Final Environmental Impact Statement

Noxious Treatment Project Summary

March 2003

Bitterroot National Forest

The U.S. Department of (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, and 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) 720-2600 (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 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Summary S - 1

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION Limit spread of into and within wilderness areas. The Bitterroot National Forest (Forest) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Burn areas are at high risk for weed invasion due proposes to implement specific noxious weed to removal of overstory vegetation and litter, and treatments and prevention measures on as a result of fire suppression activities. Although approximately 35,445 acres of Forest land in weeds establish and spread rapidly on disturbed support of the Forest’s Integrated Weed sites, they can also invade native bunchgrass Management Plan and Forest Plan, U.S. Forest community inter-spaces in the absence of Service (USFS) policy, and Executive Order disturbance. Aerial observations, aerial 13112. The proposed weed treatment and photographs, and ground surveys were used to management project (Project) is located on the review burned areas for risk of noxious weed Forest, which is approximately 1.6 million acres in establishment. High risk areas include those Ravalli County, Montana. Proposed methods to where: control noxious weeds include a combination of ground and aerial application of ; Tree canopy and most ground-level native mechanical, biological, and cultural weed plants were killed or severely injured; treatments; education; and prevention. The Project area is distributed across the Montana Burn severity was moderate or high; portion of the Forest and occurs only on National Forest System land. Noxious weeds were present in or adjacent to the burned area prior to the wildfires of 2000 (e.g., infested parklands and grasslands); PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR and ACTION Site is dry to moderately dry. The purpose and need for the Proposed Action is to prevent and reduce loss of native plant communities associated with spread of noxious SUMMARY OF PROPOSED weeds. Specifically, the purposes of this Project ACTION are to accomplish the following within proposed treatment areas: The intent of the Proposed Action (Alternative A) Prevent or discourage introduction and is to prevent and reduce loss of native plant establishment of newly invading weed communities associated with the spread of species on Forest land, particularly areas at noxious weeds. The Proposed Action includes high risk due to recent fires; treatment of approximately 35,445 acres in the following areas: Prevent or limit spread of established weeds into areas with few or no infestations on Approximately 29,503 acres of known Forest land, particularly areas at high risk due infestations at specific sites distributed across to recent fires; the Forest; and

Restore native plant communities and Approximately 5,942 acres of High Risk improve forage on specific big game summer Burned Areas (if monitoring/surveys indicate and winter ranges; presence of invasive weeds).

Treat weeds near the Forest boundary where This Project would also include pre- and post- adjacent landowners are interested in or are treatment monitoring and follow-up treatments. currently managing weeds; and, Specific treatment sites, size (acres), target species, and treatment method(s) are described

Final EIS S - 2 Summary in further detail in Chapter 2. The Proposed Biological agents would be released on 20 Action is composed of several elements, which sites on the Forest including big game winter would individually or in combination address the ranges, burned areas at high risk, cross- various Purpose and Need components. These boundary cooperation treatment areas, and elements include: recreation sites. Introduction of biological agents would follow initial treatment with Ground and aerial application of herbicides . (as the primary method of treatment) on approximately 5,942 acres of previously Cultural treatments (seeding) would occur on forested areas at high risk for weed invasion disturbed areas such as road cuts and due to fires. This addresses the need to burned areas 1-2 years following treatment prevent or discourage introduction and with herbicides. Seeding is intended to re- establishment of newly invading weed establish native plant communities while species, and limit spread of existing decreasing the density of invasive weed infestations on previously forested areas at species. high risk due to recent fires. This would also address the need to restore native plant Education and prevention programs on the communities in infested areas on big game Forest would continue with addition of winter and summer ranges (if monitoring specific education and prevention strategies identifies new infestations). developed for this Project.

