United States Department of Environmental Assessment: Agriculture

Forest Service SILVICIDE December 2013

For More InformationContact: Paul Hancock, Grand River Ranger District, 1005 5th Ave. W. Lemmon, SD 57638.

(605) 374-3592

Dakota Prairie Grasslands

Billings, Slope, Golden Valley, Sioux, Grant, McHenry, McKenzie, Ransom and Richland Counties in North Dakota Corson, Perkins and Ziebach Counties in South Dakota

Data Accuracy - The Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available. Geographic information system (GIS) data and product accuracy may vary. They may be developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc. Using GIS products for purposes other than those, for which they were created, may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace, GIS products without notification. For more information, contact: Dakota Prairie Grasslands GIS shop, 240 W. Century Ave., Bismarck, ND 585003 (701)250-4443.

EEO Statement The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDAs TARGET Center at (202) 720- 2600 (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. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Cover Photo: Russian olive at stockpond in Halverson Allotment, Cedar River National Grassland, Sioux Co., ND. 9 June 2009. Photo by Dan Svingen.

Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 2 Document Structure ...... 2 Background ...... 2 Project Area...... 3 Need for the Proposal ...... 4 Proposed Action ...... 6 Management Direction ...... 6 Laws Regulation and Policy...... 6 Decision Framework ...... 8 Public Involvement ...... 8 Issues ...... 8 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ...... 8 Alternatives ...... 8 Mitigation and Design Features Common to All Alternatives ...... 9 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 11 Environmental Consequences ...... 12 Consultation and Coordination ...... 14

List of Tables

Table 1. Comparison of Alternative Effects on Desired Conditions and Issues...... 11

List of Figures

Figure 1. Map of Project Area ...... 4

i Project Name

Introduction Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this environmental assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This environmental assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. Background The use of herbicides for control of certain noxious weed species has already been approved under the Record of Decision for the Noxious Weed Management Project, Dakota Prairie Grasslands (USDA FS 2007). That decision authorized an integrated, adaptive approach to continue to treat existing and future infestations of noxious weed species. That decision did not address the use of herbicides for the control of undesired trees and shrubs. There is a need, in order to accelerate restoration projects on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, to remove invasive trees and shrubs.

DEFINITIONS:

Noxious Weeds: Those plant species designated as weeds by federal or state laws. Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host for serious insects or diseases, and generally non-native [Dakota Prairie Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plant pp. 35].

Invasive Plant: A species that displays rapid growth and spread, free from natural controls and enhanced by abundant seed production and germination [Dakota Prairie Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan pp. 26]. Note: invasive plants may or may not be listed as noxious, but generally have similar ecological impacts.

2 Environmental Assessment

Project Area The project area (Figure 1) for the proposed use of the silvicides would be the same area analyzed for the 2007 Noxious Weed Management FEIS, and includes the following areas: Medora, McKenzie, Grand River, and Sheyenne Ranger Districts and the Denbigh and Souris Experimental Forests. These areas are collectively known as the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. The Dakota Prairie Grasslands are located in both North and South Dakota and encompass portions of Billings, Slope, Golden Valley, McKenzie, Sioux, Grant, McHenry, Ransom and Richland Counties, North Dakota; and Corson, Perkins and Ziebach Counties, South Dakota. Portions of the project area are within the boundaries of the Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Indian Reservations. The project area consists of National Forest System (NFS) lands. Proposed treatments would occur throughout the project area.

3 Project Name

Figure 1: Map of project area.

4 Environmental Assessment

Purpose and Need for the Proposal The purpose of this proposal is to authorize the use of silvicides. This action is needed because individual trees and shrubs removed using only mechanical or cultural methods can re-sprout (Figures 2-3), necessitating additional treatments.

Figure 2: Russian olive trees in Hoopie Allotment, Cedar River National Grasslands prior to being cut down. June 2008. Photo by Jordan Kvale.

Treating the cut stumps of these trees, shrubs, and brush would reduce the need for retreatment. This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the 2002 Dakota Prairie Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended), and helps move the project area towards desired conditions described in that document. Those desired conditions as described in the Land and Resource Management Plan include:

Goal 1.a: Improve and protect watershed conditions to provide the water quality and quantity and soil productivity necessary to support ecological functions and intended beneficial water uses.

