South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Program

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service February 2010 South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Program Final Environmental Impact Statement Krassel and McCall Ranger Districts, Payette National Forest Cascade Ranger District, Boise National Forest Valley County, Idaho Idaho County, Idaho

2 South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Program Final Environmental Impact Statement US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service February 2010 Krassel and McCall Ranger Districts, Payette National Forest Cascade Ranger District, Boise National Forest Valley County, Idaho Idaho County, Idaho The final EIS documents the analysis of a no action alternative and three action alternatives designed to meet the stated purpose and need for the project. The final EIS incorporates the SFSR Subbasin Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Program Draft EIS, and adds four appendices (40 CFR (c)). Appendix G of the final EIS identifies changes made to the draft EIS in preparing the final EIS, Appendix H of the final EIS provides responses to public comments on the draft EIS, Appendix I of the final EIS summarizes public involvement, and Appendix J of the final EIS describes monitoring.

3 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service October 2005 South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement Krassel and McCall Ranger Districts, Payette National Forest Cascade Ranger District, Boise National Forest Valley County, Idaho Idaho County, Idaho

4 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, 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 TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC or call (202) (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

5 SOUTH FORK SALMON RIVER SUBBASIN NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Draft Environmental Impact Statement Valley County, Idaho Idaho County, Idaho October 2005 Lead Agency: Cooperating Agencies: USDA Forest Service N/A Responsible Officials: Mark J. Madrid Richard A. Smith Forest Supervisor Forest Supervisor Payette National Forest Boise National Forest P.O. Box S. Vinnell, Suite 200 McCall, ID Boise, ID For Information Contact: Ana Egnew Land Management Planner Payette National Forest P.O. Box 1026 McCall, ID (208) Abstract: The Payette and Boise National Forests propose an integrated approach to treat existing, as well as future, noxious and invasive weed infestations in the South Fork of the Salmon River (SFSR) Subbasin. This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describes and analyzes the effects of four alternatives. The Proposed Action is Alternative B, which includes aerial and ground-based herbicide application, plus manual and mechanical, biological, and cultural control, and combinations of treatments. Alternative A represents no change in existing management, Alternative C does not include aerial herbicide application, and Alternative D does not involve use of herbicides. Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review and comment period for the Draft EIS. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the Final EIS, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision-making process. Comments on the Draft EIS should be specific and should address the adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR ). Please refer to the cover letter accompanying this Draft EIS for the date by which comments must be received. Send Comments to: Mark J. Madrid Forest Supervisor Payette National Forest P.O. Box 1026 McCall, ID 83638

6

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared pursuant to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the South Fork Salmon River (SFSR) Subbasin Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Program on the Krassel and McCall Ranger Districts, Payette National Forest (PNF) and Cascade Ranger District, Boise National Forest (BNF), Idaho. The PNF and BNF propose to implement an integrated series of weed treatment practices that would control, reduce, and/or slow the spread of noxious and invasive non-native populations of weeds within the SFSR Subbasin. The project area covers approximately 788,660 acres within the SFSR Subbasin outside of the Frank Church - River of No Return (FC-RONR) Wilderness on National Forest System (NFS) Lands. More than 40 weed species are considered in this analysis, including species designated as noxious by the State of Idaho and additional invasive species found on or near the SFSR Subbasin. Weed species that occur in the subbasin are referred to as established or new invaders, while those that occur near the subbasin are referred to as potential invaders. Purpose and Need Project Purpose The purpose of the proposed project is to: Develop criteria to prioritize weed species and treatment areas within the SFSR Subbasin. Identify and treat existing priority weed infestations in the SFSR Subbasin on the BNF and PNF using a variety of methods including herbicide application by hand and aerial spraying. Prevent or limit the introduction and establishment of identified weed species, particularly in areas at high risk because of recent fires. Restore and maintain native plant communities and protect the natural functioning condition and native biodiversity of ecosystems in the SFSR Subbasin. Project Need The need for the proposed project arises because the SFSR Subbasin is an ecologically important, relatively pristine area where the spread of weeds would result in vegetative change with unacceptable consequences on forest resources. The Forest Service needs a management strategy and range of treatments to protect and maintain these resources from changes induced by weeds. ES-1