Ground application of herbicides (as the Mechanical (mowing/hand-pulling) treatments primary treatment method) on Forest roads, would be intermittent due to roadside trails, and recreation areas where weeds obstacles such as rocks, logs, trees, and exist in relatively uninfested areas shrubs and would occur on level surfaces, (approximately 14,107 acres). This some shoulder areas, and turn-outs or addresses the need to prevent or limit parking areas. Mowing, topping, and hand- spread of existing infestations into relatively pulling would likely occur twice per year. uninfested areas both within and outside Established rhizomatous weeds may have to burned areas. This also addresses the need be mowed indefinitely since mowing would to prevent or discourage introduction and decrease production, but would not kill establishment of newly invading weed the plants. species. Spot treatment with ground-applied herbicides along trail corridors and trailheads would help to limit spread of ISSUES USED TO DEVELOP weeds into wilderness areas. ALTERNATIVES

Aerial and ground application of herbicides The following issues were used to develop on big game winter and summer range alternatives to the Proposed Action: (approximately 10,007 acres) meets the purpose and need to restore native plant Potential effects of herbicides on human communities in these infested areas. health;

In conjunction with winter range treatments, Potential effects of aerial application of six areas along the Forest boundary herbicides; (approximately 5,317 acres) would be treated to coincide with active weed management on Potential effects of the Proposed Action on land adjacent to the Forest. A combination of big game, other wildlife, native plant treatment methods would be employed to communities, sensitive plants, fish, water address the need to treat weed infestations quality, soil, and air quality; along the Forest boundary where adjacent landowners are interested in or are currently Potential effects of proposed treatments on managing weeds. wilderness values;

Bitterroot Weed EIS Summary S - 3

Potential for ground disturbing activities to methods such as seeding. This alternative would further spread weeds on the Forest as a treat fewer acres than Alternatives A, B, or E due “connected action”; to the feasibility and cost of accomplishing labor intensive treatments. Amendment to the Forest Plan; and Cooperation and coordination with adjacent Potential effects of the Proposed Action on landowners treating weeds on private and State travel. land would also be key in this alternative. The majority of treatments occurring or proposed on PROJECT ALTERNATIVES adjacent private and State land include use of herbicides. Treatments on Forest land associated

with this cross-boundary cooperation effort would ALTERNATIVE B be limited to treatment methods described in this alternative, which do not include use of Alternative B was developed in response to herbicides. potential impacts associated with aerial application of herbicides on non-target areas. Roadside treatments are proposed primarily for Alternative B would incorporate all components of arterials and collectors on the Forest. Mowing the Proposed Action (Alternative A) but would treatments would be intermittent due to roadside eliminate aerial application of herbicides. Areas obstacles such as rocks, logs, trees, and shrubs proposed for aerial application of herbicide would and would occur on level surfaces, some instead be treated by ground application methods shoulder areas and turn-outs or parking areas. where possible. This strategy would rely on Acreage associated with roadside treatments education, biological management, and ground under Alternative C is based on a mowing width applied herbicides to reduce and contain existing of 10-feet on either side of a road (20-feet total). invasive weeds and eradicate small, new, and Based on these criteria, approximately 25 percent isolated invasive weed populations. Areas with (785 acres/327miles) of Forest Roads would be slopes greater than 40 percent or remote treated. infestations difficult to access would not be treated with ground-based equipment. Mowing, topping, and hand-pulling would occur Approximately 10,400 acres could not feasibly be twice per year. Established rhizomatous weeds treated with ground-based equipment due to may have to be mowed indefinitely since mowing terrain and physical restraints. Approximately would decrease seed production, but would not 25,000 acres would be treated under Alternative kill the plants. B. Herbicide treatment of all sites would probably not exceed 5,000 acres annually. Proposed Approximately 1,500 acres would be treated treatment of roads, trails and recreation sites, and under Alternative C. Due to increases in bare soil fire camps and helispots would be the same as that would result from pulling, some areas would those proposed under Alternative A. be reseeded. An additional $10,000 to $20,000 per year would be used to obtain and release ALTERNATIVE C biological control agents on Project areas.

