Mt. Hood National Forest and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in Oregon, Including Forest Plan Amendment #16
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatments for Mt. Hood National Forest and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in Oregon, Including Forest Plan Amendment #16 RECORD OF DECISION and Finding of Non-Significant Forest Plan Amendment USDA Forest Service Mt. Hood National Forest and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in Oregon Clackamas, Hood River, Multnomah, and Wasco counties Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: Gary L. Larsen, Forest Supervisor Mt. Hood National Forest IM00 ('hampion Way Sandy, OR 97055 Daniel T. Harkenrider. Area Manager Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area 902 Wasco Avenue Suite 200 Hood Riwr. OR 9703I For Information and Comments: Jennie O'Connor. Invasive Plant EIS Hood Riv er Ranger District (1780 Highway 35 Purkdale. OR 9704I (5-H) 352-6002 X634 (phone) (54l) 352-7365 (lax) jmoconnorfa fs.fcd.us Project Website: htt : wwwfsfedusrb invash lanl-eis site will]; M'Hl RECORD OF DECISION and FINDING OF NON-SIGNIFICANT FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT for the ' Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatments for Mt. Hood National Forest and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in Oregon, including Forest Plan Amendment #I6 USDA Forest Service Mt. Hood National Forest and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in Oregon Clackamas, Hood River, Multnomah, and Wasco Counties 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FElS) for site-specific invasive plant treatments applies to the entirety ol'the Mt. Hood National Forest (Forest) and the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in Oregon (Scenic Area). The majority of the project area is located in Multnomah, Clackamas. Hood River. and Wasco counties. Small portions adjacent to the Willamette National Forest are in Marion and .lelferson counties. The lands ofthe Forest total a little more than one million acres. with more acreage on the westside ofthe Cascade Mountain Range. The National Forest System lands within the Scenic Area total 7|,000 acres. with approximately 39,000 acres in Oregon. This FEIS proposes to treat approximately I3,000 acres at 208 treatment areas. using integrated weed management methods. See Appendix I for maps ol'the proposed treatment areas‘. The methods include a combination ofmanual (eg, hand pulling. cutting). mechanical (eg. mowing. brushing. weed eating), cultural (goat gra/ing). and herbicide (cg. broadcast spraying. spot spraying) treatments. The site-specific treatments address imentoricd im asive plant species as well as additional imasive plant species that may be treated under the liarly Detection 1 Rapid Response strategy (EDRR). The invasive plant inv entory on the Forest and Scenic Area analyzed in this EIS was completed in November 2004. ' lndnidual treatment areas may he dll'ku“ todeterrmrrd on the printed maps in the app-nd“ Treatment art.“ can he wen .II a larger scale on the P'UICC‘ viel’vsitc littp 'Iwww 1; led us.[(ill“Jslsg'l’lJlll'cls-'sll§''s1\\llls/\‘1IV Record of Decision Throughout all phases of this project, the interdisciplinary team (IDT) followed a set of guiding principles that we established. The guiding principles follow. 0 In treating invasive plants, our highest priority will be to minimize risks to human health; drinking water; and botanical. wildlife or aquatic species. 0 Herbicide treatments will be used when necessary and in combination with non-herbicide methods to increase treatment and cost effectiveness. 0 We will notify the public prior to using herbicides through announcements in local newspapers and by posting treatment areas at access points. 0 This decision does not authorize aerial application of herbicides. 0 Only herbicides analyzed in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be used. a We will employ rapid response to new invaders using treatment methods and guidelines established within this EIS. I Site restoration will be considered in invasive plant treatment prescriptions. All invasive plant treatments proposed will be implemented in conjunction with on-going invasive plant management efforts, including prevention practices. The Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program — Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Record of Decision (Invasive Plant ROD [USDA Forest Service, 2005b]) provides new prevention standards for the Forest and Scenic Area. These prevention practices include cleaning heavy equipment, using weed-free straw and mulch, using palletized or certified weed free feed, and inspecting active gravel, fill, sand stockpiles, quarry sites, and borrow material (See FEIS, Appendix A). In addition, the Forest and Scenic Area have local practices to prevent the invasion and/or spread of invasive plants. These standards incorporating prevention into planning, contracts and permits; utilizing weed-free plant material; distributing information; preventing invasive in areas with soil disturbance; and inspecting stockpiled gravel or rock (See FEIS, Appendix D). 