Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact Cherokee National Forest 2011 Suppression of Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Infestations Cherokee National Forest: Polk, Monroe, McMinn, Cocke, Greene, Washington, Unicoi, Carter, Sullivan, and Johnson Counties, Tennessee Responsible Official H. THOMAS SPEAKS, Jr. Forest Supervisor Cherokee National Forest 2800 Ocoee Street. N. Cleveland, TN 37312

2 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 contract USDA s TARGET Center at (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 (voice) or (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 2

3 1.0 Introduction Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Cherokee National Forests 2011 Suppression of Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Infestations USDA Forest Service In 2005, the U.S. Forest Service Regional Forester issued a decision for The Suppression of Hemlock Woolly Adelgid (HWA, Adelges tsugae) Infestations on the Cherokee National Forest (CNF). That decision allowed for treatment of woolly adelgid infestations affecting eastern and Carolina hemlock on 91 sites across the Cherokee National Forest using a combination of biological (beetle release) and chemical (imidacloprid) treatments. In 2010 the Cherokee National Forest produced a Supplemental Information Report, which allowed a limited increase in treatment on some of the non- wilderness sites. The 2011 Environmental Assessment for Suppression of Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Infestations analyzes the effects of additional treatments beyond what was analyzed in the 2005 analysis. Project objectives are to: (1) Reduce hemlock mortality from HWA by establishing reproducing populations of predator beetles that feed on HWA; (2) Maintain reproducing populations of eastern hemlock and Carolina hemlock throughout the historical geographic and elevational range across the Forests; and (3) Ensure survival of ecologically and culturally important groups of hemlocks. 2.0 Decision and Rationale for the Decision 2.1 Decision Based upon my review of the alternatives, I have decided to implement Alternative 2 and the following Mitigation Measures identified below of the 2011 Suppression of Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Infestations Environmental Assessment (EA) on the Cherokee National Forest. The selected alternative continues the treatment strategies of the 2005 Decision and expands them to include: 1. The use of fungus treatments as a biocontrol agent for hemlock woolly adelgid. The insect-killing fungus Lecanicillium muscarium is being proposed for aerial application to hemlock treatment areas, excluding Wilderness areas. The intent of the fungus treatment is to contribute to a long term biological control. 2. The use of the chemical dinotefuran, Safari TM, as a potential pesticide treatment in hemlock areas identified as having heavy infestation and needing immediate attention for the survival of the trees. Dinotefuran treatments would be used in areas prioritized for attention due to their advanced level of infestation and need for immediate treatment. When used in combination with imidacloprid, infested trees will receive both the short term benefits of dinotefuran along with the longer lasting protection attributed to imidacloprid treatments. 3

4 3. Expanding the scope of potential treatment areas beyond those identified in the original conservation design. The 2005 Decision identified 91 eastern and Carolina hemlock areas for potential treatment. Areas were selected to meet the requirements of a hemlock conservation network designed to represent community diversity within the distribution of known hemlock stands in eastern Tennessee. Monitoring in recent years has indicated that some of the original sites have already been decimated by HWA, beyond the point of preserving viable trees. Additional sites continue to be identified across the forest and are proposed for treatment based on their geographic distribution within the larger hemlock conservation network, and their social and cultural importance. 4. The use of additional predator beetle species as they become available and are evaluated for effectiveness. The forest is currently releasing primarily two species of predator beetles for HWA treatment. Additional species are being proposed for release based on research that finds them to be effective at controlling HWA. The long term objective of HWA treatment is establishment of an effective suite of predator beetles in the ecosystem to control HWA infestations. 5. Expanding the use of imidacloprid as an option on all hemlock treatment areas, consistent with label direction. The 2005 Decision identified specific hemlock treatment areas that would receive application of imidacloprid in order to ensure that genetically diverse hemlocks remain alive until biological controls take effect. This proposal would allow greater flexibility of using imidacloprid on any of the identified hemlock treatment areas as necessary. It is necessary to maintain the option of using chemical treatments until biocontrol agents become sufficiently established in the ecosystem. Once biocontrols become adequately abundant and effective at controlling HWA populations, there will be less reliance on chemical treatments. Mitigation Measures: 1. All chemicals used for the suppression of hemlock woolly adelgid will be applied according to registered label requirements and specifications. 2. All predator beetles proposed for release will have their biology and environmental safety thoroughly evaluated, and meet USDA risk assessment criteria for release (Hennessey, R. 1995, Salom, S. 1998, Zilahi-Balogh, G.M.G. 2001, Montgomery et al. 1997, Lu and Montgomery 2001, Butin et al. 2002). 3. The labeled restriction on using Safari within twenty feet of water will be followed. 4. Any chemical treatments proposed in the following areas will be discussed with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Cookeville, TN) prior to application: all of the Conasauga River within the Forest boundary; all of the Hiwassee River within the Forest boundary; the Tellico River from the lower Forest boundary upstream to where the river road (Forest Service road 210 splits off from the Tellico-Robbinsville road - state highway 165); Citico Creek from the lower Forest boundary upstream to Jake Best Creek (1.5 miles above the Critical Habitat); and the Nolichucky River from the North Carolina state line downstream to the Chestoa bridge. These 4

