above in my decision are approvable projects that appropriately respond to the Purpose and Need and, with the implementation of requisite PDCs, are consistent with the 2002 Forest Plan. I understand there are a few individuals in the community that expressed concerns over the application of Bti. I certainly respect those concerns and the well-being of the public; however, based on the current DN-2

5 literature and type of application I am approving, I feel the public health effects due to the mosquito population is concerning and should be addressed. Overall, my decision will improve the guest experience and health risks for the Forest visitor on NFS lands in the area of east Aspen. PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA The EA presents the PDCs on page 2-4 in Table 2-3, all of which have been incorporated into the Selected Alternative. My decision includes following the PDCs as described in the EA: Table 1: Project Design Criteria Incorporated into the Selected Alternative MONITORING FOR WILDLIFE, AQUATICS, AND PLANTS EAMD/Colorado Mosquito Control (CMC) will annually provide a year-end report of operations on National Forest land, including records of areas treated, volumes of products applied, when and where products applied, effects to vegetation, effectiveness of larval mosquito kill, results of monitoring requirements, and any other information EAMD/CMC may desire to convey about operations. Sampling stations for aquatic macroinvertebrates and terrestrial invertebrates with an emphasis on Chironomids, Odonata, and Lepidoptera will be established for the life of the special use permit. Sampling will occur annually within the project area and within control sites upstream and downstream of the project area. The information will be used to monitor changes in non-target invertebrate populations due to application of Bti. This monitoring effort will be conducted by a qualified expert acceptable to the Aspen-Sopris Ranger District. If the Ranger District determines that the proposed action has resulted in significant loss of species richness or population declines of non-target orders, families, or species, re-evaluation of the Special Use Permit will be warranted. Monitor treatment areas for presence of boreal toad and northern leopard frog. If breeding is confirmed, adjust treatments to avoid breeding sites to eliminate potential impacts. If local population becomes established in the project area then potential suitable sites would be resurveyed. If individuals are discovered in the project area, then restrictions would apply and the Special Use permit would be modified as necessary (e.g., No application of Bti near breeding sites). PRACTICES TO BENEFIT WILDLIFE, AQUATICS, AND PLANTS The terms and conditions of the Special Use permit may be modified in the event of the discovery of a federally listed wildlife, fish, or plant species (Proposed, Endangered and Threatened) in the project area, or in the event of proposed or designated Critical Habitat. A Forest Service biologist would review new information and evaluate the need for seasonal restrictions and/or consultation requirements if needed. Treatments will be limited to those areas where live mosquito larvae are detected. Only still water areas or areas with little current would be targeted for treatment as this type of habitat is required for larvae to grow and survive. No areas with significant current, such as the main branch of the river would be targeted. Areas immediately adjacent to the river that have a slight current as it passes through aquatic vegetation would be treated. To limit the possibility of accidental concentrated spills and potential effects to non-target invertebrate species, Bti will be stored outside of the project area. Short term storage (< 1 day) while conducting treatments is permitted. Locations for short term storage are to be approved by Forest Service. The Aspen-Sopris Ranger District and the appropriate resource specialists will be responsible for monitoring EAMD s compliance with the required PDCs. Failure to comply with the required PDCs will constitute a breach of the project approval and could temporarily suspend construction and/or operations on the facilities approved by this decision. DN-3

6 The Selected Alternative, along with my decision to require all of the PDC, meets all applicable laws, regulations, and policies. With the application of PDCs, the project will not result in any unacceptable effects to NFS lands. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL In addition to the Proposed Action, one other alternative was analyzed in the EA: the No Action Alternative. For a more detailed discussion of the alternatives considered, refer to pages 2-1 through 2-4 of the EA. The No Action Alternative is required by NEPA and provides a baseline for comparing the effects of the action alternatives. No Action essentially reflects a continuation of existing management practices without changes, additions, or upgrades. No new mosquito abatement would be approved under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 2 the Proposed Action includes project components designed to control mosquito populations and reduce the nuisance near Difficult Campground, Wildwood School, and the area east of Aspen. The Proposed Action includes the application of a larvicide (pellet form) to beaver pond wetland complexes and other standing waters in the Project Area. The active agent in the larvicide is a strain of bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti). Bti is a subspecies of the common soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) found throughout the world. Bti produces non-chemical substances that are toxic to a few species of aquatic invertebrates in their larval phases, such as mosquitos and black flies. The toxic substance enters the filter-feeding mosquito larvae and damages their stomachs. Available literature indicates that the application of Bti does not involve the use of chemicals, is considered safe and has been used worldwide. Larvicide would only be applied if mosquito larvae are observed. The Bti would be applied at targeted locations within a larger Project Area, which encompasses approximately 65 acres. In reality, the areas of application would typically amount to approximately 5 acres, a small fraction of the overall Project Area. Determination of the proper time to apply Bti would be based on water sampling. Application of pesticides would be performed in accordance with Forest Plan direction (FSM 2150). The WRNF would issue a Special Use Permit (SUP) to the EAMD for the application of Bti for a period of up to 15 years. ALTERNATIVES AND DESIGN COMPONENTS CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS The range of alternatives considered by the responsible official includes all reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action that are analyzed in the document, as well as other alternatives eliminated from detailed study. Alternatives not considered in detail may include, but are not limited to, those that fail to meet the Purpose and Need, are technologically infeasible or illegal, or would result in an unreasonable DN-4