Alternative C was developed in response to ALTERNATIVE D - NO ACTION public concerns over potential effects of herbicides on human and ecological health. This Under the No Action Alternative, existing weed alternative would eliminate use of herbicides and management programs on the Forest would involve an integrated approach using mechanical remain in place and no additional treatment of (mowing, hand-pulling, and tillage), cultural weeds or travel restrictions associated with the (seeding), biological (parasites, predators, and Proposed Action would occur. pathogens), and prevention methods to improve native plant communities on big game winter and ALTERNATIVE E summer ranges; burned, wilderness, and recreation areas; and, roads and trails. The Forest developed Alternative E in response Treatments such as hand-pulling, topping, and to public comments received on the Draft mowing would be supplemented with cultural Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Reviewers wanted assurance that herbicides

Final EIS S - 4 Summary would be used in a judicious manner as part of areas, and recreation sites, totaling 35,771 an integrated weed management program that acres. Demonstration areas would be placed greater emphasis on native established to show the effectiveness of grazing restoration, weed prevention, public notification, for (382 acres) and hand-pulling and monitoring. Alternative E is similar to (48 acres). Alternative A, except that some treatment areas have been refined/adjusted in response to Biological, cultural, and mechanical treatments, specific comments on the DEIS. education, and prevention would occur as

Alternative E would treat approximately 43,400 described under Treatment Methods in Action acres. New areas include those identified as Alternatives in Chapter 2. currently “weed-free,” more trails and trailheads, and two demonstration areas. Additional SUMMARY OF IMPACTS mitigation measures that restrict herbicide use and provide more safeguards for water, soil, Analysis of potential impacts and mitigation wildlife, human health, and non-target plant associated with the Proposed Action and species are included. Alternatives is presented in Chapter 4 – Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternative E would include an expanded Alternatives. The following is a summary of monitoring plan to evaluate implementation of potential impacts, by resource, resulting from the weed treatments and effectiveness of such Proposed Action and Alternatives. treatments. Monitoring results are used to improve implementation of future weed SOIL RESOURCES treatments and reduce potential resource effects. Alternative E also contains A short-term increase in sediment production demonstration areas for small ruminant (goats from additional soil disturbance created by and/or sheep) grazing to treat weeds. mechanical treatments associated with the Proposed Action would be an impact to the soil Under Alternative E, aerial application of resource. Application of herbicides would herbicide has been reduced from about 13,532 effectively reduce the density of invasive weeds acres in Alternative A to about 11,041 acres. and promote beneficial vegetative recovery, Ground application of herbicides has been restore surface protection, and provide erosion increased from about 21,913 acres in Alternative control benefits in the long-term. Aerial A to 31,908 acres. This alternative also contains application of herbicides would not create soil currently weed free areas (7,106 acres) not in disturbance and is not expected to add to Alternative A, which would be aggressively existing levels of soil instability or degradation. treated if weeds were discovered. Mechanical, biological, and herbicide treatments of noxious weed infestations are expected to Herbicide treatment of all sites may reach maintain or increase current levels of native approximately 5,000 acres annually, including plant communities and diversity and thus help both initial and re-treatments for skips. Aerial maintain soil stability and quality. application of herbicides probably would not exceed 3,000 acres annually. The first year of the project, aerial application would be used on AIR QUALITY about 1,000 acres, to demonstrate the technique and monitor effectiveness of this method. Management and treatment of noxious weeds, Treatments of fire camps and heli-spots (about including aerial and ground application of 72 acres) would occur as described in herbicides, can cause emissions of criteria air Alternative A. pollutants and trace amounts of other compounds. In assessing noxious weed Under Alternative E, approximately 5 acres per management activities, the primary indicators of year within the 1,100 acres identified for hand- public health impacts are ambient air quality pulling could potentially be treated using this impacts above the National Ambient Air Quality method. Biocontrol agents would be authorized Standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5 and PM10. for release at all winter and summer ranges, Emissions of NOx, VOC, and CO from vehicle high-risk burn sites, cross-boundary treatment and aerial fuel combustion can also impact the