5 areas cover all occupied habitat, all Critical Habitats, and all likely sites for occurrence for aquatic T&E species. 5. Susceptible sites, which include the soil map units identified in Table 1 of this decision as having seasonally high water tables, should not be treated with either chemical during the months identified in the individual soil map unit descriptions (usually January through May and November through December) unless the trunk spray technique is used in lieu of soil injection, drenching, or placement of granular pesticide. In these areas, treatment by trunk spray instead of soil application should be effective in achieving treatment objectives and would have little probability of affecting shallow groundwater (Cowles, 2010; Griffin, 2010). Table 1 Susceptible sites and associated soil map units Soils with high or seasonally high water table Project area soil map units There are several soil map units that have seasonally high water tables. North Zone (Map Unit, Name, Acres) South Zone (Map Unit, Name, Acres) Bm Bloomingdale silt 20 At Atkins-Arkaqua complex 40 loam or Atkins silt loam Du Dunning silt loam 3 Ba Beason silt loam 3 We Wehadkee find sandy 12 loam 5

6 Project area soil map units Carter County, Tennessee SOIL MAP UNIT DESCRIPTIONS SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE Map unit: We - WEHADKEE FINE SANDY LOAM, OCCASIONALLY FLOODED Component: Wehadkee (100%) The Wehadkee component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flood plains on mountains. The parent material consists of loamy alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is occasionally flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 6 inches during January, February, March, April, May, November, December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6w. This soil meets hydric criteria. Cocke County Area, Tennessee Map unit: Bm - Bloomingdale silt loam, occasionally ponded Component: Bloomingdale (93%) The Bloomingdale component makes up 93 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flood plains on river valleys. The parent material consists of clayey alluvium derived from limestone and shale. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very high. Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is occasionally ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 6 inches during January, February, March, April, May, November, December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3w. This soil meets hydric criteria. 6

7 Project area soil map units Johnson County, Tennessee Map unit: Du - DUNNING SILT LOAM, OCCASIONALLY FLOODED Component: Dunning (100%) The Dunning component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 3 percent. This component is on flood plains on mountains. The parent material consists of clayey alluvium derived from limestone. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is occasionally flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 3 inches during January, February, March, April. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 6 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3w. This soil meets hydric criteria. Sullivan County, Tennessee Map unit: Bm - Bloomingdale silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded Component: Bloomingdale (100%) The Bloomingdale component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flood plains on river valleys. The parent material consists of clayey alluvium derived from limestone and shale. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is occasionally flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 6 inches during January, February, March, April, May, November, December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3w. This soil meets hydric criteria. 7

8 Project area soil map units McMinn County, Tennessee Map unit: At - Atkins-Arkaqua complex, frequently flooded Component: Atkins (80%) The Atkins component makes up 80 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flood plains on mountains. The parent material consists of loamy alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 6 inches during January, February, March, April, May, June, November, December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 95 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4w. This soil meets hydric criteria. Component: Arkaqua (18%) The Arkaqua component makes up 18 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flood plains on mountains. The parent material consists of loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrinkswell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 12 inches during January, February, March, April, May, December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 95 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3w. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 8

9 Project area soil map units Monroe County, Tennessee Map unit: At - ATKINS SILT LOAM Component: Atkins (100%) The Atkins component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flood plains on mountains. The parent material consists of loamy alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is occasionally flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 6 inches during January, February, March, April, May, June, November, December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3w. This soil meets hydric criteria. Map unit: Ba - BEASON SILT LOAM Component: Beason (90%) The Beason component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on stream terraces on river valleys. The parent material consists of clayey alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 18 inches during January, February, March, April, December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3w. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. Treatment of Wilderness and Wilderness study areas will continue as described in the 2005 HWA Decision. Additional treatment options are not being proposed for these areas at this time but may be considered in future analysis. 2.2 Rationale The USDA Forest Service has statutory responsibility to take steps to preserve the diversity of tree species in the forest. Hemlock Woolly Adelgid is a catastrophic introduced pest of hemlock trees in the eastern United States. Without long-term control of HWA there may be devastating impacts to southern Appalachian ecosystems as eastern and Carolina hemlocks continue to be killed throughout their range. Monitoring over the last five years indicates that infested hemlock areas that have not received treatment have continued to decline and hemlocks in many of the areas have been killed by HWA infestations. The rate of HWA spread across the forest is more rapid than originally thought, and the loss of hemlocks continues to have devastating effects on the ecosystem. While predator beetle 9