7 environmental harm. 1 One commenter during the scoping process recommended the use of bird feeders to control the mosquito population and minimize environmental impacts. This alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis because bird feeders are already present within this area on private property and are not addressing the Purpose and Need. Additionally, large populations of swallows frequent this area but do not adequately control the mosquito population and therefore do not address the Purpose and Need. Due to the nature and scope of the Proposed Action, no other alternatives were considered that would address the Purpose and Need for this project. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This proposal was first listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on March 31, A scoping and legal notice was previously published for this project on June 10, A second scoping period occurred from April 18 to May 22, Further information about this project can be found on our website at Approximately 255 comment letters were received during the two public scoping periods. Of the 255 letters, approximately 250 were supportive comments and the remainder of the comments raised concerns or questions regarding the proposal. The majority of supportive comments agree with the Purpose and Need and the Proposed Action, especially due to the proximity of Wildwood School and Difficult Campground as it relates to public health. Several comment letters raised concerns regarding the spraying of pesticides and airborne concerns. The Proposed Action does not include spraying of a pesticide; the treatment would be a non-chemical larvicide (the active ingredient is a strain of bacterium called Bti) in pellet form and applied directly to wetland complexes. One commenter recommended the use of bird feeders in the Project Area to reduce mosquito populations and reduce environmental impacts. The information presented in this EA discloses minimal environmental impacts due to the Bti. Another commenter was concerned with the use of a pesticide and requested additional scientific information. The EA discloses available scientific information regarding health effects related to the use of Bti. Concerns raised in public scoping comments or by the ID Team were used to determine the necessity to develop alternatives to the Proposed Action. Through extensive discussion, the ID Team determined that there were no other key issues that would drive an additional action alternative. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, I have determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR ). Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. I base my finding on the following: 1 FSH , Chapter 10, Section 14.4 DN-5

8 CONTEXT The effects of implementing the Selected Alternative are localized, with implications only for the immediate vicinity of the Project Area, which encompasses approximately 65 acres of NFS lands east of Aspen. Within the larger Project Area, the larvicide would be applied to approximately five acres each year. Application would occur when the larvae are in the proper phase, which is generally in May, but could occur between April and September. See Alternative 2 (The Proposed Action) for greater detail on the proposed treatment plan. Based on the limited size of the actual affected area in relation to the size of the Forest and natural areas east of Aspen, the impact of the Proposed Action would be limited. Cumulative effects of past management, combined with the current proposal and reasonably foreseeable future actions, are displayed and analyzed in the EA for each resource in Chapter 3. INTENSITY Intensity refers to the severity of the anticipated impact. The following ten intensity factors are used to evaluate intensity: 1) Consideration of both beneficial and adverse impacts. I have considered both the beneficial and adverse impacts associated with the Selected Alternative as presented in the EA and this Decision Notice. The Selected Alternative will provide public health benefits to many users of this area of the WRNF and will improve recreation opportunities on NFS lands. Adverse impacts to water quality and wildlife and aquatic species are thoroughly documented in Chapter 3 of the EA and are determined to be non-significant. In addition, public health concerns are also addressed in Chapter 3 of the EA, and the effects are anticipated to be benign. My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action. 2) Consideration of the effects on public health and safety. The Selected Alternative will not significantly affect public health or safety. Based on the conclusions and analysis provided in the EA, it is expected that public health and safety will be improved in the immediate and surrounding area as a result of the reduction in mosquito populations (see EA pages 3-3 to 3-7). 3) Consideration of the unique characteristics of the geographic area. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area, because the nature of the Proposed Action does not leave any lasting impacts, visual disturbance, or significant alteration of the existing landscape of the area (see EA page 1-5). 4) Consideration of the degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be considered controversial. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial because there is no known scientific controversy over the impacts of the project (see EA pages 3-10 and 3-13). The EA has provided the appropriate level of documentation for this analysis and the Selected DN-6