2.0 DECISION After careful review and consideration of the public comments and analyses disclosed in the Site Specific Invasive Plant Treatmentsfor Mt. Hood National Forest and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in Oregon, including Forest Plan Amendment #16 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and project file, we have decided to select the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) as described in the FEIS, Chapter 2, Section 2.l.3 as our Selected Alternative. Our decision also includes a non-significant Forest Plan Amendment, which amends six standards within the Mt. Hood Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (PW-076, A2-082, Al2-03 l , B5-04I, B7-070, Amendment #7) to allow for careful and targeted herbicide use to treat the invasive plants identified, in conjunction with the required Project Design Criteria and according to the standards from the Invasive Plant ROD (2005b). Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatments As part ofour decision. we will implement the Project Design Criteria (PDC). including the ()regon Guidelines for Timing of ln-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources (see FEIS. Appendix M) in order to minimize or eliminate the effects ofthe invasive plant treatments. See Appendix 2 for a list ofthe PDC. Also. we will implement monitoring measures (see FEIS. Chapter 2. Section 2.3) to ensure our decision is carefully tracked during implementation. Finally. our decision includes an adaptive management approach to alter proposed invasive plant treatments and to treat invasive plant sites not yet discovered. This adaptive management approach. the Early Detection / Rapid Response strategy (EDRR). is summarized in FEIS. Chapter I. Section l.3, Figure l-4. The following table summarizes the main components and outcomes of the decision. Table 1: Summary of the Select Altamatlva i Treatment acres of'known inventoried areas 12.004 acres i i Broadcast (boom) herbicide treatments itiz'ztfiés'fiévoi Hand/selective herbicide treatmentsonly 2.694 acres (217%) Non-herbicide treatment methods only 50 acres (1% Estimated effectiveness of proposed treatments i 80% Overall treatment c'ap. including 'kn‘own inventory and EDRR acres ‘ ’ soboo‘ééiéiiver ‘ w a? _, 1.5 Y?€'L_ . Annual treatment cap 13.000 acres Annual fifth Edd watershed treatment cap 3% year per fifth field i W4___Ai watershed Riparian reserve treatment cap 40% of the total area treated in each fifth field watelslieds-woacreweriear ' 11964 was 1156 ms Moms i Cost of treatments $4 3 million Number of full-time jobs created (820.000 per year) 94 jODS 5 Acres of herbicide treatment in riparian reserves 5.026 acres l Acres of herbicide treatment within aquatic influence zone 2.114 acres ‘ Number ol’treaiment sites with higheririsli of effecfsmlo ééliéiic V- 14 sites i d' l organismsm H _ i W VA‘ ‘_ *-; ‘ Acres of treatment in late-successional reserves 2.373 acres Number of sitessites withwith higherTrisk’B’CulturallyisigniflcarifplaVrilhigh; risltofeffectstd sipecialsiatus plant species' species —v SWSIIGS13 sites T" ’' ’ _ i m 7 T T h l Aggrmatment in designated Wilderness Areas A PT‘ ' ’ i ’ A A 1’5 acresi oTiiéTéicidé treatment in Wild & scenic Rive? caries; A— — 1.465 acres' T‘ m ' ’' " ‘ it ForestPlah'Amendmeint for Herbicide Use" Yes Record of Decision 3.0 REASONS FOR THE DECISION We carefully considered the issues and concerns raised by those who participated and commented in this planning process. We considered the eight alternatives; three were analyzed in detail and five were considered but eliminated from detailed study for reasons stated in FEIS, Chapter 2, Section 2.5. The following narrative presents why we selected the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), and why we did not select the No Action Alternative (Alternative l) or the Restricted Herbicide Use Alternative (Alternative 3). Also, we discuss how our decision responds to the purpose and need, layers of caution in herbicide use. and monitoring framework, as well as how we considered the issues most relevant to us in making the decision. The basis for the decision is the ability to meet the purpose and need for action with acceptable impacts as analyzed in FEIS, Chapter 3. The purpose this project is to eradicate, control and contain invasive plant infestations, to reverse the negative impacts caused by the invasive plants, and to restore healthy, native plant communities and function at the impacted sites in a cost effective manner that meets current management direction. There is an underlying need on the Forest and Scenic Area for: l. Reduction of invasive plant species at the 208 known sites on the Forest and Scenic Area by utilizing the treatment