8 South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Noxious Weed Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lack of effective weed management, in conjunction with the land use patterns around and within the SFSR Subbasin, is expected to result in continued weed infestation onto federally administered land from non-federal land. Conversely, lack of effective weed management on some federally administered land may result in the infestation of neighboring non-federal land or render weed control efforts on adjacent non-federal land ineffective. The federal Noxious Weed Act requires agencies to develop programs to eradicate undesirable plants and establish and adequately fund an undesirable plants management program through the agency s budgetary process; complete and implement cooperative agreements with state agencies regarding the management of undesirable plant species on federal lands under the agency s jurisdiction; and establish integrated management systems to control or contain undesirable plant species targeted under cooperative agreements. (7 USCA 2418). In addition, federal law requires agencies to consult with state and local agencies to develop a coordinated weed management effort. Under Idaho s Noxious Weed Control Act (I.C et. seq.), it is unlawful for an individual to allow noxious weeds to propagate or go to seed on their land unless they are complying with an approved management plan. The law directs counties to develop weed control districts to plan and implement weed control efforts. County weed boards must make all reasonable efforts to develop and implement a noxious weed program covering all land within the district owned by the federal government. Idaho s noxious weed statutes and regulations require coordinated efforts among the state, agencies, and counties to control designated noxious weed populations. Alternatives Analyzed in Detail The Forest Service developed four alternatives in response to issues raised during public and internal scoping for the proposed project that are considered in detail in this Draft EIS. A Proposed Action, two other action alternatives, and a No Action Alternative for the proposed SFSR Program are described below and include the following: Alternative A. No Action Alternative (No Change from Current Management) Alternative B. Proposed Action Aerial and Ground-Based Herbicide Applications Plus Manual and Mechanical, Biological, and Cultural Control, and Combinations of Treatments Alternative C. Ground-Based Herbicide Application Plus Manual and Mechanical, Biological, and Cultural Control, and Combinations of Treatments (No Aerial Herbicide Application) Alternative D. Manual and Mechanical, Biological, and Cultural Control, and Combinations of Treatments (No Herbicide Application) Alternative A No Action Alternative (No Change from Current Management) The No Action Alternative would continue the same weed management programs, treatments, and levels of effort for controlling weeds in the SFSR Subbasin as are ES-2

9 Draft Environmental Impact Statement South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Noxious Weed Management currently being used. These programs are very limited in scope because no environmental analysis has ever been completed for herbicide use in the SFSR Subbasin (outside of designated Wilderness) on the PNF and only very limited herbicide use has been authorized for the BNF portion of the SFSR Subbasin. Current weed treatment on NFS lands in the SFSR Subbasin is limited to localized hand pulling of weeds and up to 15 acres of herbicide treatment annually in the Warm Lake area. Under the No Action Alternative, weed pulling and limited, localized herbicide use would continue. In addition to manual and chemical weed treatment, certain cultural control, non-treatment practices that are part of the Forest Service s Integrated Weed Management (IWM) Program (including maintaining weed prevention, education, and public awareness programs) would continue to be implemented under the No Action Alternative. Acres of weeds hand pulled and chemically treated each year under the No Action Alternative would be considerably fewer than the current estimated weed infestation of more than several hundred acres in the SFSR Subbasin. Because of limited treatment acreages and methods, it is anticipated that continuation of the current weed treatment program would not keep pace with the spread of weeds in the SFSR Subbasin. New weed invaders would continue to establish populations in the SFSR Subbasin and would likely increase in size unless a weed management program that is more aggressive than the program associated with the No Action Alternative is developed and implemented. It would likely not be possible under the No Action Alternative to comply with management direction in all six of the management areas (MAs) within the SFSR Subbasin or to implement effectiveness monitoring and adaptive management as prescribed in the revised Forest Plans. Expanding target weed species, treatment acres, and treatment methods in the SFSR Subbasin under the No Action Alternative would require further NEPA analysis and documentation. This would constrain Forest Service managers from responding in a timely and cost-effective manner to new weed infestations. Alternative B Proposed Action. Aerial and Ground-Based Herbicide Applications Plus Manual and Mechanical, Biological, and Cultural Control, and Combinations of Treatments The overall management objective of the Proposed Action is to expedite and improve the treatment of weeds throughout the SFSR Subbasin using an IWM approach. This approach incorporates the following: Public education Weed prevention techniques An array of weed treatment practices Site restoration and revegetation Monitoring programs Specific treatment areas would be identified each year, along with the minimum tools identified to obtain the desired result. Weed treatment practices that would be used under the Proposed Action include the ground-based and aerial application of herbicides, manual and mechanical weed treatment, biological treatment, and cultural control. The Proposed Action allows for the treatment of weeds on a maximum of 5,000 acres per year ES-3