Bitterroot Weed EIS Summary S - 5

NAAQS for NO2, O3, and CO. Ambient impacts buffer zones and restrictions on herbicide from the treatment activities have been applications to specified annual acreages. reviewed, and emissions though minor, from the combustion of fossil fuels during vehicle and WILDLIFE aerial applications have been found to be within air quality standards. Road dust from vehicle Potential adverse impacts to wildlife, including traffic is the primary air contaminant source. Air elk, marten, pileated woodpecker, bighorn quality standards would be met under all sheep, forest land birds, and other groups, alternatives. would be minimal if Alternative A is implemented. Potential impacts evaluated WATER RESOURCES include effects from herbicides, noise, human disturbance including road and trail use, and Alternative A is expected to result in long-term vegetation composition change. Positive reductions in sediment load to surface water impacts include maintenance or increase in because weed treatments would reduce density native grass and forb cover on treatment areas of weeds and promote beneficial native and adjacent areas potentially invaded by vegetative recovery, restore surface protection, uncontrolled weeds. Implementation of and provide erosion control benefits. Due to Alternative B would eliminate herbicide control limited acreage proposed for weed treatment as on a number of slopes greater than 40 percent, compared to total drainage area, no measurable primarily on elk, mule deer, and bighorn sheep increases in runoff or sediment in surface water winter ranges. Carrying capacity on these areas are expected from Alternative A, except possibly would likely continue to be reduced. Long-term near some large treatment areas in the short- impacts associated with implementation of term. Alternative C include potential for more areas of weed infestations and less forage and Use of herbicides would cause additional diversity than under Alternatives A and B. chemical loading to the environment. Any Under Alternative C, wildlife would not be measurable herbicide concentrations in surface exposed to herbicides. water and/or groundwater would be short-term and limited to areas in close proximity to The No Action Alternative (Alternative D), would treatment areas due to dilution and degradation negatively impact a number of wildlife species of chemicals in soil and water. No adverse through continued loss of habitat diversity on impacts on aquatic resources in surface water treatment areas and adjacent areas as weeds would occur from herbicide application. If any herbicide drift from aerial application reaches a continue to spread. Impacts from Alternative E stream or other water body, the small amount of would be similar to that described for Alternative herbicide in drift would be diluted to low or non- A, based on acres treated in a single year. detectable concentrations. Herbicides that However, more total acres would be treated persist in soil could affect groundwater where soil through the 10-year Project life. is permeable and water is shallow. These impacts, however, would be minor, short-term, THREATENED, ENDANGERED, and localized to application areas. PROPOSED, AND SENSITIVE

For Alternative B, non-treatment of SPECIES approximately 10,400 acres could result in increased runoff, erosion, and sedimentation in Direct and indirect impacts on threatened, affected watersheds. Similarly, Alternatives C endangered, and sensitive wildlife species from and D would result in increasing surface water implementation of Alternatives A, B, C, or E are sedimentation because fewer infested acres expected to be minimal. Greatest potential would be treated and destabilization of soil from impacts would be loss of or change in prey base noxious weed growth would continue. for predators such as bald eagle, gray wolf, wolverine, peregrine falcon, flammulated owl, Environmental protection measures for great gray owl, boreal owl, and northern Alternatives B and E would further reduce risk of goshawk, for Alternative D if weed infestations impacts on water resources, such as additional continue to expand on the Forest.