Objective 2: Move at least 80 percent of riparian areas and woody draws toward self- perpetuating plant and water communities that have desired diversity and density of understory and over story vegetation within site capability. Figure 3: Russian olive trees, Hoopie Allotment, Cedar River National Grassland, Goal 1.b: provide ecological conditions to resprouting after mechanical treatment. sustain viable populations of native and desired non- October 2008. Photo by Dan Svingen.

5 Project Name

native species and to achieve objectives for management Indicator Species (MIS).

Goal 1.c: Increase the amount of forests and grasslands restored to or maintained in a healthy condition with reduced risk and damage from disturbance processes, both natural and human-controlled.

Objective 7: within 10 years, implement an integrated prevention and pest control management program for noxious weeds and invasive plant species. Proposed Action The Dakota Prairie Grasslands is proposing to authorize the use of triclopyr and imazapyr to control undesired trees and shrubs that have been authorized for removal under prior analysis efforts. Species to be treated include, but are not limited to: Russian olive, Chinese elm, Siberian elm, common buckthorn, cottonwood, oaks, quaking aspen, willow species, western snowberry, and sumac. Treatment would consist primarily of stump treating or “painting” the remaining vegetative structure with the herbicides in order to inhibit regrowth. Treatment might also include foliage application (such as on willow stands). Management Direction The Dakota Prairie Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan contains guidance regarding this proposal. These include: Manage invasive plant species using integrated management techniques, including mechanical, chemical, and biological control methods. Guideline To prevent the spread of noxious weeds and invasive plant species, include necessary provisions in contracts and permits for use of the National Grasslands and its resources. Standard Contain and control infestations [of noxious weeds and invasive species] based on the following: o Rate of species spread. o Invasions within special management areas, such as Research Natural Areas (RNAs) and Wilderness, activity corridors, and high use areas. o Probability of successful treatment(s) in meeting desired conditions. o Prevent the introduction of new invasive species. o Conduct early treatment of new infestations. Guideline Prohibit pesticide use where it would have adverse effects on species at risk. Guideline Laws, Regulations, and Policies Other laws, regulations, and policies related to noxious weed and invasive plant management addressed by this project include, but are not limited to:

Executive Order 13112 of 1999 states federal agency duties are as follows: o Identify actions that may affect the status of invasive species. ○ Use relevant programs and authorities to: (i) prevent the introduction of invasive species; (ii) detect and respond rapidly to and control populations in a cost- effective and environmentally sound manner; (iii) monitor; (iv) restore; (v) research; (vi) promote public education on invasive species.

6 Environmental Assessment

○ Not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species. ○ Coordinate these duties with the National Invasive Species Council that coordinates Federal strategies to address the problem of noxious weeds. Plant Protection Act of June 20, 2000, Public Law 106-224, and the 1990 Farm Bill, Public Law 101-624, which directed the Forest Service to develop and coordinate management programs for controlling undesirable plants.

National Prevention Strategy for Invasive Plant Management. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the regulations established by the Environmental Protection Agency [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 116-117, 165, 170-172] are the primary guidance governing pesticide registration, pesticide usage, the training and certification of pesticide applicators, and the criminal and civil penalties associated with the misuse of pesticides. FIFRA also delegates the enforcement of FIFRA to the individual states. Forest Service “Pulling Together Initiative” for Noxious Weed and Nonnative Invasive Plant Management that directed the Forest Service to set goals of education, implement integrated weed management as a high priority, include management of noxious weeds in all planning processes, and develop partnerships. Forest Service Manuals 2080 and 2900, and Regional Supplement No. 2100-98-1 that establish policy and implement programs for noxious weed management.

The North Dakota and South Dakota Departments of Agriculture are the lead state agencies and have the primary jurisdiction for pesticide enforcement in North Dakota and South Dakota, respectively. North Dakota Department of Agriculture receives this authority from the North Dakota Pesticide Act which was enacted in 1975 (http://www.agdepartment.com/Programs/Plant/PesticideLawRules.htm).

South Dakota Department of Agriculture receives this authority from SD Codified Laws 38- 20A, 38-21, and administrative rule ARSD12:56. (http://sdda.sd.gov/Ag_Services/Agronomy_Services_Programs/Pesticide_Program/default.as px ).