10 South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Noxious Weed Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement in the SFSR Subbasin using any one or combination of treatment practices listed above (also see Table ES-1). Currently, less than 1,000 acres of weeds have been identified in the subbasin; however, the Proposed Action is designed to allow treatment flexibility in the event that weed infestations expand to the point where up to 5,000 acres of weed treatment are required annually. TABLE ES-1 Estimated Acres of Weed Infestations to be Treated Annually and Possible Treatment Options on the Payette and Boise NFs for the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action, Alternative C, and Alternative D a,b Possible Treatment Options Mechanical Biological Chemical - Ground Chemical Total Aerial Cultural c Acres Alternative A No Action Alternative Alternative B Proposed Action 25 (Hand Pull) X ,000 3,000 X 5,000 Alternative C 500 1,000 1,500 0 X 3,000 Alternative D 500 1, X 2,000 a Estimated treatment acres for the No Action Alternative reflect current and anticipated trends. b Assumptions: 1. No more than 5,000 acres of weeds would be treated in any year. 2. 1,500 acres would be within 150 feet of roads and appropriate for ground-based treatments. Basis: 30,500 acres within 150 feet of roads; 1/2 infested; treat up to 10 percent/year. 3. 3,000 acres would be in grasslands and appropriate for aerial treatment. Basis: 94,000 acres of grasslands; 1/3 infected; treat up to 10 percent/year acres would be in discrete parcels throughout the analysis area (non-roaded, non-grassland areas). c Cultural treatments are included in all alternatives. All proposed weed management practices, approaches, tools, and processes are described in detail in the Integrated Weed Management Section of Chapter 2 in this EIS. Alternative C Ground-Based Herbicide Application Plus Manual and Mechanical, Biological, and Cultural Control, and Combinations of Treatments (No Aerial Herbicide Application) The management objective of Alternative C is similar to the Proposed Action, except that it would not include the aerial application of herbicides. Alternative C allows for treating weeds on a maximum of 3,000 acres per year in the SFSR Subbasin using a combination of ground-based herbicide application plus manual and mechanical, biological and cultural control (Table ES-1). Because of the lack of aerial application, the extent and amount of treatments would be smaller than under Alternative B. This affects the time frame and degree of success that would be anticipated on larger infestations of weeds in the SFSR Subbasin under Alternative C. Except for this difference, all other treatment components and processes described for the Proposed Action (Alternative B) would be implemented under Alternative C (see detailed descriptions in the Integrated Weed Management Section of Chapter 2 of this EIS). ES-4

11 Draft Environmental Impact Statement South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Noxious Weed Management Alternative D Manual and Mechanical, Biological, and Cultural Control, and Combinations of Treatments (No Herbicide Application) Alternative D would increase the level of noxious weed management throughout the SFSR Subbasin compared to current conditions using manual and mechanical, biological, cultural control or non-treatment practices, and combinations of these treatments. Except for the exclusion of herbicides, all other treatment components and processes described for the Proposed Action (Alternative B) and Alternative C, including the treatment of up to 2,000 acres per year, would be implemented under Alternative D (see Table ES-1). Herbicides would not be applied under Alternative D, and they would not be authorized for future use in the adaptive weed management strategy under this alternative. Comparison of the Effects of Alternatives Table ES-2 (following this ) compares and contrasts important features, properties, benefits, and costs of the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action, and Alternatives C and D. Table ES-2 provides summary information for each of these four alternatives on noxious weed management goals, degree to which the components of project purpose and need would be met, and components of the IWM Program that would be implemented, including treatment practices, site restoration and monitoring, adaptive strategy, minimum tool approach, and site-specific implementation process. Table ES-2 includes a summary of estimated annual total treatment cost, estimated annual average cost per acre treated, and cost versus benefit for each alternative. Table ES-3 (following this ) summarizes and compares the potential environmental benefits and impacts of the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action, Alternative C, and Alternative D for each resource area. The Proposed Action, followed by Alternative C, and then Alternative D, would be the most effective of the alternatives evaluated in eradicating, controlling, and containing noxious weeds within the SFSR Subbasin and in benefiting a broad range of subbasin resources. The No Action Alternative (No Change from Current Management) would be the least effective of the alternatives evaluated in treating weeds and in benefiting most SFSR resources because of the comparatively few acres of weeds that would be treated each year. Potential risks to some SFSR resources were identified for those alternatives that would use herbicides to treat weeds. These include aerial and ground-based herbicide applications under the Proposed Action and ground-based herbicide applications under Alternative C. Such risks would be very limited under the No Action Alternative because no more than 15 acres would be treated chemically each year and non-existent under Alternative D. In all instances involving herbicide and other potential risks, Project Design Features (PDFs) and mitigation measures would be implemented to avoid or minimize the potential for adverse effects to occur. In addition, the Proposed Action, Alternative C, and Alternative D include the use of a site-specific implementation process and a decision tree, a minimum tool approach, and an adaptive strategy. These management tools are designed to consider site-specific resource conditions that result in the selection of a treatment option that achieves weed management goals with the least ES-5