Final EIS S - 6 Summary

FISHERIES AND AQUATIC leaved forbs, though the extent and duration of RESOURCES these impacts is expected to be short-term. Long-term benefits to native vegetation in Implementation of Alternatives A, B, and E could proposed treatment areas should result. result in direct effects of herbicide application on Alternative B would treat noxious weeds on aquatic organisms or introduction to their approximately 25,000 acres, with less potential habitat. Inadvertent exposure of fish and for non-target impacts from spray drift due to the aquatic life to herbicides could affect life cycles. elimination of aerial application of herbicides, but In addition to those proposed for Alternative A, would leave approximately 10,400 acres at risk environmental protection measures that restrict from noxious weed invasion. Environmental herbicide applications and provide more protection measures in Alternatives B and E safeguards to water, air, soil, wildlife, and non- would reduce the risk to non-target vegetation. target plant species are included in Alternative Implementation of Alternative C or D (No Action) E. would not benefit native plant communities in proposed treatment areas and would result in Restoration of native plant communities as a continued invasion and spread of noxious weeds result of noxious weed control would maintain in these areas. and/or enhance fish and aquatic in the long-term. Alternative B would result in less Threatened, Endangered, And Sensitive potential for exposure of fish and aquatic life to Plants herbicides because fewer acres would be treated and potential for drift of herbicide from Implementation of Alternatives A or E may result aerial application would be eliminated. in direct and indirect impacts to known Alternative C and D would result in no exposure populations of sensitive plant species. of fish and aquatic life to herbicides beyond Populations of candystick, hollyleaf clover, those resulting from programs already in place Lemhi beardtongue, Payette beardtongue, on the Forest. tapered-root orogenia and dwarf onion occur within the boundaries of proposed treatment Mechanical, biological, and chemical control of areas in Alternative A. Implementation of weeds can have direct, indirect, and cumulative Alternative E may impact the above species as effects on the aquatic environment. Conversely, well as woolly-head clover, Rocky Mountain lack of control can have direct, indirect, and paintbrush, and puzzling rockcress. Populations cumulative effects on the aquatic environment. of tapered-root orogenia, dwarf onion, The ecological risks of alternatives that do not candystick, sandweed, western pearl-flower, consider use of herbicides would be long-term scalepod, Lemhi beardtongue, Bitterroot by allowing weeds to spread and potentially bladderpod, and taper-tip onion are known to necessitate use of greater amounts of herbicides occur within 500 feet of proposed treatment in the future. With environmental protection areas. Mitigation should prevent these species measures in place, risks of direct and indirect from being directly affected by herbicides from impacts are minimal under Alternatives A, B and aerial or ground applications, trampling by E. Long-term impacts on the aquatic applicators, and/or damage from mechanical environment may develop under Alternatives C methods. Indirect impacts could occur from and D if weeds are not controlled, regardless of spray drift. Environmental protection measures the type of treatment. could include plant avoidance, fall application of herbicides, or covering plants. Alternatives B VEGETATION and C could have indirect impacts if mechanical treatments are not carefully conducted. No Plant Communities herbicide application risks are associated with Alternative D – No Action. However, long term Implementation of Alternatives A and E would benefits to special status species from herbicide treat noxious weeds on approximately 35,400 treatments that reduce competition from acres and 43,400 acres, respectively. Dry forest undesirable species are also not realized. and grassland vegetation types dominate proposed treatment areas. Spraying herbicides Populations of plants of special concern in the on these areas may impact non-target broad- state of Montana or to the Confederated Salish