Prior to the enactment of this act, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/) had the primary role in regulating the pesticide industry in the state. The USEPA still retains oversight for how the Federal Law Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, And Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is administered by the North Dakota Department of Agriculture Plant Industries Program Area.

The North Dakota Pesticide Act (Chapter 4-35 of the North Dakota Century Code) allows the Department to regulate in the public interest the distribution, storage, transportation application, recordkeeping, restricted use sales, pesticide disposal, pesticide container disposal, and chemigation of pesticides and fertilizers. The North Dakota Department of Agriculture also regulates and enforces pesticide registration law through Chapter 19-18 of the North Dakota Century Code.

7 Project Name

Decision to Be Made Given the purpose and need, the deciding official will determine whether or not to authorize the use of silvicides for treatment of undesired trees and shrubs, and if so which silvicides to use and under what circumstances. Public Involvement This project was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on 10 February 2012. A description of the proposed project was mailed to 209 individuals, organizations, and tribes for comment during scoping on February 10, 2012. Comments were received from 3 parties. The Legal Notice of Proposed Action was published in The Bismarck Tribune and mailed to those parties that commented during scoping on 28 July 2012. No comments were received during this formal comment period. Issues Based on internal and external scoping, the Forest Service has identified the following issues:

1. Impact of silvicide use on Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive and Management Indicator Species.

2. Impact of silvicide use on non-target vegetation, including other invasive species.

3. Impact of silvicide use on water resources.

4. Impact of silvicide use on public health.

Alternatives, including the Proposed Action Based on the issues identified, the Forest Service identified three alternatives for analysis. These alternatives are:

Alternative 1-No Action Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. Invasive trees and shrubs would be treated as authorized in other current and anticipated decision documents, i.e., Decision Notices, Decision Memos, and Records of Decision. These treatments could not include the use of silvicide.

Alternative 2-Proposed Action Under the Alternative 2, the Dakota Prairie Grasslands would authorize the use of triclopyr and imazapyr to control undesired trees and shrubs that have been authorized for removal under prior analysis efforts. Species to be treated include, but are not limited to: Russian olive, Chinese elm, Siberian elm, common buckthorn, cottonwood, oaks, quaking aspen, willow species, western snowberry, and sumac. Treatment would consist primarily of stump treating or “painting” the remaining vegetative structure with the herbicides in order to inhibit regrowth. Treatment might also include foliage application (such as on willow stands).

8 Environmental Assessment

Alternative 3 Under Alternative 3, the Dakota Prairie Grasslands would authorize the use additional silvicides (i.e. those herbicides authorized in the Noxious Weeds EIS (2007 as amended) that can also double as silvicides) in addition to imazapyr and triclopyr, as proposed in Alternative 2, to control undesired trees and shrubs that have been authorized for removal under other analysis efforts. Species to be treated include, but are not limited to: Russian olive, Chinese elm, Siberian elm, common buckthorn, cottonwood, oaks, quaking aspen, willow species, western snowberry, and sumac. Treatment would consist primarily of stump treating or “painting” the remaining vegetative structure with the herbicides in order to inhibit regrowth. Treatment might also include foliage application (such as on willow stands). Design Features Common to All Alternatives Under all alternatives, noxious weeds would continue to be treated as authorized in the 2007 Noxious Weed Management Final Environmental Impact Statement and associated Record of Decision (as amended).

Under all alternatives, all treatments would occur within the limitations of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands Noxious Weeds EIS (2007 as amended), and all other applicable State and Federal laws, including Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Clean Water Act, and State Department of Agriculture rules and regulations.

The following are specific design criteria related to the removal and treatment of trees and shrubs:

1. Herbicide should be applied through basal or cut-stump, rather than foliar, applications to as great a degree as possible.

2. No broadcast or aerial application of silvicide should be used in or immediately adjacent to known locations of Arogos skipper, broadwing skipper, Dakota skipper, Dion skipper, Mulberry wing, Ottoe skipper, Powesheik skipper, or tawny crescent.

3. Prohibit use of silvicides at sites of potential piping plover habitat [i.e. wetlands with wide (>10 yards in width) margins of unvegetated sand, mud and/or gravel shorelines], between 20 April and 31 July each year.