12 South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Noxious Weed Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement impact on SFSR resources. The protection of worker health and safety and public health and safety in selecting and implementing a site-specific treatment option would receive the very highest priority. Selection of the Preferred Alternative The Forest Service has not selected a preferred alternative. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2003 (Vol. 68, No. 243). The NOI asked for public comment on the proposal from December 18, 2003, through January 19, The comment period was later extended to February 2, In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the agency held two open houses to inform the public about the project and solicit scoping comments. The first meeting was held on December 12, 2003, in Boise, Idaho. The second meeting was held on December 13, 2003, in McCall, Idaho. Using the comments from the public, other agencies, and Tribal Nations, the Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) developed a list of issues to address. Issues The Forest Service IDT separated the issues into two groups: significant and non-significant issues. Issues are defined as a point of discussion, debate, or dispute about environmental effects. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the Proposed Action. Significant issues are issues used to formulate alternatives to the Proposed Action, prescribe mitigation measures, or analyze environmental effects. Indicators are measures used to track the effects of the Proposed Action on the significant issues. The significant issues and indicators are summarized below. Significant Issues Table ES-4 lists the issues identified by the Forest Service as significant during scoping, a brief description of each, and indicators. TABLE ES-4 Significant Issues Issue Issue Indicators 1 Water Quality. The effects of the proposed activities on water quality specifically the potential for chemical contamination of surface waters and alterations in erosion and sediment processes resulting from changes in ground cover 2 Fisheries Resources. The effects of the proposed activities on federally listed fish species Estimated change in delivered sediment based on a qualitative evaluation Estimated concentration of herbicides in receiving waters Risk of chemical contamination and effects on fish and macroinvertebrates based on a risk analysis ES-6

13 Draft Environmental Impact Statement South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Noxious Weed Management TABLE ES-4 Significant Issues Issue Issue Indicators 3 Vegetation. The effects of the proposed activities on native plant communities and rare plants 4 Wildlife Resources. The effects of the proposed activities on big game, federally listed species, Forest Service Sensitive Species, PNF MIS, and neotropical migratory birds particularly cavity and ground-nesting species. 5 Recreation. The effects of the proposed activities on visual resources and recreation 6 Cultural Resources. The effects of the proposed activities on cultural resources, particularly Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) 7 Human Health. The effects of herbicide use on human health 8 Economics. The cost compared to the benefits of the treatment methods PNF and BNF proposed sensitive and watch plant species habitat modified by the proposed activities Native plant communities modified by the proposed activities Health effects of herbicide ingestion on selected herbivorous wildlife species Direct and indirect effects of weed management and control activities on wildlife (that is, disturbance) Effect on ability to maintain scenic values (maintain natural-appearing setting), wildlife viewing opportunities, and solitude values in developed and undeveloped recreation settings Effect on primitive recreation activities (access to areas, ability to participate in activity, and effect on solitude and sense of remoteness while engaging in activity) Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as amended Compliance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) Compliance with Executive Orders pertaining to the consultation and coordination with American Indian Tribal Governments Erosion or other ground disturbance at cultural resource or TCP sites Disturbance of plants used by Native Americans Potential for health effects to workers from acute herbicide exposures during ground and aerial applications Potential for health effects to recreationists, residents (private land owners within and adjacent to Forest Service lands), and American Indian Tribal members from chronic and/or acute exposure to herbicide residuals The cost of a particular combination of treatments in an alternative relative to the benefit derived from the action Decision to be Made Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible officials will decide what treatment actions, if any, should be taken to control weeds on the PNF and BNF within the SFSR Subbasin, where treatment should be applied, what type of treatment(s) should be used, and when treatment will occur. ES-7