Bitterroot Weed EIS Summary S - 7 and Kootenai Tribe may also be impacted either perceive that wilderness values were being directly or indirectly by herbicide treatments. reduced by the use of chemical weed control These species include bitterroot, camas, methods within wilderness. Cumulative effects northern golden-carpet, and dwarf purple resulting from action alternatives would be the monkey-flower. Northern golden-carpet only protection of adjacent non-infested areas and occurs along streamsides, seeps, and springs. preservation of intact plant communities, which Treatments in such areas are expected to be would enhance the recreation and wilderness limited. Impacts to populations of bitterroot and experience. camas would be limited due to the plant’s reduced above ground foliage and briefly VISUAL RESOURCES persistent flowers. Studies done in 1996-97 (in conjunction with Confederated Salish and Direct and indirect impacts to visual resources Kootenai Tribe) with herbicide treatments on resulting from implementation of action both these species have shown minimal effect alternatives would be short-term. Visual effects on bitterroot or camas plants when treated with of treatment (dying, wilting, and dead plants) clopyralid. Because populations of both species may adversely affect the visual experience for are currently threatened by encroachment of some people. Loss of native vegetation under spotted knapweed and sulfur cinquefoil, long the No Action Alternative would have a negative term benefit to these species should result from impact on the visual quality for some users. herbicide treatment. HERITAGE RESOURCES ACCESS AND LAND USE There would be no direct or indirect impacts on Implementation of Alternatives would not result in heritage resources from application of herbicides changes to existing land use and access on the or biological agents, provided appropriate Forest. environmental protection measures are implemented. Potential impacts on cultural GRAZING MANAGEMENT resources could occur during application of mechanical treatments. Known heritage Implementation of Alternatives A and E would resources (cambium peeled trees) located in result in beneficial impacts on 12 and 13 grazing areas proposed for treatments are not allotments, respectively. The Darby Ranger considered vulnerable to damage because they District has three allotments, North Sleeping would be avoided. Child, Harlan, and Skalkaho, that may benefit from proposed aerial and ground treatments. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC The Stevensville Ranger District has one RESOURCES , Bass Creek, that may benefit from proposed hand grubbing and spot-spraying. The status and treatment of noxious weeds is The Sula Ranger District has nine allotments, important to most Bitterroot Valley residents. Andrews, Bunch Shirley, Camp Reimel, East Using herbicides to treat weeds creates concern Fork, Meadow Tolan, Medicine Tree, Sula Peak, for some people due to a fear that herbicides Warm Springs and Waugh Gulch, that may may cause health related problems for both benefit from proposed aerial and ground humans and wildlife. Implementation of an treatments. aggressive weed treatment program on the Forest would result in a slight increase in local RECREATION, ROADLESS AND service and retail business for the duration that WILDERNESS treatment activities would be taking place.

Direct and indirect impacts on recreation, HUMAN HEALTH wilderness, and roadless areas resulting from implementation of action alternatives would Potential human health risks to workers from include short-term encounters with herbicide mechanical weed control measures include cuts, treatment crews and visual impacts from wilting burns, allergies and skin irritation to individuals plants. Some wilderness advocates would doing the work. The direct effects on human

Final EIS S - 8 Summary health would be greatest to allergy and contact There is potential for herbicide drift associated dermatitis sufferers who are sensitive to invasive with aerial application; however, estimates of weeds or other wild land vegetation. Biological potential drift suggest that if herbicides are and cultural management would not impose a applied in accordance with specified risk to human health of workers or the public. environmental protection measures, drift does not represent a significant pathway for public Potential health risks resulting from use of exposure. herbicides would be a function of the amount of chemical handling and length of exposure of the Aircraft application requires less herbicide herbicide to applicators. The length of exposure handling and fewer workers as compared to during ground application of herbicides is greater ground application. Environmental protection than for aerial application. Risks of exposure are measures under Alternative E reduce the risk of greater for ground application because it involves herbicide application in comparison to more frequent mechanical mixing, more Alternative A. opportunities for direct handling and exposure to the herbicide, and working closer to the nozzle of Under Alternative B, all project areas would be the application device. Of the methods used to treated by backpack, OHV, and truck mounted ground-apply herbicides, backpack applications delivery systems, increasing the potential for have the greatest potential for worker exposure. worker exposure and accidental releases, due to the number of acres treated on the ground. Potential health risks to the public are a function of the amount of inadvertent exposure through Potential exposure of workers or the public to contact with treated vegetation, consumption of herbicides would not exceed the daily exposure contaminated vegetation or water, and herbicide level determined to be safe by the U.S. drift. Whether a person is exposed to treated Environmental Protection Agency over a 70-year vegetation is largely a function of the probability lifetime of daily exposure under any action of a person contacting treated vegetation within alternative. several hours of application. Since ground treatment requires many small applications, the public’s chance of encountering a sprayed area AGENCY PREFERRED is greater than that associated with aerial ALTERNATIVE application, where large acreage is treated at one time. Ground application requires more The agency preferred alternative is Alternative mixing and increases the likelihood of an E. accidental release to which the public could be exposed.

Bitterroot Weed EIS