United States Department of Agriculture Non-Native Invasive Plant Control Project
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Biological Evaluation United States Department of Agriculture Non-native Invasive Plant Control Project Hiawatha National Forest Forest Service Eastern March 2007 Region Hiawatha National Forest Spotted knapweed, Centaurea maculosa (Photo: Jim Story) Biological Evaluation Non-native Invasive Plant Control Project Hiawatha National Forest March 2007 Prepared By: ____________________________ Prepared By: _______________________________ Kirk Piehler Marjory Brzeskiewicz, Forest Wildlife Biologist contract Plant Ecologist Date: ____________ Date: ____________ 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 USDA's 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, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cover Photograph Credit: Jim Story, Montana State University This document was printed on recycled paper. 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................... 4 Summary of Determinations ........................................................... 5 Introduction ...................................................................................... 6 Purpose and Decision 6 Species Considered and Evaluated 7 Background and Project Description 7 Alternative 1: No Change 8 Alternative 2: Manual/Mechanical, Chemical, and Biological Control of NNIP 8 Treatment Methods 10 Protocol 10 Design Criteria 12 Findings by Species ...................................................................... 19 Federally Listed Species 20 Plants 21 American Hart's tongue fern (Phillitus scolopendrium v. americanum) 21 Pitcher's thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) 23 Lakeside daisy (Hymenoxys herbacea) 26 Dwarf lake Iris (Iris lacustris) 29 Houghton's goldenrod (Solidago houghtonii) 31 Michigan monkey-flower (Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis) "likely to occur" 34 Animals 35 Bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus) 43 Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) 47 Gray wolf (Canis lupus) 51 Hine’s emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana) and proposed critical habitat 55 Kirtland’s warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii) 62 Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and piping plover critical habitat 66 Regional Forester Sensitive Species 74 Plants 74 RFSS Plants – Aquatic Habitats 74 RFSS Plants – Open / Wet Habitats 77 RFSS Plants – Open / Dry and Beach Habitats 79 RFSS Plants – Shaded / Wet Habitats 81 RFSS Plants – Shaded Habitats 84 Animals 87 RFSS Birds 87 RFSS Reptile 107 RFSS Fish 110 RFSS Mollusks 113 RFSS Insects 118 Summary of Determinations ....................................................... 131 Monitoring .................................................................................... 133 Literature Cited ............................................................................ 134 Appendix A: Species Considered ............................................... 140 Appendix B: Location of Project................................................. 145 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Hiawatha National Forest (HNF) proposes to implement a five-year project to control non- native invasive plants (NNIP) at approximately 135 sites (Table I-2), and at new sites found. An interdisciplinary team of resource specialists designed an integrated management program that would use manual/mechanical, chemical and biological methods to reduce and control infestations of invasive plants. Overall, the goal of the project is to slow the spread of NNIP on the Forest. The HNF 2006 Forest Plan includes direction for management of all threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) species. A key Forest-wide guideline directs that NNIP within occurrences of TES should be eliminated or controlled. The 2006 Forest Plan guidance for NNIP control is consistent with the Forest Service national policy of prevention, early detection, rapid response, control and management (USDA 2004). The project area for the HNF NNIP Control Environmental Assessment (EA) encompasses the Forest Service owned acres within the proclamation boundary and totals approximately 895,000 acres, most of which is forested. We have proposed two alternatives. Under Alternative 1 (No Change), the HNF would not implement an integrated program of treatments to control NNIP infestations. Limited manual/mechanical treatment of NNIP infestations may still occur through separate decisions, not associated with this EA. We anticipate approximately 30-50 acres would be treated annually through manual/mechanical methods, as is the current practice. If the maximum 50 acres was treated annually, for the anticipated five-year duration of the project, the total acreage (250) would represent approximately 0.03 percent of the land on the HNF. Under Alternative 2, an average of approximately 40-70 acres a year, with up to approximately 200 acres a year, would be treated using a combination of manual/mechanical, chemical and biological (insect releases). If the maximum 200 acres was treated annually, the five-year total, 1000 acres, would represent approximately 0.12 percent of the land on the HNF. The findings of the biological evaluation (BE) are included in the next section (Tables ES-1 and ES-2, p. 5). The BE documents the effects to TES species, including Federal Threatened and Endangered Species (T&E), and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS), from activities proposed in the NNIP Control project EA. In the BE, the two alternatives were analyzed, effects disclosed, and determinations made. The document provides information to support the determinations on how the alternatives would affect TES species. Non-native invasive plants are established and widespread on the HNF, but most sites are currently located in disturbed areas (e.g. roadsides) and are small in coverage. Therefore, at present, we are sure of only a few TES plants and animal (e.g. piping plover) currently being affected. Alternative 1 would have no effects for most TES animals, since it represents no change from current practices, and proposes no NNIP control activities. Under Alternative 1 we assummed attempts would be made to treat NNIP infestations within affected TES occurrences because that is the Forest Plan management direction. Thus, many TES determinations are either “no effect” (T&E) or “no impact” (RFSS). We determined that for some groups of RFSS plants, manual treatment and the current treatment acreage would be insuffient and adverse effects would occur over time under Alternative 1 (e.g. aquatic plants). Alternative 2 proposes the use of multiple methods for NNIP control. There is some risk to plants and animals from these activities because people would be conducting NNIP removal and control, which could result in death and injury to TES. While there is some risk from NNIP control treatments, Alternative 2 design criteria and protocols would minimize impacts to TES. Over the long term, Alternative 2 would provide the most benefits to TES by enabling the NNIP program manager with options, not available under Alternative 1, for decreasing the spread of NNIP and controlling infestations. Thus, under Alternative 2, for most species, the “not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) determinations for T&E, and the ”may affect” (MINT) determinations for RFSS represent the beneficial effects of enhanced NNIP control. 4 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS Table ES-1. Federally-listed Threatened and Endangered Species (T&E) – Summary of Determinations of Effects ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 SPECIES EVALUATED PLANTS Dune thistle NLAA NLAA Lakeside daisy NLAA NLAA Dwarf lake iris NLAA NLAA Hart's tongue fern NLAA NLAA Houghton's goldenrod NLAA NLAA ANIMALS Bald eagle NE NLAA Canada lynx NE NLAA Gray wolf NE NLAA Hine's emerald dragonfly NE NLAA Hine's emerald dragonfly critical habitat* NE NLAA Kirtland's warbler NE NLAA Piping plover NLAA NLAA Piping plover critical habitat NE NLAA NE - No effect; NLAA - May affect, not likely to adversely affect; LAA - May affect, likely to adversely affect * - This is proposed critical habitat - the USFWS has not published the final decision on critical habitat as of 3/2007. Table ES-2. Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) and Likely to occur RFSS (LRFSS) - Determinations of Effects ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 SPECIES or GROUP EVALUATED PLANTS Aquatic plant habitat MINT MINT Open/wet habitat MINT MINT Open/dry & Beach habitat MINT MINT Shaded/wet habitat MINT MINT Shaded habitat MINT MINT ANIMALS Mammal Gray wolf* NI MINT Birds Raptors NI MINT Wetland birds NI MINT Grassland/Shrub birds NI MINT Black-backed woodpecker NI MINT Connecticut warbler NI MINT Bald eagle* NI MINT Reptile Blanding’s turtle NI MINT Fish Lake Sturgeon NI MINT Mollusks Mollusks NI MINT Insects Lake Huron locust MINT MINT Northern blue (butterfly) MINT MINT Dragonflies NI MINT NI - No Impact; BI - Beneficial Impact; MINT - May impact individuals but not