14 South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Noxious Weed Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement TABLE ES-2 Comparison of Features, Properties, Costs, and Benefits of the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action, Alternative C, and Alternative D Items of Comparison No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D Management Goals See EIS Chapter 2 ES-8 Maintain current noxious weed prevention, education, and public awareness programs Treat about 40 acres annually Manage new and established invaders using hand pulling treatment methods and the ground-based application of herbicides. The management objective is to expedite and improve the treatment of weeds throughout the SFSR Subbasin using an IWM approach and implementing a full array of treatment and non-treatment practices. The Proposed Action would treat up to 5,000 acres of weeds each year using the following methods: Public education Weed prevention techniques An array of weed treatment practices Site restoration and revegetation Monitoring programs Specific treatment areas would be identified each year, along with the minimum tools identified to obtain the desired result. Weed treatment practices that would be used under the Proposed Action include the groundbased and aerial application of herbicides, manual and mechanical weed treatment, biological treatment, and cultural control. Most acres would be treated using aerial-based herbicide application. Twenty percent of the proposed treatment acres are estimated to be treated annually using manual removal or biological controls. Aerial herbicide application would be limited primarily to areas with large infestations (greater than 5 acres and more than 25 percent canopy coverage of weeds) on steep slopes (greater than 40 percent), where vehicle access is limited, and where aerial application is more efficient and cost-effective. Weed treatment at a specific site would begin with the minimum tool approach. Managers would use the minimum necessary weed treatment method or methods to accomplish management goals. Essentially the same as the Proposed Action, except this alternative does not include the aerial application of herbicides and is, therefore, less aggressive. About 3,000 acres of weeds would be treated each year. A combination of biological and groundbased chemical methods rather than aerial herbicide application would be used to treat large infestations although these larger weed infestations are typically more difficult to access. This would require a greater use of ground-based crews and biological controls. This alternative limits the kind of treatment methods available (no herbicides), and the success of these methods would be limited. About 2,000 acres of weeds would be treated each year. Except for the exclusion of herbicides, all other treatment components and processes described for the Proposed Action (Alternative B) and Alternative C would occur. Herbicides would not be applied under Alternative D, and they would not be authorized for future use in the adaptive weed management strategy under this alternative. This would require greater use of biological controls. Implementation of methods to prevent the introduction and establishment of weeds is similar for Alternative D and the Proposed Action

15 Draft Environmental Impact Statement South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Noxious Weed Management TABLE ES-2 Comparison of Features, Properties, Costs, and Benefits of the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action, Alternative C, and Alternative D Items of Comparison No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D Purpose and Need See Chapter 1 1. Develop criteria to prioritize weed species and treatment areas within the SFSR Subbasin 2. Identify and treat existing priority weed infestations in the SFSR Subbasin on the BNF and PNF using a variety of methods including herbicide application by hand and aerial spraying. 3. Prevent or limit the introduction and establishment of identified weed species, particularly in areas at high risk because of recent fires. Does not meet purpose and need. Prioritizes treatment methods and acres treated according to species of weed, its aggressiveness, whether it is new or established, and the location and size of the infestation. However, a full range of options to implement priorities is not available. No action implies no change from current weed management practices. Generally limited by selection of methods to mechanical and ground-based herbicide application only, and the realm of treatment and nontreatment methods is limited to existing strategies. Total acres to be treated annually: up to approximately 40. Does not meet purpose and need. The No Action Alternative does not prevent new or existing weed populations from spreading. Meets purpose and need. Identifies treatment based on species of weeds present, their degree of aggressiveness, and the sizes and numbers of infestations; corresponding treatment priorities and objectives; treatment methods available; and estimated annual acres for treatment (5,000). Most aggressive application of full array of treatment and non-treatment methods, including aerial application of herbicide. Total acres to be treated annually: up to approximately 5,000. Meets purpose and need. This alternative uses non-treatment and a full array of treatment options to aggressively prevent the spread of new and existing weed populations. Meets purpose and need, but not as effectively as the Proposed Action. The largest areas of infestations may be treated with less aggressive measures since the typically steep and rocky terrain cannot be treated effectively with the available options. Although species and treatment areas would be identified and prioritized, the infestation may go unchecked while available options are implemented. Employs full array of treatment and nontreatment methods, except aerial application of herbicide. Total acres to be treated annually: up to approximately 3,000. Would meet purpose and need where terrain allows effective treatment options. In areas of steep and rocky terrain (also the areas with the largest infestations of aggressive weeds), this purpose and need would not be met in the long term. Weed invasion from inaccessible areas might prevail and spread into more remote, highrisk areas. Meets purpose and need, but not as effectively as the Proposed Action. Although management goals and priorities have been assigned under this alternative, these goals have greatly reduced control and reduce goals while increasing contain goals. Thus, prioritization and effectiveness are substantially reduced. Costs of eradication (the first priority in all alternatives) would also limit the ability to meet other control priorities. Employs full array of treatment and nontreatment methods, except herbicide application. Total acres to be treated annually: up to approximately 2,000. Meets purpose and need where terrain allows effective treatment options. Aggressive noxious weed treatments would be limited without herbicide use and allow weed spread throughout areas that may already be at high risk for infestation. Some species may not be able to be controlled due to access or resistance to biological treatment methods. ES-9