4. Prohibit aerial distribution of silvicide unless otherwise authorized.

5. Prohibit silvicide application into surface water unless otherwise authorized.

6. Comply with label direction, surface water discharge permitting requirements, and all other applicaple state and federal laws.

7. In known locations of sensitive, threatened, and/or endangered butterflies, use target- specific herbicide application methods such as backpack/nozzle sprayers rather than booms.

8. In order to avoid potential hazards to birds and mammals, do not use high application rates of triclopyr.

9 Project Name

9. Herbicide applications between May 1 and June 15 would be coordinated with the District/ Grassland wildlife biologist to ensure that potential bighorn sheep lambing areas are protected from excessive disturbance.

10. Ensure follow-up treatments during successive years to monitor and treat new plants emerging from the seed bank.

11. Choose herbicides that will minimize effects to non-target species while leaving the grass or monocot layer intact.

12. No silvicides would be used within 0.5 mile of Lake Sakakawea’s pool without further analysis.

10 Environmental Assessment

Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 1. Comparison of Alternative Effects on Desired Conditions and Issues.

Issue Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 3 Removal of undesired trees, brush, Removal of undesired trees, brush, and Attainment of and shrubs would be hampered by the shrubs would be enhanced by the Desired Conditions unavailability of silvicides as a control availability of silvicides as a control method. method. The lack of effective control of invasive The use of silvicides would prevent re- trees, brush, and shrubs would sprouting of Invasive trees and shrubs. degrade habitat quality for most MIS This would reduce habitat quality for those and TES. However, some species, species that would benefit from re- Impacts to MIS such as sharp-tailed grouse and sprouting such as sharp-tailed grouse and and TES loggerhead shrike would benefit from loggerhead shrike, but would improve the resprouting of invasive trees, habitat quality for the majority of MIS and brush, and shrubs that would occur TES species on the Dakota Prairie without the use of silvicide. Grasslands. As silvicide would not be authorized for use to control undesired trees, shrubs, and brush, non-target Impact on Non- vegetation would not be impacted by There would be slightly greater risk for Target Vegetation such use; however, non-target impacts to non-target vegetation. vegetation might still be impacted by use of silvicides as authorized by USDA FS 2007. As silvicide would not be authorized for use to control undesired trees, shrubs, and brush, water resources Impact on Water There would be slightly greater risk for would not be impacted by such use, Resources impacts to water resources however non-target vegetation might still be impacted by use of silvicides as authorized by USDA FS 2007. As silvicide would not be authorized for use to control undesired trees, shrubs, and brush, public health would Impact on Public There would be slightly greater risk for not be impacted by such use, however Health impacts to public health. non-target vegetation might still be impacted by use of silvicides as authorized by USDA FS 2007.

11 Project Name

Affected Environment/ Environmental Consequences The affected environment and environmental consequences of the proposed action and its alternatives are discussed below for each of the four issues identified for analysis. These issues are: impacts to Threatened Endangered and Sensitive Species (TES) and Management Indicator Species (MIS), impacts to non-target vegetation, impacts to water quality, and impacts to Human health. These issues are discussed below.

TES, MIS

Based on the analysis in the wildlife specialist report for this project, following are the likely effects on Threatened, Endangered, and Management Indicator species: No effect or impact on black-footed ferret, gray wolf, least tern, pallid sturgeon, piping plover, whooping crane, Arogos skipper, bald eagle, bighorn sheep, black-tailed prairie dog, broad-winged skipper, burrowing owl, Dakota skipper, Dion skipper, greater sage-grouse, long-billed curlew, Mulberry wing, northern red-belly dace, Ottoe skipper, and Powesheik skipper; may have a beneficial impact on: Baird’s sparrow, greater prairie-chicken, Sprague’s pipit, and may impact individuals, but unlikely to lead toward Federal listing for loggerhead shrike, regal fritillary, and Tawny crescent. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have no effect on the population trend of the management indicator species analyzed.

Non-Target Vegetation

Applications of Silvicide under this document would generally be limited to spot treatments, greatly reducing the risk of application to non-target vegetation. Effects to non-target vegetation and mitigation measures for all silvicides that would be used have previously been analyzed in detail in the Dakota Prairie Noxious weeds EIS (2007 as amended). Effects on specific locations and species to be treated, other than those already covered under the Noxious Weeds EIS, have been or will be evaluated in detail in the documents that determine specific trees, brush, and shrubs for removal.