9 Alternative, and therefore I am confident that it achieves the stated purpose and need while minimizing potential resource impacts. 5) Consideration of the degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. A literature review was performed regarding the potential for impacts on the human environment. Studies on the potential effects of Bti noted its extensive use in control programs for mosquitos and biting flies in various parts of the world. 2 Its popularity as a tool for mosquito abatement stems from its benign environmental and human health impacts has been documented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and numerous studies. 3 The analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risks. Therefore, based on the Forest Service s experience with implementing these types of activities, as well as the requirement to implement PDC to minimize effects, I have determined there will not be significant effects on the human environment. 6) Consideration of the degree to which this action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or that it represents a decision in principle about future considerations. The action is not likely to establish precedence for future actions with significant risks to the environment. The Selected Alternative grants approval for activities which are not known to present any environmental impacts or require future expansion of the treatment regimen. Prior to accepting EAMD s proposal to initiate the requisite NEPA review on the mosquito abatement project, the Forest Service completed our due diligence process to ensure this activity was an appropriate use of public lands. The Forest Service determined that actions similar to what is approved have existed and/or currently exist on NFS lands. 7) Consideration of the action in relation to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. The Cumulative Effects analyses presented for each resource throughout Chapter 3 in the EA disclose past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions with potential to lead to effects which are cumulative in nature. The analysis does not identify any cumulatively significant impacts that are anticipated to result from implementation of the Selected Alternative. 8) Consideration of the degree to which the action may affect listed or eligible historic places. The action will have no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, because the Proposed Action does not include any ground disturbing activities or present any effects to cultural/heritage resources (see EA page 1-5). 2 Stark, 2005; EPA, Stark, 2005 DN-7

10 9) Consideration of the degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its critical habitat. The action will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species act of The analysis on pages 3-3 through 3-7 of the EA indicates no Federal threatened or endangered species habitats occur in the Project Area, threatened and endangered species have no affinities to project area habitats, the Project Area is outside of the species' range, and the management decisions associated with the Proposed Action would have no effect on the species, on their habitats, or on designated critical habitat. 10) Consideration of whether the action violates Federal, State, or local laws or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the action will not violate Federal, State, and local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS This decision is consistent with the 2002 Forest Plan as required by the National Forest Management Act and all other laws, regulations and policies that govern Forest Service actions. The project was designed to conform to the Forest Plan and all other laws, regulations and policies. Forest Plan standards and guidelines will be applied as appropriate to meet Forest Plan goals and desired conditions. The 2002 Forest plan refers to the Forest Service Manual (FSM), Chapter 2150, as amended: Pesticide Use Management and Coordination. The direction from the manual clearly specifies procedures for the uses of biopesticides, such as Bti. Application of Bti would be performed in accordance with all Forest Plan direction (FSM 2150). OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT THE PROPOSED PROJECT This proposed project is subject to the objection process pursuant to 36 CFR 218, subparts A and B. Objections will only be accepted from those who have previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project during scoping or other designated opportunity for public comment in accordance with 218.5(a). Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted, timely and specific written comments regarding the proposed project unless based on new information arising after the designated comment opportunities. Incorporation of documents by reference is not allowed, except for the following items that may be referenced by including date, page, and section of the cited document, along with a description of its content and applicability to the objection: 1) All or any part of a Federal law or regulation; 2) Forest Service directives and land management plans; 3) Documents referenced by the Forest Service in the DN-8

11 proposed project EA or EIS that is subject to objection. All other documents must be included with the objection. At a minimum, an objection must include the following: objector s name and physical mailing address; signature or other verification of authorship upon request; identification of the lead objector when multiple names are listed; name of the proposed project; name and title of responsible official; and name of national forest unit(s) on which the project will be implemented ( 218.8(d)). Objections, including attachments, must be filed via mail, fax, , hand-delivery, express delivery, or messenger service (Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding holidays) to the Reviewing Officer at: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 740 Simms, Golden, CO 80401; FAX: (303) , or to r02f15admin_review@fs.fed.us Objections must be submitted within 45 calendar days following the publication of a legal notice in the Glenwood Post Independent. The publication date in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection. Those wishing to object should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. The regulations prohibit extending the time to file an objection. It is the objector s responsibility to ensure timely filing of a written objection with the reviewing officer pursuant to 218.9, which includes: date of U.S. Postal Service postmark or shipping date for delivery by private carrier for an objection received before the close of the fifth business day after the objection filing period; agency s electronically generated date and time for and facsimiles; or official agency date stamp showing receipt of hand delivery. All objections are available for public inspection during and after the objection process. CONTACT For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service objection process, please contact James Kirschvink, Realty Specialist, c/o Aspen-Sopris Ranger District, 620 Main Street, Carbondale, CO 81623, jkirschvink@fs.fed.us, or (970) DN-9

12 Wildwood School 82 U V Difficult Campground White River National Forest Private Land Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Project Selected Alternative Project Area WRNF Boundary X Feet 1 inch = 500 feet