16 South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Noxious Weed Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement TABLE ES-2 Comparison of Features, Properties, Costs, and Benefits of the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action, Alternative C, and Alternative D Items of Comparison No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D 4. Restore and maintain native plant communities and protect the natural functioning condition and native biodiversity of ecosystems in the SFSR Subbasin Site Restoration and Monitoring See Chapter 2 Adaptive Strategy See Chapter 2 Minimum Tool Approach and Site-Specific Implementation Process See Chapter 2 Total Cost per Year See Economics Section, Chapter 3 Cost Per Acre per Year See Economics Section, Chapter 3 Does not meet purpose and need. Would continue current noxious weed program. This alternative does not have the flexibility of the Proposed Action. The proportion of acreage treated would generally be limited to about 40 acres. Weeds in untreated areas would continue to spread. Limited monitoring program implementation and measurement of the effectiveness of treatments on target species. Not included. Constrains Forest managers from responding in a timely and cost-effective manner to new weed infestations and expansion of existing weed infestations. Not included Meets purpose and need. Uses full array of treatment and non-treatment methods to maximize the treatment of weeds as quickly as reasonably possible. Use of adaptive strategy, the minimum tool approach, and site-by-site implementation process would manage current and future weed populations. With aerial application and other costefficient methods available, the cost of treatment can be effectively spread throughout the subbasin, based on the priorities identified. Implement (where appropriate) site restoration, revegetation, and implementation and effectiveness monitoring following treatment to reduce or eliminate the subsequent reinvasion of weeds, measure the degree of treatment success, and validate buffering effectiveness. Implements subbasin-wide action plan to reduce or eliminate spread of weeds; adaptive weed management strategy for managing future new weed infestations or expansion of existing infestations. Employ site-specific minimum tool approach for effectively managing future weed infestations with the least impact on subbasin resources, uses, and values. Meets purpose and need, but less effectively than the Proposed Action. In the largest infested areas (typically steep and rocky), the most cost-effective mechanical and ground-spraying methods would not be available or limited. However, the need would be somewhat met through more expensive ground applications such as backpack and ATV applications where access and terrain are favorable. In the long term, the purpose and need would only be very minimally met. Inaccessible large infestations could not be effectively treated due to limited mechanical treatment options and ground-based chemical applications. Same as the Proposed Action. Same as the Proposed Action Same as the Proposed Action. Meets purpose and need, but less effectively than the Proposed Action. This alternative would not use herbicides; most mechanical methods would be ineffective on the larger infestations occupying the steep and rocky terrain within the subbasin. Choice of treatment methods would be severely limited and in most cases the effectiveness of the treatment would be questionable. Flexibility of treatment would be limited. In the long term, some weed species would continue to spread. Similar to the Proposed Action (excluding buffer validation monitoring). Same as the Proposed Action Same as the Proposed Action. $5,900 to $12,650 $376,000 to $735,000 $490,000 to $945,000 $550,000 to $955,000 $147 to $316 $75 to $147 $163 to $315 $275 to $478 ES-10

17 Draft Environmental Impact Statement South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Noxious Weed Management TABLE ES-2 Comparison of Features, Properties, Costs, and Benefits of the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action, Alternative C, and Alternative D Items of Comparison No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D Cost vs. Benefit Cost per acre include: Low: $<200 Moderate: $ High: >$300 See Table 3-32 for detailed supporting information and assumptions regarding costs per acre for different treatment methods for the Proposed Action and alternatives. Benefit is the overall effectiveness in light of the purpose and need compared to other alternatives. Benefits are classified as: Low: Does not meet purpose and need. Moderate: Meets purpose and need, but not effectively. High: Meets purpose and need effectively. See Table 3-32 for a summary of project-related effects and benefits for the Proposed Action and alternatives. Cost Effectiveness See Economics Section of EIS Total annual cost is considered moderate to high, since treatment options are limited and the number of acres to be treated is much less than the other alternatives. Benefit is considered low. Overall weed treatment effectiveness of the No Action Alternative would be lower than for all the action alternatives because of fewer treatment options and fewer acres treated each year. Cost effectiveness is considered low to moderate because fewer acres would be treated under this alternative and weed treatment goals would not be met. Total annual cost is considered low, depending on treatment combinations and acres treated. Average cost per acre for all acres treated is low. See Table 3-32 for details on costs. Benefit is considered high. Provides the greatest number of weed treatment options and ability to reach large acreages and difficult access areas. Overall weed treatment effectiveness of the Proposed Action would be greater than for Alternatives C, D and the No Action Alternative because of a full range of treatment options and the number of acres to be treated each year. Cost effectiveness is considered high because treatment methods could be selected to most efficiently and effectively meet all weed treatment goals. Total annual cost ranges from low to high, depending on treatment combinations and acres treated. Average cost per acre for all acres treated is high. Weed treatment options limited by lack of aerial herbicide application. See Table 3-32 for details on costs. Benefit is considered moderate/high. Overall weed treatment effectiveness of Alternative C would be less than for the Proposed Action because of fewer treatment options, but greater than for Alternative D and the No Action Alternative because of more treatment options and more acres treated each year. Cost effectiveness is considered moderate to high because of limited use of the most economic and effective treatment methods and not meeting all weed treatment goals. Total annual cost ranges from moderate to high. Average cost per acre for all acres treated is high. Weed treatment options are limited to mechanical and biological methods. See Table 3-32 for details on costs. Benefit is considered low. Overall weed treatment effectiveness of Alternative D would be less than for the Proposed Action and Alternative C, but higher than for the No Action Alternative. Cost effectiveness is considered low because of the use of expensive weed treatment methods with limited effectiveness and not meeting all weed treatment goals. ES-11