Water Quality

The effects of the silvicides triclopyr and imazapyr have previously been evaluated in detail in the DPG Noxious Weeds EIS (2007 as amended), Forest Service Health Risk Assessments, and through the EPA registration process. The Noxious Weeds EIS considered the specific effects of these herbicides on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. Effects on specific locations and species to be treated, other than those already covered under the Noxious Weeds EIS, have been or will be evaluated in detail in the documents that determine specific trees, brush, and shrubs for removal.

Human Health

The effects of the silvicides triclopyr and imazapyr have previously been evaluated in detail in the DPG Noxious Weeds EIS (2007 as amended), Forest Service Health Risk Assessments, and through the EPA registration process. The Noxious Weeds EIS considered the specific effects of these herbicides on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. Effects on specific locations and species to be treated, other than those already covered under the Noxious Weeds EIS, have been or will be evaluated in detail in the documents that determine specific trees, brush, and shrubs for removal.

12 Environmental Assessment

13 Project Name

ID Team Members: Lee Blaschke, District Natural Resource Specialist, Sheyenne RD Libby Knotts, District Botanist, McKenzie RD Chancey Odell, District Range Technician, Grand River RD Gary Petik, District Supervisory Rangeland Management Specialist, McKenzie RD Chad Prosser, Dakota Prairie Grasslands Range Management Specialist Allison Schlag, Dakota Prairie Grasslands Hydrologist Dan Svingen, Dakota Prairie Grasslands Wildlife Biologist Joe Washington, District Botanist, Medora RD

Consultation and Coordination The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies during the development of this environmental assessment:

Federal, State, and Local Agencies:

Billings County Commission Bureau of Land Management Golden Valley County Commission McKenzie County Commissioners McKenzie County Weed Board Medora Chamber of Commerce Natural Resource Conservation Service North Dakota Department of Agriculture North Dakota Department of Health North Dakota Department of Transportation North Dakota Forest Service North Dakota Game and Fish Department North Dakota Game and Fish Department North Dakota Governor’s Office North Dakota Land Department North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office North Dakota Water Commission Perkins County Commissioners Slope County Commission US Army Corps of Engineers US Fish and Wildlife Service USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks

Tribes: Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Fort Berthold Reservation Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Three Affiliated Tribes

14 Environmental Assessment

Others: Amerada Hess Anderson, Bob Anheluk, Jerry and Jackie Arthaud, Jim Artley, Dick Baer, Bruce Baker, Gail Sr. Bartholomay, Keith Behm-Caldwell, Annette Bjork, Brad Bjugstad, Dustin Bleth, Ken Bock, Warren Bohn, Justin Braun, Tom Brooks, Paul and Linda Buresh, Ludwig Burke, Mike Cedar River Grazing Association Ceynar, Robert Colville, Mike Connolly, Connie Crook, Lillian Custer, Leon Decker, Arthur Defenders of Wildlife Dewhirst, Lynn Drovdal, David, ND State House of Representatives Ducks Unlimited, Great Plains Region Erhart, Bill Grand River Grazing Association Grand River Sportsman’s Club Griffiths, Dave Horse Creek Grazing Association Johnson, Rodney Larson, Angela Lee, Rick Lefor, Jack Legge, Jean Levesque, Leon Litchfield, Don Mahlmann, Aaron McKenzie County Farmer MDU Resources Group, Inc. MHA Elders Organization Mittlestadt, Gary L. National Wild Turkey Federation Nelson, David

15 Project Name

Nelson, Mike Newman, Del North Dakota Chapter, Society of Range Management North Dakota Chapter, Wildlife Society North Dakota State University, Soils Department North Dakota Wildlife Society Novodvordky, Brenda Olson, Gordon Parizek, David Perkins County Land Use Committee Petras, Andy Prairie Hills Audubon Society Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Swenson, Jan Syverson, Kollin and Char Talkington, Curt Tarnavsky, Morris Teddy Roosevelt Group, Sierra Club Theodore Roosevelt Medora Foundation Veikly, Larry Western Watersheds Wild West Institute

16 Environmental Assessment

References

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Record of Decision for the Noxious Weed Management Project. Dakota Prairie Grasslands. 18pp + appendices

17