10 treatments have been effective on a small scale there is a pressing need to supplement with other treatments to ensure adequate numbers of trees remain viable within each conservation area. Also, we want to ensure that additional areas with living hemlock can be included in the conservation plan and protected from HWA. We currently have the opportunity to protect a number of eastern and Carolina hemlock stands that are still relatively intact by utilizing the treatment methods identified in Alternative 2. I selected Alternative 2 because it accomplishes the project objectives and meets the purpose and need for action. I believe it is the best option for protecting hemlock on the Cherokee National Forest in the long term. 3.0 Scoping, Public Involvement, and Public Comments 3.1 Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the Selected Alternative, I considered two other alternatives in detail: Alternative 1 No Action, and Alternative 3 No Additional Chemicals. A comparison of these alternatives can be found in Chapter 2 of the Environmental Assessment. Alternative 1 No Action The No Action alternative consists of continuing suppression of the HWA under the existing 2005 Decision and the 2010 Supplemental Information Report. Treatments include application of imidacloprid and beetle releases on identified hemlock conservation areas. This alternative responds to issues regarding expanding treatment options. Under this alternative there would be no change in our current management strategy. We would continue to treat conservation areas but we would be missing opportunities to protect more of the remaining hemlock stands in eastern Tennessee. Alternative 3 No Additional Chemicals Alternative 3 was proposed in response to the concern over adding dinotefuran as a chemical treatment for HWA. This alternative differed from the proposed action only in that dinotefuran would not be available as a treatment option. 3.2 Public Involvement A detailed proposal with preliminary issues and alternatives was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during April and May of One comment letter was received from the public, organizations, and other government agencies. The one comment letter was neutral to favorable to the proposed action. No new issues were identified to warrant the development of additional alternatives. 4.0 Finding of No Significant Impact I have determined that implementation of this decision is not a major Federal action, significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not needed. Significance as used here, is described in NEPA, 42 U.S.C et. seq. and is determined based on context and intensity (severity of impact) of the action. My determination is based on the 10

11 effects analysis documented and disclosed in the EA, in light of the following factors found at 40 CFR (b) (1-10): 1. My finding of no significant environmenal effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action (EA, pages 12-94). 2. There will be no significant effects on public health and safety, because they are minimally affected by the proposed action (EA pages 12-94). Both the insecticides and predator beetles to be used have been approved by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), respectively. Insecticide application will be administered according the labeled directions. Lecanicillium muscarium, insect killing fungus, occurs naturally in Eastern Tennessee and has been shown to cause significant reductions in adeligid populations in small scale field trials. An evaluation for European registration that included human health, environmental and ecotoxicological analysis concluded that Mycotal, UK product label, is not considered harmful to the environment. 3. There will be no significant effects on unique geographic characteristics of the area by the planned activity (EA pages 12-94). Eastern hemlock is an established component of CNF while Carolina hemlock is not only established but also considered rare. The use of insecticides is the only known treatment that successfully maintains reproducing populations of hemlock at the present time. Chemical treatment of hemlock trees infested with HWA would be the minimum tool required if successful maintenance of the affected population is deemed critical. 4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial (EA pages 12-94) Based on scientific literature, research, and current management applications across the hemlock range, there are no physical effects as a result of the predator beetle (biological control ) or insecticides (chemical control) or the fungus treatment. The predator beetles have been studied by USDA for years before being approved for release. Potential threat of insecticides from contact with water, in particular surface water, is minimal based on the mitigation measures (EA pages 90-92). 5. We have experience with the types of activities to be implemented. The effects analysis documents the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk (EA pages 12-94). 6. The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration (EA pages 12-94). 7. The cumulative impacts are not significant (EA pages 12-94). 8. There will be no effects to any heritage resources listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The Cultural Resource Categorical Exclusion is in the project file (EA, page 92). 9. The action will not be adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species act of (EA, Appendix A) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred with the Determination of Effects in the Biological Evaluation (EA, Appendix A) in a letter dated August 31, 2011 (in project file). 11

12 10. The actions do not threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment (40 CFR (b)(10)). 5.0 Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations The actions are consistent with the intent of the management goals, objectives, and standards in the 2004 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP) for the Cherokee National Forest. The project was designed in conformance with the 2004 RLRMP and incorporates appropriate guidelines and mitigation measures. The project is feasible and reasonable, and results in applying management practices that are consistent with the 2004 RLRMP direction of protecting the environment while maintaining natural communities and minimizing effects of non-native invasive species. The selected alternative is consistent with Forest Service Manual and Handbook direction regarding the use of pesticides. It is my finding that the actions of this decision comply with the requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, NFMA implementing regulations in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 219, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations. Transportation Analysis Plan (TAP): This project will not change the access, does not change the use or patterns of use, and does not change the road standards. No new classified road construction is proposed. There are no road management decisions to be made with this project. Therefore, a project-level TAP is not required. A Forest-level RAP was completed in December 2002 and is adequate for this project. 6.0 Administrative Review and Contacts This decision is not subject to the appeal procedures for National Forest System projects and activities pursuant to 36 CFR (e)(1), Decisions Not Subject to Appeal. For further information on this decision, contact Stephanie Medlin, Forest Environmental Coordinator, 2800 Ocoee Street North, Cleveland, Tennessee 37312, Phone: Implementation Date This decision may be implemented immediately. /s/ H. Thomas Speaks, Jr H. THOMAS SPEAKS, JR. Date Forest Supervisor Cherokee National Forest 12