18 South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Noxious Weed Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement TABLE ES-3 Comparison of Effects Between Alternatives as a Function of the Issue and Indicator Resource Area No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D Biological Resources Vegetation Resources and Noxious Weeds Indicators: Native plant communities modified by the proposed activities PNF and BNF proposed sensitive and watch plant species habitat modified by the proposed activities Fisheries Resources Indicator: Chemical Contamination The primary impact on native vegetation under the No Action Alternative would be a continued increase in weed cover at the expense of native vegetation, particularly understory vegetation. Few to no direct impacts to PNF and BNF sensitive and watch plant species from implementation of the No Action Alternative. Weed expansion, however, can indirectly affect sensitive plants by out-competing them for space and resources. Indirect impacts from weed expansion would be expected to be greater under the No Action Alternative than any of the other alternatives. Because only very limited chemical use would occur (on 15 acres or less annually), very limited risk of chemical contamination to the aquatic environment could result from weed treatments under this alternative. The potential for inadvertent direct impacts on existing native vegetation would likely be greatest in the Proposed Action as a result of the potential risk from herbicide application both aerially and groundbased. There is some risk from mechanical treatment. Herbicide treatment in the Proposed Action poses the greatest direct risk to sensitive and watch plants and habitat. A herbicide spill could result in localized special status plant mortality. However, adherence to PDFs and site-specific implementation would avoid the likelihood of direct and indirect impacts to specialstatus plants. The Proposed Action creates the highest risk for chemical contamination to fish and macroinvertebrates. An extensive range of PDFs is included to avoid and minimize the risk of chemical contamination from these treatments. Direct impacts in Alternative C would be similar to the Proposed Action except the potential for inadvertent direct impacts from aerial spraying on existing native vegetation would not occur in Alternative C. Some risk of direct impacts from ground-based herbicide application to non-target plants could occur under this alternative. The potential risk is similar to the Proposed Action, except that no aerial application of herbicides would take place, which decreases the chance for wind drift into aquatic systems during application. Some direct impacts to native plant communities from mechanical and biological controls could occur in Alternative D. Without the use of herbicide treatment, inaccessible weed populations and larger lowland weed populations could spread more rapidly than could be contained by only manual, mechanical, biological, or cultural treatments. No risk of chemical contamination to aquatic environments would result from this alternative. ES-12

19 Draft Environmental Impact Statement South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Noxious Weed Management TABLE ES-3 Comparison of Effects Between Alternatives as a Function of the Issue and Indicator Resource Area No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D Wildlife Resources Indicators: Health effects of herbicide ingestion on selected herbivorous wildlife species. Direct and indirect effects of weed management and control activities on wildlife (disturbance). Physical Resources Water Resources Indicators: Estimated change in delivered sediment based on a qualitative evaluation Estimated concentration of herbicides in receiving waters Very limited chemical use would occur (on 15 acres or less annually) and there would be very limited risk of herbicide ingestion impacts to wildlife. Only limited disturbance-related direct adverse effects on most wildlife species would result from the No Action Alternative because of the limited area that would be treated each year. Sensitive species, migratory bird species, and terrestrial MIS would be directly disturbed, temporarily, during the limited weed treatment procedures available under the No Action Alternative. Based on current areas of infestation, increased sediment delivery would not be substantive. However, infested acres are expected to expand in the absence of treatment flexibility leading to minor increases in sediment delivery. Concentration of herbicides in receiving waters would not change from current conditions. Herbicides pose the greatest risk to wildlife from implementation of the Proposed Action. The main pathways of effect include dermal contact or eating contaminated food. Risk assessments suggest that wildlife, including amphibians, would not be substantially affected by herbicides at the expected consumption levels. Temporary direct displacement would result from disturbance during weed treatments, particularly from mechanical treatment. Biological control agents would have no direct effect on wildlife. Long-term benefits to wildlife, TEPC, sensitive, migratory birds, and MIS species would be considerably greater than those discussed for the No Action Alternative, because of more effective weed control limiting native plant community productivity losses. A minor temporary or short-term increase in sediment would occur from up to 5,000 treated acres, until vegetation becomes established. The potential long-term effect would be a net reduction in sediment delivery as native plant communities replace weed populations. Potential temporary impacts on surface water quality could occur if a relatively toxic herbicide such as picloram or 2,4-D amine is accidentally spilled in a small drainage. Herbicide ingestion effects would be the same as the Proposed Action, but at a reduced level because there is no aerial application. The potential for consumption impacts from herbicides would be less than described for the Proposed Action. Direct effects on all wildlife groups would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action, except that none of the disturbance effects related to aircraft application would occur. Indirect effects would be similar to those described for the Proposed Action, except for areas with large blocks of weed infestations, especially those infestations that occur or may occur on inaccessible terrain. Effects on sediment would generally be similar to those effects described for the Proposed Action. Sediment delivery could increase from remote, inaccessible weed populations where aerial applications of herbicides would not occur. The potential for impacts to water quality from herbicides is less than that of the Proposed Action because no aerial herbicide treatments would occur. No herbicide ingestion impacts would occur. Direct effects due to treatment listed above would be similar to Alternative C, except for those related to herbicide application. The magnitude of potential shortterm and long-term direct and indirect benefits to surface water quality under Alternative D would be expected to be less than under the Proposed Action or Alternative C because fewer methods would be used and fewer acres of weeds would be treated. Concentration of herbicides in receiving waters would not change from current conditions. ES-13

20 South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Noxious Weed Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement TABLE ES-3 Comparison of Effects Between Alternatives as a Function of the Issue and Indicator Resource Area No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D Human and Socioeconomic Resources Because very limited herbicide use would occur (no more than 15 acres annually), there would be very limited exposure pathway risk of workers to herbicides. Because very limited herbicide use would occur, there would be very limited exposure pathway risk to herbicides. Human Health and Safety Indicators: Potential for health effects to workers from acute herbicide exposures during ground and aerial applications Potential for health effects to recreationists, residents, and American Indian Tribal members from chronic and/or acute exposure to herbicide residuals Economics Indicator: The cost of a particular combination of treatments in an alternative relative to the benefit derived from the action Recreation Indicator: Effect on scenic values, wildlife viewing, and solitude Under the No Action Alternative, the cost per acre is high while the benefit of the treatment method is low because of the limited numbers of acres treated per year compared to the potential for weed spread. Temporary, short-term, and long-term impacts on visual resources because increased weed infestations would be greatest under this alternative. Acute worker exposures through inhalation, incidental ingestion, and dermal contact are possible. Individuals could be exposed to residual herbicides through the inhalation of dust, dermal contact with sprayed vegetation, and ingestion of herbicides either on the surface or bioaccumulated in potential food items (for example, berries). The Forest Service has concluded that based on the best scientific information available and with the implementation of PDFs and mitigation measures, it would be reasonably expected that human health impacts from herbicide applications would range from not substantive and small to none. Under the Proposed Action, the cost per acre is low while the benefits of the treatment methods are high because of the array of methods available, if needed, to treat (or prevent) broad-scale infestations that could occur across the subbasin. Most effective of all alternatives in maintaining or enhancing the future quality of forest visual resources because of effectively treating weed infestations. Acute worker exposures through inhalation, incidental ingestion, and dermal contact are possible. Individuals could be exposed to residual herbicides through the inhalation of dust, dermal contact with sprayed vegetation, and ingestion of herbicides either on the surface of or bioaccumulated in potential food items (for example, berries). Incidence of food contamination could be less with no aerial application. No aerial application would reduce the potential for inadvertently exposing private landowners or forest users possibly hiking or gathering wild foods, although the potential for adverse effects from these actions was described as being very low to unlikely under the Proposed Action. Under Alternative C, the cost per acre is low while the benefits of the treatment methods are moderate because of the array of alternatives, with the exception of aerial applications, available to treat (or prevent) a broad scale of infestations that could occur across the subbasin. Second most effective of all alternatives in maintaining or enhancing the future quality of forest visual resources because of relative effectiveness treating weed infestations. There would be no exposure pathways where workers could be exposed to herbicides. There would be no exposure pathway where individuals could be exposed to herbicides. Under Alternative D, the cost per acre is high while the benefits of the treatment methods are low because of the limited treatment methods available to treat a broad scale of infestations that could occur across the subbasin. Second least effective of all alternatives in maintaining or enhancing the future quality of forest visual resources because of relative effectiveness treating weed infestations. ES-14